User talk:Unbuttered Parsnip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Johnmperry)
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

refs[edit]

I see you adding <span style="font-family:Times;font-size:95%"> inside references.

Per WP:FONTFAMILY, one should not be changing the font-family parameter. Also, the reference font-size is already at the minimum size. Making it even smaller would violate WP:FONTSIZE. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

They've been like that about 18 months. I was just reverting from {{cite isbn}} now deprecated. But I'll bear in mind when I come across them. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 16:49, wikitime= 08:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Silion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madridejos, Cebu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cebu, Philippines. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Regarding: User:Unbuttered Parsnip nominated his/her pages for Mfd, but it's not necessary to go to discussion... it's not an article in progress, but just a few words, so I applied the db-nonsense template, because it seemed to be the next best choice. If this isn't the right approach, what is? Thanks!

--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I cannot do it for you, but you can resolve this by placing {{db-userreq}} on each of the pages, which will greatly simplify the process.
You added this to MfD discussion page with a 1970 date: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#January 1, 1970. Not sure why.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Cogon, Tagbilaran, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. CaroleHenson (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bool, Tagbilaran. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. It's interesting that there's always a grain of helpful edits in your disruptive editing, but removing citations, changing data without sources, etc. is disruptive - so the entire edits were reverted. CaroleHenson (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


Moved Cogon, Tagbilaran discussion here[edit]

Why've you reverted my edit? It wasn't at all unconstructive - I brought all the data up to date, with 2010 population figures, and I removed all the dead links. Like I said on the edit summary.

Unlike other people, I spend time verifying what I read. And I mean time! I also worked on Bool, Tagbilaran this morning, and am currently working on Booy, Tagbilaran. They're two different places, as are Sillon, Bantayan and Silion despite what the current qua‑owner thinks.

I already have an editor-shepherd, so don't need you to mother me.

Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 11:43, wikitime= 03:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's good to know that you're not intending to make disruptive edits.
The proper way to resolve dead links is to either: 1) tag the citation information with the Template:Dead link tag - or 2) use wayback.com to get the archiveurl and archivedate to add to the citation. Someone spent their time at one point to properly research and cite the information and removing the citation altogether is not the right tack to take.
Some edits seem disruptive. Information is updated, but I'm not consistently seeing citations. And, you cricitize overlinking and then link common words like asphalt. That's why it seems disruptive.
I see that you removed the welcome message that had links to commons guidelines, which I think would be helpful to keep as references. But of course, that's your choice.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The info is dead and superseded – 2007 census etc. – so no point in wasting time researching its accompany dead links. The official Tagbilaran city government web site no longer shows that info ("under construction" ..) and there is no barangay web site. Yes, I criticise overlinking, which predominantly means linking the same site more than once on a page. cf 2013 Bohol Earthquake which is linked 3 times each on Loboc Church and Baclayon Church, and twice on Maribojoc Church. And just because you know everything about an asphalt road surface (or think you do) doesn't mean everyone does.
Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 12:10, wikitime= 04:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You removed citation info where there was no change to the information. And if you're adding new data, then instead of a citation needed template - you should post the source.
To help better describe some of my confusion: when you changed |area_total_km2 --> |area_land_km2, then the population density calculation wouldn't auto calculate, so you put added the expression {{#expr: 17114/2.044 round 0}}, which means that other editors would have to pick up the changes, too. Why change an automatic function?
Like I said above, there are always kernels of good edits that you make, but there's enough disruptive editing that it would take time to sort out what can stay and what needs to be corrected.---CaroleHenson (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Overlinking - it's not necessarily wrong to link a place more than once in an article. The guidelines say no more than once per section. But, I wouldn't have a problem with elimination of multiple links in an article. Overlinking also means linking common words, like countries, asphalt, concrete, etc.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
In the case of the Maribojoc Church article (I wasn't in any way involved in the others), it's linked once in the body of an initial section and then within the {{main}} template for that section. I wouldn't think that was overlinking... It would be wrong to remove the link to the initial use of the article name... and it makes sense to have the main template for that section. Are you thinking one of them should be removed? Which one?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Not once per section.
That guideline has been rewritten, and rightly so. I don't see that in this case the 2013 earthquake is an overlink situation based upon the scenario. You didn't answer my question, so I'm guessing you're fine with it, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
(And btw I think it entirely wrong that so much earthquake information appears – this is an article about XXX Church. If the reader wants to know, s/he can follow the link.)
If it's a major concern of yours, I would recommend bringing it up on the talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It was your reversion which changed |area_total_km2= to |area_land_km2=. Note that the auto function of {{infobox settlement}} doesn't work if land appears without total, which is why the #expr: was there. It made more sense to move value to total even though it may not be true.
My mistake in cutting and pasting the fields, sorry. The auto function seems to be working fine. It's not rounding as you have in the expression, but it's made the calculation. I'm confused.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Most of the citations appear to be trying to verify rumours, which seems fairly pointless. That and WP:WEASEL usages such as "Legend has it" or "It is generally believed". No point in trying to nail that jelly to the wall!
Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 14:26, wikitime= 06:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I found a source for the one item that I would have otherwise considered a rumour. I tried to find sources for the other info - and I think it's possibly original research.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with your points about wording of the history of the name. I made some edits, but please make any adjustments to fine-tune it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think giving house-room to these folksy cod etymology snippets is a bad thing. I don't think they're worth losing sleep over / wasting time researching. As it is, I doubt these barangay pages are going to be read by more than half a dozen people.
Do you intend to go through all the pages with unsourced zip codes and area codes? Potentially there are 1200 on Bohol alone, and that's just one province.
Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 19:02, wikitime= 11:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Your points make sense! Regarding the zip/area codes: No, I went looking for a source for the zip/area codes when the values were changed. I just wanted to confirm that they were right... and the right thing to do was to add a citation since the value had been changed. I'm good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Cogon, Tagbilaran[edit]

