User talk:Elaqueate

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Elaqueate. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Diego (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages

Do not refactor or edit the content of my posts. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think we were saving to the same section at the same time. I wasn't trying to prevent you from leaving your message about doing whatever you were trying to do to avoid paywalls. Have a nice day!--Elaqueate (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

CBC.ca

Hi, I noticed you moved CBC.ca back to Chelsea. In the light of this I think it is clear that they are using Bradley though, as this is after the announcement they were using Chelsea, and they explicitly changed the AP release from Chelsea to Bradley. I think that makes it clear that they may have said that they will use Chelsea, they are not actually doing that. How do you view that? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If I may butt in and offer my 2c, perhaps CBC.ca should be listed in the section "News agencies which haven't clearly chosen one name over the other". I had found an AP article they ran which contained all of "Chelsea", "Bradley" and "she"(!). -sche (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

They didn't announce on August 23, they announced on Sept 5 or later. They added the announcement to an Aug 23 story. I think an explicit message that they have chosen one name over the other should remove doubt, not increase it. __Elaqueate (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Searching on this page reveals "www.cbc.ca/.../2013/08/23/whats-in-a-name/ - 54k - 2013-09-06"; this means they added the note on September 6. They started using Chelsea on the radio the day before.

Discretionary Sanctions

In case you didn't know, there was a remedy at the Sexology arbitration case that resulted in discretionary sanctions being authorized. You are hereby notified that should you fail to abide by the standards normally expected of editors while making edits on any articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification, sanctions can be levied against you by any uninvolved administrator, including but not limited to blocks, topic bans, as well as any other device that is needed to ensure the project can run smoothly. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• A follow up: Someone has opened a clarification request about my action, so feel free to comment at that page. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Categorization should follow statements in the text of the article

Since categories do not directly have sources, a categorization should follow statements in the text of an article. That a fact can be verified is not enough, the verification should exist in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded in recognition of your contributions to building the evidence base for the Chelsea Manning move. Well done! Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope you enjoyed your cookies

... and I was glad to see the SPA tagging removed. That really should have been discussed first, and then applied by a neutral editor if warranted. In the now boxed up section you said, "I didn't know that talk page discussions were considerd "edits" or maybe I would have contributed less." I don't quite follow you there. Talk page edits are real edits, but there is nothing wrong with that. They may be counted, but they certainly aren't counted against you. Here is an interesting editing statistics analyzer you might be interested in.

Please stick around and help us improve many parts of this encyclopedia. Cheers. -- ToE

Thanks, I didn't know talk page contributions were also called edits. I had thought that referred to changes to the actual article and was asking there for some clarification. I understand now. And you can see I haven't made many changes to actual articles yet. But it's been educational so far. And thanks for the note. __Elaqueate (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning Arb page

Did I? If I did, please restore it; I do apologise. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I think I see what happened: Sometimes if two edits happen really close to each other, one overrides the other. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, restored. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: It's all good. I just hadn't seen an edit conflict like that, so I thought you'd want to know in case it was a bug or something. __Elaqueate (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your sig

I was just posting over at WP:BLPN, and you had posted in the section above. I thought I'd let you know the color of your signature is completely illegible to me, and I have fairly normal eyesight. You might want to change the color so people can see it. See WP:SIGAPP-- if I have a hard time seeing it, others may not see it at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

incorrect categorization

EQ, removing a clearly incorrect category is not "emptying" - there is ample precedent that removing items from a cat which clearly do not belong is permitted. What is not permitted is to remove all items, or to remove valid items, from same category. In this case, the category in question is for people, and Category:Women of color by definition excludes people. Even if Category:Women by ethnicity is kept, women of color should never be a sub-set of same, because it doesn't and won't ever contain people. Please stop reverting and just let the removal stand - I added a see-also link instead, which is common in these cases.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As Category:Women of color currently contains individual women, whether it's intended to or not, it was included. If you think the Category:Women of color contains entries it shouldn't, take it up there. It's disputable whether the consensus is that Category:Women of color should never contain individual women, despite the disclaimer. Right now you are emptying a category that you have nominated for deletion and this is premature. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please follow BRD

