User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com/Archive 5

Toots DeVille

About Toots DeVille, in Wikipedia it's not common to put in live links like the one you put in. By "live link," I mean a word or phrase that you can click to go to a Web site outside of Wikipedia. Also, the article is about Willy DeVille, so information about Toots I think goes in the footnotes. And you only bold face the name of the person the article is about. Sorry if I stepped on your toes. SpanishStroll (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Godwin

No problem; I actually have ODNB access. Would you like me to pull it out and see what I can do to expand the biography? Ironholds (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pull out her article, then. I'm thinking combined DYK - I fivefold expand it, you submit it? Seems only fair. I've got a House of Lords complete overhaul to get done (GA-worthy by September 28 is my goal) but I can squeeze in an hour for Maud I'm sure. Ironholds (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section titled "DYK for Anne Wexler" says different :P. If you hit "edit this page" on talk:DYK it gives you an editnotice that provides a rough guide on submitting a DYK. I'll get on to the article this evening and send you a talkpage message when I'm done. Ironholds (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just joking around; I've had a few DYKs submitted without my prior knowledge as well. Ironholds (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"USA"

Hello, regarding this edit, I just wanted to let you know that "USA" is generally not used according to WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations. —LOL ^T/_C 22:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring accusation

I wanted to post this here on your talk page because I felt it was owed to you. I really do apologize for accusing you of edit warring for reverting edits. It was my ignorance of the 24 hour rule and I should have assumed good faith. Again, I am sorry.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Millan

I see that you changed Cesar's name in the infobox from Cesar Millan to César Millán Favela. Notable Biographies see here, among others, has that he was born to Felipe and Maria Teresa Favela Millan. Could this have something to do with proper names in Spanish? Please provide a verifiable source that his last name was Favela and not Millan. In the meantime I'm changing it back to César Millán. 842U (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Good to know. So is this the correct way to handle this in English?842U (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Macdonell

Sorry, that was my fault! I should have looked closer at their respective birthdates but two Canadian bishops of the same name, of Scottish origin and in the same area looked too suspicious to be true. Is there any proof for these two persons being of the same family? It should interesting if one could link them. De728631 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ginty

I removed it because there was no reference in the article that he was of Irish descent. Every category should be explicitly explained in the article itself, with a citation. All Hallow's (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with MySpace would be whether we knew for sure it's the official, actual MySpace of the person involved. If that's the case, I've seen it used as both a reference and an external link. But I guess it can be tricky, sometimes, to figure out if the MySpace page is authentic. All Hallow's (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tad Danielewski

I joined wikipedia just to be able to ask for your help. I tried your email but was unsure if you still checked that account so I thought I would put a message here as well. If you were in the process of getting around to replying to my email please forgive what might seem as impatience on my part.

You recently updated Danielewski's article, adding in previously unknown information about his place of birth, his first wife, when they immigrated to the US and his middle name. Which is great, as not very much is known about him. I've found articles referring to Danielewski and his first wife but have not been able to find anything that gives his middle name and was wondering if you could help me out with the source for that piece of information. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Williamr1978 (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breast cancer survivors

Hi. As you probably have seen, I became concerned about the quality and "trackability" of references in List of breast cancer patients according to survival status. The source that was cited for Brigitte Bardot, this NNDB page, is not a reliable source that Wikipedia can rely upon. This is an issue for many entries in the list. It's an impressive list (you and others have done a lot of good work building and maintaining it), but its credibility can be undermined by reliance on non-RS sources. It is particularly important to have solid sourcing for assertions that are made about living persons on the list.

As for Bardot, although numerous non-RS websites (which include IMDB.com) state that she is a breast cancer survivor, that fact is not in the Wikipedia article about her and I did not find her cancer mentioned in several relatively recent reliably sourced articles on the reflist for that article. Fortunately, the book review of her biography is a solid reliable source, so I chose to cite it. --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McCallany

Sure, I could keep an eye on it. All Hallow's (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Llewellyn-Davies, Baroness Llewellyn-Davies of Hastoe redirect

Hello Rms125a, do you agree, that given the misspelling of an alternate name, the redirect Annie Llewellyn-Davies, Baroness Llewellyn-Davies of Hastoe → Patricia Llewelyn-Davies, Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe should be deleted? If so, I'll ask to get its early history merged and then you could request a WP:CSD#G7 (Author requests deletion). -- ToE^T 06:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but what about Annie Llewellyn-Davies, Baroness Llewellyn-Davies of Hastoe (with the extra "double-l"s). Do you agree that it should be history mergeded, and then deleted? Or is that an alternative name and not a misspelling? (I suppose that the histmerge should be considered even if the redirect is not to be deleted.) -- ToE^T 11:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've requested the histmerge. Regarding the redirect, not being the creator, I would not nominate it for deletion myself, as it's not an implausible typo and would neither satisfy WP:CSD#R3 nor would it fly at WP:RFD. As the creator and only significant contributor (to the material at what is now the redirect -- not to what is at the article) you should be able to request a WP:CSD#G7 (author requests deletion) but we certainly could keep it and just tag it with a {{R from misspelling}}.