I'm working on the infobox and have added back some info, including sources. I have a question on Talk:Cogon, Tagbilaran about the unusual template and change in what appear to be correct zip and area codes.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Bool, Tagbilaran[edit]

I've integrated many of your edits into the article. See Talk:Bool, Tagbilaran for a couple of questions.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Great teamwork![edit]

There's been some great teamwork on resolving open questions on the Cogon and Bool articles. Thanks for hanging in - doing your own research - and making very civil counter-claims. Great job.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dagohoy, Bohol, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Misamis and Surigao. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cite PH act[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Template:Cite PH act and Template talk:Cite PH act#Suggestion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge with categories[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am in the process of merging some small island stubs into an overall umbrella, let's call it Z. Each of these stubs includes a category for island. How do I ensure that the island itself is still categorised so? Do I include within Z a line [[Category:Islands of the Philippines|a]] for each island? So I'd have a string of entries
[[Category:Islands of the Philippines|a]]
[[Category:Islands of the Philippines|b]]
[[Category:Islands of the Philippines|c]] etc.

Documentation is not very clear. Or do I need to leave the category behind on the a... redirect page? Ditto of course for other categories.

Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 09:57, wikitime= 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). I did some reviews of very small villages for another country - and there was so little information available, I tagged a few articles before someone came along, removed the tags, and explained that even places with low population are considered notable for WP articles.
Why do you want to merge the articles? Did this come about as the result of the articles being tagged for possible merger and the consensus was to merge them?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Unbuttered Parsnip. To add to the above answer, as far as I'm aware an article category should only contain existing articles - not redirects - so one category tag on article Z should suffice. Sam Walton (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't think there is a policy against categories on redirect pages. See for instance Category:Communities in Algoma District, it is full of italic links that are redirects. I for one have always supported this practice (compare Dalupiri Island and San Antonio, Northern Samar). That way it allows the island to be listed properly in the island category, and the target article is in the proper municipality category. -- P 1 9 9   16:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I arrived at that conclusion by experimentation. Basically the category only applies to the invoking page. The second (sortkey) parameter is there more to confuse than help I think, as items then apparently get out of alphabetic sequence. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 19:31, wikitime= 11:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fort San Pedro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Miguel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Shirehampton railway station services}}[edit]

