User talk:Wikipeterproject

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

James Pike[edit]

FYI - I've been working hard on a biography page you marked for cleanup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Pike

thanks for the start!

--RFlynn1000 17:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Gumley[edit]

Hello there. Hope you don't mind that I have reverted your edit of 26 May as the full title of the professional association which links to Engineers Australia is The Institution of Engineers - Australia. cheers Geoffrey Wickham 00:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

I have peer reviewed James Killen. You can find the comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Peer review/James Killen. Giggy UCP 04:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


DMO additions[edit]

Thanks for that. I came home with a pile of Org Charts; you've saved me the effort. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gumley = 3.5 stars?[edit]

By whom is Gumley Considered a "three-and-a-half star"? i.e. Have you a reference to support this?
Maybe you could have argued that when he was "Undersecretary", but now that he's CEO, he's a 3 star. Yes, he does have 3 stars (or more precisely, SES level 3) reporting to him, but that's not an unusual situation - the CIO has been a 2 star, and had 2 stars reporting to him, until the relatively recent appointment of Farr. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Ecclestone[edit]

I closed this discussion as "keep" as you didn't really give a valid reason for deletion but while looking at the article's history, I see what bothered you. The IP editor you were trying to revert gave edit summaries that suggests he represents some kind of "management company". Therefore, I put a coi tag on the article. If he keeps it up and fails to discuss his edits, then take it to the conflict of interest noticeboard. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

F1 edits[edit]

Hi there, just a quick note to say that if you edit driver results tables after a GP, please don't remove the bolding / italics from the tables that denote pole positions and fastest laps. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Noted.Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

GAN notice[edit]

Hi Wikipeterproject, you currently have at least one article up a WP:GAN in the Sports and recreation section. In an attempt to clear out the backlog there, User:Wizardman asked all sports WikiProjects to review at least two articles from that section. I'm now going around and asking anybody with an article nominated under Sports and recreation to review at least one article in that section to help us clear the backlog out so your articles can finally be reviewed faster! iMatthew talk at 15:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

While 'Norwegian' is an adjective, 'former soldiers' is a compound noun. Please do not revert things that are not errors. 155.188.247.5 (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My answer at 155.188.247's talk page. Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Essendon Nickname[edit]

It is a well known fact that Essendon used to be referred to by that name and I provided a source backing it up. How is that vandalism? --58.111.120.66 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC) That's okay, apology accepted. --58.111.120.66 (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

President's Prize[edit]

Just thought I'd comment on your revision to my post. Here in America, there is more criticism surrounding the timing rather than his accomplishments. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Question from Skinhat[edit]

Do you ever add content or just delete stuff? User:skinhat —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC).

My answer's at [Talk page]

"up with which"[edit]

See my talk page, and feel free to follow up there. -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy Murray[edit]

Thanks for the work on the Andy Murray article, it really needed it. Hope my edits didn't get in your way too much. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian Open Singles Finals appearances[edit]

Go Here and look!69.137.120.81 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Political candidates[edit]

Hi there. I noticed you participated in the Articles for Deletion discussion for Graham Jones (politician). I have started a discussion regarding a consensus position for candidates in legislative elections (by way of amending WP:POLITICIAN, in case you are interested in putting forward your views there. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Zahi Hawass[edit]

Hello,

Regarding Hawass, your rational for removing the section on his statements was “Reworded (and summarized) section to ensure NPOV (and also to make sure it is balanced with the article's length)). My responses are:

1. I assume that NPOV means neutral point of view. His comments are quoted and therefore are as neutral as can be. There was no editorial opinion from whoever added the quotes.

2. If all sections were edited to make sure they are balanced with the length of the overall entry or with other sections then all Wikipedia entries would be limited in length depending on the amount of information that was added by the creator of the entry. So editing this section in this article for that reason doesn’t sound valid. To achieve a different balance the proper course of action would be to add information or details about the subject to the other sections.

3. Hawass is an internationally recognized authority on archaeology and frequently appears in documentary TV programs. His statements and writings on the subject in this section are highly relevant for those interested in learning more about him without having to click on every citation.

4. Your edit stated "Hawass has been criticized for various comments relating to Jews. He has questioned Jewish influence in America but stated that he does not believe in a "Jewish conspiracy to control the world". The original entry only quoted Hawass and did not express or mention criticism. Your entry quotes his defensive statement but does not provide the context of his original statements which are much more extensive that your summarization as questioning Jewish influence in America.