You made a bold edit, you were reverted. If you want to discuss why you were reverted, we can do so here. The reason is, tradition - traditionally we classify people by nationality, and in some cases, ethnicity (when that ethnicity is not a recognized nationality) - and then we group those together (e.g. ethnicities and nationalities). If you start adding "X women" where X is a nationality to the "Women by ethnicity" category, then it will eventually end up as a duplicate of Category:Women by nationality which doesn't serve any purposes, as I could argue under the same grounds that Hungarian or Finnish or Chinese or Thai are also ethnicities. This is just the current way these categories are set up, and I don't think it does any good to combine the two, as you end up burying the ethnicities that are not closely identified with a particular nationality. Another problem is the nationality cats themselves - while "Hungarian" is both a nationality and an ethnicity, the way we "use" Hungarian people is to describe people who are either from there, or who have lived there long enough to be considered from that place. You may thus have people who are described as Hungarian, but who in actuality wouldn't identify as "ethnically" Hungarian. The American category is a great example of same - we have many people who are called "American" but who may consider themselves ethnically inuit or whatever. The same applies for your english and welsh categories - as such, adding them is flawed and screws up the logic. Categorization of people by ethnicity and nationality is always a deeply complex and flawed process, but the current rough consensus we have in place to have nationality as the top-level containers (in most cases), and then divide those nationalities by relevant/notable ethnicities (see Rakie_Ayola who is in Category:Welsh_people_of_Sierra_Leonean_descent for an illustration of how the nationality categories intersect with the ethnic ones).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about categorizing individual articles. Don't confuse the issue. Categories can have a place in more than a single hierarchical path of container categories. Category:French jazz musicians happily sits under both Category:Jazz musicians by nationality and Jazz. It has more than one ultimate "top-level" category, leading upwards to both "Musicians" and "French people". Battling every parallel hierarchy is as silly as saying because the French path is useful to someone, the Musician path should be weeded out for cluttering up Wikipedia. A single top-level category is a bit of a fiction, and not an attainable goal. Intersections happen all the time. The ethnicity categories currently contain more also-a-political entities without fuss then you've explained. You're not suggesting that Category:Scottish people be taken out of out of the container category Category:Celtic people because of Scotland's existence as a political entity, are you? __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

technically it should, as there are Scottish people who aren't Celtic (many, in fact). Like I said, there's no perfect solution, but there are better solutions, and for me keeping nationalities out of the top-level lines of people-by-ethnicity gives browsers a sense of the non-national-based cats we have.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Another way we treat ethnicity vs nationality cats differently is in diffusion. Per WP:EGRS, categories based on ethnicity should be non-diffusing, but categories based on nationality are not. This is because nationality is almost always fully diffusing - everyone has a nationality (with rare exceptions), but we don't categorize on all ethnicities - for example, we don't have "Caucasian Americans".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I'm surprised you're trying to eliminate non-diffusing categories while bringing up "ghettoization" issues that don't apply. Something like the "Women by Ethnicity" cat doesn't remove those sub-cats from other hierarchies, it only gathers those cats where we have a sufficient number of subject-related pages to form groupings. That is, if you weren't trying to empty the categories of useful meaning. It is being used to gather an intersection of pre-existing cats, without any forced or implied diffusion issues. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean 'trying to eliminate non-diffusing categories'? What are you talking about? This particular women-by-ethnicity isn't needed, because I'm not convinced we need 'grouping' categories at various levels of the trees; in my experience they end up being not filled in. Also, plz AGF, accusing me of emptying a category of useful meaning is just spiteful, I've done no such thing. I was bringing up the diffusion issue here to point out a real way in which we treat ethnicities differently than nationalities.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Look in your talk page history for a nicely worded rant of mine which, unfortunately, was aimed at the wrong editor: my apologies. When I looked closer I saw that you, on Talk:Patrick Califia, were commenting on a rant, and I thought the rant was yours. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem Drmies, I completely understand the confusion. I was confused myself about why two editors were pushing the same policy-offending statement until I figured out the edit history. You were right to be concerned and I hope the editors responsible understand what's appropriate now. Thank you for your work and attention. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to TutorVista may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |homepage = [http://www.tutorvista.com/ tutorvista.com]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sonora Matancera may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• sextetos, and septetos active at this time, but carved out a niche for itself in the Cuban capital.[<ref name="autogenerated1975"/>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Closure review

I agree with you that it is surprising for a closer to switch a closure to its opposite. If nothing else, it makes it seem like the closer did not read the discussion closely — if they came to one conclusion, and then switched to another after receiving feedback/pushback. If you think it would be productive, you could request a WP:Closure review. One outcome of such a review might be to simply re-open the RFC and solicit new comments. (Personally, I don't think I have the time/energy to file such a review.) -sche (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Arachnophobia