Hi. Thanks for fixing the references here, however it was unnecessary - the template is transcluded into a single page, which has the requisite reflist. For clarity I have added a noincluded reflist on the template page. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well it's up to you, but generally a template should be self-contained. I picked this up from Category:Pages with missing references list. If it was a general use template, that could be propagated all over. I used the group name "§" so that it didn't inadvertently pick up other (genuine) notes and put them in the box. --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 21:34, wikitime= 13:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It's more to keep a massive block of confusing wikitable off the main page than anything. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Using as of template for school years[edit]

I've looked through the Template:As of documentation in the past and I've checked it twice, but there seems to be no protocol for using "As of|2011" to correspond to "as of the 2011-12 school year". I have been searching for a way to systematically identify school data that's out of date, but I'm not sure if the as of template is the mechanism. Any ideas? Alansohn (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Alansohn: {{as of}} is used as a general way of indicating that article contains a dated statment. {{{alt}}} is a way of defining the text (I think it defaults to As of but I'm not sure). I was just trying to change as little of the original text as possible, but you could for instance write {{as of|2011|alt=As of the 2011-2012 school year}} etc. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 13:33, wikitime= 05:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tyrone, Pennsylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bald Eagle Creek. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown[edit]

23:52, 12 December 2014‎ Unbuttered Parsnip (talk | contribs)‎ . . (270,393 bytes) (-972)‎ . . (→‎References: -redundant ref)

00:01, 13 December 2014‎ RAN1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (271,365 bytes) (+972)‎ . . (Undid good-faith edit by Unbuttered Parsnip (talk): One of those refs is in-use, plus the other two may be used later)

00:05, 13 December 2014‎ Unbuttered Parsnip (talk | contribs)‎ . . (270,393 bytes) (-972)‎ . . (Undid revision 637873308 by RAN1 (talk) Remove three UNUSED cites. You need one later? Put it back later. Just keep article off error report.)

00:23, 13 December 2014‎ Mandruss (talk | contribs)‎ . . (271,370 bytes) (+977)‎ . . (Undid revision 637873685 by Unbuttered Parsnip (talk) per article convention)

00:37, 13 December 2014‎ Unbuttered Parsnip (talk | contribs)‎ . . (270,393 bytes) (-977)‎ . . (Undid revision 637874849 by Mandruss (talk) Wrong is wrong, so stick your convention)

00:38, 13 December 2014‎ Mandruss (talk | contribs)‎ . . (271,370 bytes) (+977)‎ . . (Undid revision 637875800 by Unbuttered Parsnip) pls note that I combined a change with my revert, I commented out the ref that was putting the article in your tracking cat, there is no problem now)

I have put in some hours working that same tracking category, and I know it's hard because all you see is stupidity and vandalism. If that's what put you in a pissy mood, I can empathize, but the tone of your edit summaries was still over the top and uncalled for. To begin with, you could have observed that the convention in the article is to comment out unused refs, and commented that one out. Done and done. Instead, for some reason you opted to remove the ref, plus two commented-out refs that had nothing to do with the tracking category. Later, after my revert/change that corrected the problem, you didn't stop to notice that (1) the byte count of the reverts had increased from 972 to 977, so something must have changed, or that (2) the article was no longer in the tracking category. Instead, you knee-jerk responded with another revert with nasty comment. I hope this isn't how you interact with other editors all the time. "Wrong is wrong, so stick your convention"? Best of luck on improving your wikisocial skills. ‑‑Mandruss  11:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: and this relates to what? Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 13:05, wikitime= 05:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry didn't get your ping, G. Edward Griffin specifically. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Callanecc: All I did was take the page off the Category:Pages with missing references list (or similar). Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 13:40, wikitime= 05:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No worries, I just went through the page history of recent contributors. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus College alumni[edit]