What about the redirect Patricia Llewelyn-Davies, Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe? Is that fine being tagged with {{R from alternative name}}? -- ToE^T 11:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Draža Mihailović

Yes of course. I'm sorry, but I reviewed your edits and detected strong "pro-Chetnik" POV. I could be wrong, but this page is so often invaded by POV-pushers I pretty much revert on sight if this POV occurs. Much of the text you altered is actually supported by sources. In short: discuss what general changes you're proposing, present your sources and take it slow. This is a highly controversial article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you don't have to apprise me at all, at no point did I suggest anything of the sort (as I'm sure you're aware). Although, if a matter is controversial, it is highly recommended by Wikipedia guidelines that you discuss the edit prior to going through with it so as to avoid edit warring. But you surely know all this full well, so why the "I don't have to but I'm going to do you a favor" attitude?

As for my "immature summary", it was a joke intended to liven-up a tense situation, and I will not apologize for it. Nor will I apologize for recent-changes-patrolling these two articles and keeping them free of vandalism and nonsense.

As for Chetnik collaboration, if you go to the article right now you'll notice some five sources or at the end of the two sentences in question (it would've been rather inelegant to list five sources after every sentence). Those sources are all university publications by historians who wrote on the matter, and the article's "Axis collaboration" section is based on them and primarily on The Chetniks by Jozo Tomasevich (Stanford University Press). In that section, you will find detailed accounts of when and where Chetnik collaboration with the Ustaše and the Italians began, all sourced directly from those five publications. Please do some research prior to editing in such delicate Balkans matters. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing, seriously? Are you "profiling" me, looking up all my posts? :) May I suggest you read the sources instead? fyi, those talkpage exchanges took place before I had the time to do extensive research into the subject of Chetnik collaboration. Turns out I was "more right" than I thought: not only did Mihailović's Chetniks collaborate in 1943, they collaborated as early as late 1941 and early 1942. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Axis collaboration section is based entirely on sources. Its pretty extensive because I wrote it copying information virtually verbatim (I wanted to end those silly nationalist debates once and for all). I don't feel like re-reading the books so here's a sentence from the article section I remember is copied almost word-for-word:

"The Chetniks had approached the Italian VI Army Corps (General Renzo Dalmazzo, Commander) as early as July and August 1941 for assistance via a Serbian politician from Lika, Stevo Rađenović." --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how exactly would that make it "not collaboration"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Istria is closer to the Alps than the Balkans I think"? I'm not from Istria am I? Huge mountain ranges of the western Dinarides are visible right outside my window [1] :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(The Dinarides = Dinaric Alps, its the same thing.) I wouldn't call myself "left-wing" - some have called it silly but I have my own rather specific view of politics that I believe is more profound than the classic "left-right spectrum" theory. (Don't worry, I won't bore you with the details :). Yes I have heard of Milan Levar... hardly a surprise that. So many things are so profoundly wrong with this country. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratlines (history)

Please do not italicize quotations. It is pointless and distracting. It is used in persuasive writing to emphasize portions of particular quotations, something that has little to no place in Wikipedia. Savidan 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ODNB

Yup, sorry - will do it this evening. Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Francis Baldacchino

I had to revert your good faith edit on Bishop Francis Baldacchino of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Malindi in Kenya. Roman Catholic diocesan bishops are notable and therefore deserved their own articles. I hope this will not create any problems. Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rall article

You've lodged a POV complaint against the article on Günther_Rall. Kindly add your objections to the Discussion of that article so that the merits can be debated. KarlWK (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadine Healy

Nice work. --Elvey (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maud Burnett

Done. Ironholds (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arlene Dahl

I strongly disagree with using census records, especially ancestry.com translation of census records, as a source for an article. As for the original edit I made to the article, I reverted what appeared to be an inappropriate edit using an inappropriate citation. I have no interest in this article other than that. I'm rather concerned that you feel so strongly about this article that you'd take this edit as an offense and file a mediation case against me. I will not participate in it, and have no interest in pursuing this matter further. Please pick a fight with someone else (or rather, don't pick fights to begin with). — Huntster (t @ c) 23:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Typically, these things are worked out through talk page discussion, either between users (as we're doing now) or on the article talk page itself. Mediation is typically reserved for extremely difficult or contentious cases where all other methods of solving the problem have failed. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]