Hey Elaqueate. You reverted my edit at Arachnophobia. This is fine in principle, but your edit summary justification for doing so doesn't quite satisfy me. Me saying "sorry if I missed something" didn't mean "sorry if I missed your opinion." Again, as far as I can tell from the talk page, there has been a long discussion going on (and even a somewhat silly edit war) about what kind of pic to include in this article. Seems to me that editors there put a lot of energy trying to figure out how to illustrate this article in a proper way and eventually succeeded in reaching consensus. Could you please point me to some evidence that this consensus has since then changed? If not, I shall put the pic up again at some point. Thanks! SalimJah (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, SalimJah thanks for the follow up! I can't speak to a consensus from years ago, but the article has been picture-free for at least the last couple of months. Having a picture seemed to inspire multiple vandalism attempts and I think people collectively chose not to re-instate it after a series of those attempts; it's been that way until your good faith edit. We could re-attempt a consensus more formal than that, but it seems like deciding how to illustrate a mental disorder might lead to similar disagreements as earlier times, over something decorative. And I don't see where there was formal consensus to keep it in or out before, just an exhausted cease-fire. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

hard act to follow

after your comment above... exhausted cease-fire, there are quite few around the place.

Thanks for putting the cfds there, not sure if many watch - or even the main australian noticeboard might elicit a response even. Silly season and a few heatwaves can keep watching down... and even less and less regular eds around on the ozstralian editing scene these days as well... satusuro 15:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Steve Herrod for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Herrod is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Herrod until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Macrophilia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giants (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) 08:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

sanctions warnings

I suggest you read the appropriate wording of how "warnings" are currently logged and note that such warnings do not have to be made by admins, and that discussions are ongoing as to the future of the log pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Completed

Check Indomania, and the recent edition. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your reply. As I suspected the reasons given by User:Langus-TxT for removing those cites was bogus (ie WP:PRIMARY and the fact that Weddell is not a historian). I would be grateful if you could comment that the reference is in fact a WP:RS but that previous editors have not reflected what the source had said. I would agree with your assessment in that respect and will do some more research to see if those claims are valid. I am hesitant to remove them immediately as it seems that sources have been removed from that article by User:Langus-TxT with the aim of removing claims he sees as contrary to his own beliefs. I saw that previously at Talk:History of the Falkland Islands. Regards, BedsBookworm (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, but they cannot be used as a citation for interpretation not in the source. As those sentences had substantial interpretive claims, then it is appropriate to either remove or replace the source per WP:PRIMARY, or to remove the interpretive part of the claim, leaving a more verifiable assertion. It doesn't matter if the claims are against his or your beliefs if they are unsourced. It's not appropriate to give a primary source alone to an interpretive claim as a remedy for its unsourced status. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree but if you look at the history of multiple articles on this subject, that editor cites WP:PRIMARY alone as a reason for removing sources, claiming you can't use primary sources. This is in cases where the statement made in the sources are quoted verbatim and there is no interpretation. On reflection I think you're right, on the basis of a quick read of Weddell, I thought it was good enough. It clearly isn't. Unless his interpretation of WP:PRIMARY is corrected he'll keep on doing it. BedsBookworm (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The shortcut WP:PRIMARY is a policy that explains the use of primary sources. If an interpretive claim is being made that is not supported by a primary source, then WP:PRIMARY says not to use it. No source can be considered a reliable source for a claim it doesn't make. And if it's an interpretation of the source, it can't have the source as the citation per WP:PRIMARY. Was there a non-interpretive claim reference that was removed citing WP:PRIMARY? If not, there was no problem citing it as the reason to remove a specific citation. And a source isn't given blanket allowance as a RS, it always depends on the context and the claim it's being used to support. If an editor challenged the use of a primary source because it was being used to support interpretive non-primary material then that editor was correct to cite WP:PRIMARY__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Joe E Ross