Gah, I'm so out of practice at writing/updating articles that I have forgotten everything I once knew about formatting references! Thank you for fixing my errors. I will be overhauling the Jesus College alumni/fellows lists in the New Year, because I've not really paid them any attention over the last couple of years and there are no doubt new names to be added. It will be good to have the time to do so, without perpetually worrying about what needs to be scheduled as "Today's Featured Article", which has taken increasing amounts of my time over the last couple of years! Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 11:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of instant messaging clients[edit]

You undid an edit of mine, where I removed the sole non-notable item from a list article, with only the edit summary "completely screwed it." What does that mean? As I can't see where my removing that one item caused some sort of layout/style problem (the only thing I can think of that "completely screwed it" could mean), I restored the previous version. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Page was on the list of [[:Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting}]] and the was a big red error message showing in one of the table cells. (Don't recall which). RV your change got rid of it. NB there has been some vandalismon some of the software pages recently. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 02:00, wikitime= 18:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Yeah it looks like of those little notes one was only used by the line I removed. I see you've caught that and fixed it. Thanks. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Facebook is a perfectly reasonable source[edit]

I was looking at your edit, with the summary "facebook is not a valid source", and I am confused. Facebook is a excellent source, a primary source directly from the politicians compared to secondary (and thus less reliable) sources like newspaper articles. Where have you gotten the idea that Facebook is not a valid source? Thue (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thue: Exactly so. You urgently need to read WP:RS, and more pertinently, WP:NOTRS. These explicitly state (a) primary sources are not allowed; (b) social networking sites are not allowed.--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 07:19, wikitime= 23:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm extremely confused and concerned that Thue as an adminstrator of 11 years standing has such a total misunderstanding of long accepted policies/guidlines. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Administrator? <gulp> Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 08:49, wikitime= 00:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Is this a punk? Someone is contending that a social networking site is a reliable source?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: You read what I (and others) read.--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 09:44, wikitime= 01:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep, it's just so funny that I thought that there is some punking going on. A biased, primary, social networking site would be better than a newspaper article by professional journalists with editorial control? It seems it must be a joke - either that or there is an interest in adding content that would not get published by a newspaper.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: Not forgetting of course that a politician's facebook page is ipso facto bound to be more honest and truthful than a balanced evaluation. Not! --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 10:55, wikitime= 02:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It depends on what kind of info you are sourcing. Some info is perfectly fine to source from a facebook account. Categorically rejecting facebook as a source for all kinds of info is simply absurd. Thue (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this gets to the importance of the information. If it's not important enough to have made it into a magazine, book, magazine, or a website that has editorial control, then how important is this information, which is essentially self-published and/or original research? See self-published sources. It's just a bad habit to get into to use sources without editorial control. Facebook isn't even supposed to be used as an external link.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Weber (December 22)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kvng was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ~KvnG 21:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Unbuttered Parsnip, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~KvnG 21:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


@Kvng: Absolutely nothing to do with me. Who's John Weber? Probably just another page short on notability nut long on errors that I picked up and kicked into wikishape. PS, try proof-reading the stuff you send out!--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 05:42, wikitime= 21:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

#Propety?[edit]

Can you please explain how the #property template that you have been adding at Philippine municipality pages works so I can revert the flag, seals and relevant images back to the infoboxes using the #property template.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: wikidata contains the name of the image. To revert, you just need to remove it from wikidata. I'd prefer you did that rather than change the infobox. The infobox is quite happen for there to be no entry. In fact that is the normal case.
To reach wikidata, you need to go to the relevant page, then click on "Wikidata item" on the left-hand side. To remove an item I think you need to click on 'edit' first, and that will give you the option of 'remove'.--Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 15:51, wikitime= 07:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the if statements are unnecessary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

André Kalfayan
added links pointing to Intercontinental and Vatican
Medellin, Cebu
added a link pointing to Isabel of Spain

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)