I suppose I am supposed to check back here for your response.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitruew (talkcontribs) 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll paste this onto the article's talk page and we can continue the discussion there. Hope that's OK wth you! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Herman Rockefeller[edit]

I would like to read a well written and researched article on the Life of Herman Miller. Can you suggest where I might find one if not on Wikipedia? Thanks Castlemate (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD or merge?[edit]

How about the Nick Groff one? Not more notable as Zak Bagans.--twinsday 00:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad edits at Paul Randall Harrington[edit]

Hi! You made some edits at Paul Randall Harrington that I have reverted. In the following sentence, "[The] treatment seems so punishing that [parents] cannot be persuaded to permit it even to save their children from permanent deformity," you replaced the single square brackets with double brackets, turning them into links. They were not intended to be links; the square brackets were indicating changes made to a direct quote from Time Magazine to show context, per WP:STYLE. See Wikipedia:STYLE#Quotations for more information. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Also I tagged my revert as "bad bot edit" assuming you were a bot, that was a bad assumption, sorry. Thank you very much for your copyediting work on this article and please continue to check and improve it. Much appreciated! - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No, there is a review bot that fixes some common MOS errors - I ran it to see if it would fix the credentials, but it didn't. Down side of using automated cleanups are that it fixes things it shouldn't and, in this case, I didn't pick it up - but glad you did! Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grays Harbor?[edit]

Hi, I've noticed that you've commented on a number of AFD discussions and I was wondering whether you could chime in here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grays Harbor? The discussion is going around in circles with a new Wikipedian who doesn't appear to understand policies and I'm just getting frustrated. I'm happy to be found right or wrong but I think it would be extremely beneficial to get some input from independent Wikipedian's who have an understanding for the policies as I readily accept I'm rusty. Cheers, PageantUpdater talkcontribs 05:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris Agee[edit]

Hello Wikipeterproject. I've restored this article with proper references. I'm letting you know, since you've participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Agee. If you want to renominate the article for further consideration, please do so. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

National Stores[edit]

Would you mind looking at National Stores again to see if it needs more sources? I added several since the AFD nomination was filed - there were no other posts on the AFD page since mine, and the nomination was relisted to gain further consensus. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

International Star Registry[edit]

I see you tagged ISR as OR. The article has a lot of references (probably more than most articles of this size). A large number of the references are critical. Could you please place on the talk page what specifically you consider Original Research. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your talk page comment, encouraging you to try your hand at reworking it. Good analysis of a potential problem, so why not take a whack at it? SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to review new Timex Group USA, Inc. article draft[edit]

Hi, you were very receptive to my disclosure on Talk:Timex Group USA, Inc. so I thought I would extend a personal invite to you to review the new draft I just opened for approval. If you are interested, you can find the new draft at User:Dtgriffith/Timex Group USA, Inc. Thanks. – Dtgriffith (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

People aged over 85[edit]

I have took what you said about the page into consideration, so if the page is deleted I will start it again but under the title 'Notable People aged 85 and over'.

George Clooney[edit]

Max the pig has his/its own article, with sources. Rather than delete from Clooney's article, it's better to challenge that article first, through the usual channels. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

marshwiggle23[edit]

(marsh 13:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)) Marshwiggle 23 - Dr. A.V. Koshy - terrestrian@gmail.com Dear Wikipeter project. You removed two of my edits to Brunstad Christian Church project stating they are original research. They are not. The sources are found in books published by BCC itself. Sice they are in book form and not available on the net as they have a private bookstore and the reliable sources do not contain the information I am giving you I am at a loss what to do next. Also: I do not know if this is the right place to write this. If not, forgive me and remove it but please inform me in messages how to get in touch with you to discuss how such information can be included in case the sources are there and verifiable but not available due to contingencies such as the ones I have stated Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshwiggle23 (talkcontribs) 13:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Lord Hugh Grosvenor[edit]

Actually, the courtesy titles "Lord" and "Lady" are almost always used in titles of articles about children of peers, from Lady Louise Windsor to children of non-royal peers. See Category:Younger sons of dukes, Category:Daughters of British dukes, Category:Younger sons of marquesses, Category:Daughters of British marquesses and Category:Daughters of British earls. You should've looked before reverting two users. I can easily request a move and let the community decide; the decision will be in favour of consistency (i.e. Lord Hugh Grosvenor). Do you want to go through the procedure? Surtsicna (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is another convention which treats the issue: WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility. It says: "including honorific prefixes such as Lord or Lady, which differ from full titles in that they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth – should be included in the article title if the person is far better recognised with the title than without. For example, Lord Frederick Cavendish is hardly ever called plain "Frederick Cavendish", and so the Lord is included in the article title." Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
That section links to WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility): "For the use of titles in the names of articles on monarchs, other royals and members of the nobility, see the royalty and nobility guideline." Is that enough? As for "Captain", I see military ranks mentioned in the first sentence in many, many articles. I am not sure that it's correct and I wouldn't mind removing it. Thank you for understanding! Surtsicna (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Holy Land USA[edit]

Congrats! For your hard work I've added an award to your user page. Thanks! Markvs88 (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

IFC Forum: message regarding deletion[edit]

Dear Wikipeterproject, We received a message advising that the IFC Forum page has been nominated for deletion. We would greatly appreciate it if you could please provide us with further details as to: a) the reasons why the IFC Forum Wikipage has been nominated for deletion. We note that you stated “the article itself is written like an essay […] with most references being primary sources to support an argument, suggesting original research” The nine references listed at the end of the article are clearly a normal way of incorporating footnotes into a document, so we would really appreciate if you could please clarify your statement. b) what kind of editing is required to maintain the page. The IFC Forum is a newly created organisation and its members are leading professional firms in the international financial centers domain. We consider that the information contained in the article is sufficient and consistent. We obviously think the message regarding deletion must be removed as soon as possible, so thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Stikemanforum (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

My reply is here. Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Friendly comment[edit]

Hi Wikipeterproject!

Thank you for the friendly comment! Marshallsumter (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher[edit]

Nice set of edits on MoMK. Come back anytime. Brmull (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

link=User talk:Talk:<Kangaroo Route>#Recent removal of operations
Hello, Wikipeterproject. You have new messages at [[User talk:Talk:<Kangaroo Route>#Recent removal of operations|User talk:Talk:<Kangaroo Route>]].
Message added 20:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oba Chandler[edit]

Hi, what edits would you suggest for the Oba Chandler article for it to proceed towards a Featured article status? Feel free to make some if you find the time you too. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to review the article, because im not familiar with FA requirements. But at a glance it looks like it would need a lot of work. Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ask[edit]

Hi. My name is Jivesh. Should Scaptia beyonceae be placed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. S. beyonceae is about a horse fly that was named after the singer. Maybe it would be appropriate to mention that in the Beyoncé Knowles article? Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Scaptia beyonceae[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Scaptia beyonceae at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger One ping only 01:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Scaptia beyonceae[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Note to self[edit]

Write an article about Omus Hirshbein?

New Subject[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

--XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to examine the discussion for my own education, as I'm fairly new on Wikipedia, but I can't figure out how to find it. It's not on the noticeboard linked above and I can't find it by searching the archives. Kindly assist. Guyovski (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Answered on my talk page and I followed up there. Guyovski (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Wikipeterproject. You have new messages at Guyovski's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tom Maynard 18 June 2012[edit]

In Deaths in 2012 you and another editor appear to disagree whether cause of death for Tom Maynard should be "train strike" or "hit by train," but I can't tell who prefers which. The current version is "train strike." Just inviting you to discuss this on Talk:Deaths in 2012 if you want. Guyovski (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There is now an extensive discussion of this issue at Talk:Deaths in 2012 Guyovski (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Michele Bachmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Immigration and Nationality Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Glenn Dennis.gif[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Glenn Dennis.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Glenn Dennis[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Glenn Dennis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable - poor sourced BLP

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scott Mac 02:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

RE:“the Atoms for Peace speech had nothing to do with the nuclear program of Iran”[edit]

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but dude, did you even read the first sentence of the article? EIN (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry. Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Wikipeterproject
No biggie. :) EIN (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Knights and Baronets in Deaths in 2013 etc[edit]

The rule is that Knights and Baronets (ie people who hold the title 'Sir' in the British nobility) are referred to with their titles in entries in Deaths in 2013. See Talk:Deaths in 2012/Archive 4#Knights. There would be an exception if the subject did not use their title, as is the case with some Baronets, but nothing in the Manual of Style requires removal of 'Sir' in the main text of articles (as opposed to article titles). Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It may not be a MoS - sorry about that. My understanding is that the convention is not to use titles. There does not appear to be consensus about this and I don't have the level of interest or energy to begin a debate about it! Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Strachan Wallace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australian Imperial Force (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Strachan Wallace[edit]

Allen3 talk 00:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning sources[edit]

You're inserting comments into a closed discussion so I won't be able to respond to your arguments in an even way. Maybe they won't notice you've added arguments after closure. Suffice to say, I don't think it's fair to compare six unshared sources from one Google search to the month's worth of multiple daily Google sources that were shared and vetted. You're welcome to your opinion, but I know for myself which one was more rigorous and examined. __Elaqueate (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Essendon Drug Cheats[edit]

For a wiki person you have a strange idea what neutral point of view is. You want to pretend essendon are not drug cheats claiming neutral point of view. It has been proven they have been penalised for it, they are guilty and are drug cheats. Why do you want to cover up this fact?--60.242.71.160 (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Madison Capit(o)l Times[edit]

Please see Talk:Arthur Rubin#Madison Capitol Times. In addition, it's Capitol, rather than Capital. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your reverts on KGB article[edit]

I would like to inform you that my edit of 30,000+ bites was substantial. According to Wikipedia policy on verifiability using a book is one way of making something verifiable, and that's what I did. According to another admin here @Ironholds: the article is in need of more sources but not reversion.--Mishae (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin ;p. It's worth noting that while a book is good for verifying things, that doesn't solve for other potential problems, like undue weight or reliance on a single source providing somewhat-biased materials. My goal was not to say "this is great, tell Wikipeterproject off", it was "you two, go have a conversation". Talk about why the edit was reverted and what changes need to be made to make it acceptable. Don't come on to WPP's talkpage and simply "inform" him that it was substantial. Ironholds (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I will take another look at the article when I have a bit more time - hopefully this week. From memory, there were quite a few issues that concerned me with the edits made to the article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Ironholds for any confusion. Now to WPP: I think you got overwhelmed with my gigantic edit, but I just was shocked that this article haven't been updated since 2006 and only minor edits were made. I will try to add more sources if any exist, but to be frank, there were a lot of notable missions that were missing from the article such as all those Asian missions. Because isn't that's how during Cold War China, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam got its Communist Parties? Like, I might be wrong, but considering that I am Russian, I am pretty certain that I know what I am doing by trying to make it as neutral as possible. Sorry if my neutrality is bad because English is my second language.smile--Mishae (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Update I just got time to look for more sources and added them. I hope now it can be strong candidate for an A class article. I will try to add missions in South Africa since they operated there too.--Mishae (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John F. Kennedy, Jr.[edit]

Did you seriously just create a talk page comment and a signature out of nothing on behalf of an IP editor? I think that's a clear violation of policy. Either leave the heading as it stands or revert the whole thing. Elizium23 (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

We need to encourage new editors when they edit in good faith. I didn't change the content of what the editor actually said, so I don't believe it is a violation of policy. I simply organised the contribution in the talk page and signed it. The editor makes a valid comment and there is no reason to delete it just because it isn't in the right format. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I just read WP:TPO, which is the policy guideline for editing other people's contribution to talk pages, and it confirms that what I did was exactly in accordance with policy. Specifically, it says that one shouldn't generally remove others' contribution, but can fix layout errors by moving new content from top to bottom and adding a header to a comment that doesn't have one. That's really all I did. Just because a contribution is from an IP and doesn't look nice and, in this case, wasn't substantial, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I will agree with you here, but I still think it is a judgement call whether or not to remove this particular contribution. In my experience, these type of comments are almost always pure drive-by hits, in that the editor will not be back to discuss or even clarify what they meant, and certainly not with any specific suggestions to improve the article. I find that talk page discussions are only fruitful when there is some semblance of legitimate debate with ideas being presented from each side. "This article is poorly written" is not really helpful in the scheme of things. That was the IP's first-ever edit, and I am willing to bet that it will be his last. I would suggest engaging the IP on their own user talk page about what they meant and how to edit talk pages, if you really want to avoid WP:BITE. Elizium23 (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair comment and I agree the contribution/observation was unsubstantial to say the least. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and I appreciate the civil collaboration and I commend you on defending this IP's contribution. Elizium23 (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your courtesy and civility too! :-) Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I could always use more. I came off a little panicky and incredulous at first there. I try to keep a lid on it, really I do! Elizium23 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Material on BLP cosmetic surgery[edit]

In your opinion, should such material be removed from the Pamela Anderson and Dolly Parton articles? Nightscream (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No. In those cases, there are numerous reliable secondary independent sources referring to the procedures, so that they have become integral to the notability individuals you mention. In the case in question, it is not a main issue - there are many, many notable people who have some form of cosmetic surgery, which bears no relevance to their notability. This is one is such case. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Yeah, you're probably right. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)