I think you made a mistake. The source of that citation is an extremely legitimate news source, WFMU, not the Examiner. The editor who came over and commented on the talk page said the Examiner, but I can't find any proof it was every published there. In addition, the author of the report is Kliph Nesteroff, a writer considered to be a show-business expert. This discussion was whether or not this blog from a reputable news source counted as a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. I said it did per Wikipedia Identifying Reliable Sources guidelines, which state "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write." --SouthernNights (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I should add that all of this is irrelevant to Joefromrandb's behavior. I'm happy to discuss the issue of the reliability of this source with any and all editors. But I don't like any editor attacking others, which hurts any attempt to reach consensus. Thanks for taking part in the discussion on the article's talk page.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Turns out the editor who'd commented about the Examiner introduced the edits to that unreliable source. I'd missed that edit and didn't realize it'd happened, hence my confusion. I've re-inserted the original info and source, which is that WFMU article. So the question then comes down to whether or not that WFMU article is reliable.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

SouthernNights, I agree there are behavior issues to discuss. But as you've figured out the article (as it stood when I encountered it) had material solely sourced to a blacklisted source: Mel Neuhaus (April 7, 2011). "OOOOH! OOOOH!...DVD Takes a Spin With Car 54". New York Examiner. I didn't remove the sentence that was sourced to WFMU and am happy to talk about its reliability on the talk page. I would add that the material I removed wasn't an accurate version of material in the WMFU source, even if we consider it a reliable source. And you should know that the material looked like it was taken more directly from the Examiner.com site than the WMFU site, which would account for the misquotes. We should sort out what WFMU actually says before re-introducing errors of fact taken from the bad source.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. I thought I'd quoted correctly, but feel free to take out anything I goofed up. I re-inserted because that Examiner issue seemed to be adding unneeded confusion. I'd also like to add more positive info about the subject's life but he's very hard to find personal information on. Not trying to cause you any trouble on all this, and thanks for looking into the issues here.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, no worries. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the article has reached consensus. Thanks for your help. However, I'm frustrated at how the other admins are taking Joefromrandb's attacks as no big deal. I'm happy to work with people on articles and, if I'm wrong I'll admit it. That WFMU article, while still a reliable source, had issues which I hadn't considered until you pointed them out. If Joefromrandb had simply kept a civil head and not attacked editors, this would have been resolved earlier and painlessly. But it appears the other admins consider his responses appropriate, which is frustrating. Am I misinterpreting what I consider attacks by him? --SouthernNights (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the people I thought were other admins defending him on the Admin Noticeboard are regular editors. My mistake. But that doesn't change my concern. Am I wrong about what I thought of as attacks by him?--SouthernNights (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

SouthernNights, I think you're correct to see the behavior as disruptive and needlessly confrontational. From his history, I see that he's uncivil whether it's a point I agree with or not, so I don't feel it's about content. Here's my opinion on what might be happening: You pointed out that this user has had multiple blocks over past months; this means there are admins who have taken this type of behavior as more than "no big deal" and presumably would for a shown pattern of future incidents. Some editors may be inured to it, in the "belligerent Thanksgiving uncle" sense. Other admins who are concerned about his behavior might be waiting for the clearest possible re-offense so they're not getting into a dispute over sanctions in a borderline case, or waiting for the smaller interactions to pile up into a pattern that can't be argued with per Wikipedia:ROPE. I think many editors recognize the incivility as inappropriate. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mano people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mande (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) 09:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

David Jewett

I don't believe you're entirely correct in removing all of the comments on Jewett related to the Uranie. Weddell does comment that the ceremony was calculated to re-inforce the claim on the Uranie. I've added some material back sourced to a secondary source I've found. In addition, I think you've thrown the baby out with the bath water removing the copyvio. It would appear to have removed a significant view that is in the literature; its certainly something that has received a lot of press [1] [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Would it not have been better to copy edit to remove it? Regards, BedsBookworm (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not how copy vio works. You remove it before Wikipedia gets sued, you don't keep it in while you mess around with it. I didn't remove most of that, but I certainly don't think removing Wikipedia-endangering text is a bad thing. I think you can agree that plagiarism is inappropriate, and the editor who added it has been indefinitely blocked.
As for your links, that looks like a series of letters-to-the-editor between an extremely pro-Falkland Island pair of non-peer-reviewed writers and a former member of Argentina's government. Do you want to add them both for balance? __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Mylawsuit.com

Hi, Elaquaete. Thanks for helping edit Mylawsuit.com. You removed several secondary citations because the text for which they were cited did not make specific claims. Instead of deleting the references, could you please consider looking into those secondary sources to see whether the references should be cited for specific claims? Thanks!

--Vindeniträden (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

1. If the only claim is that coverage was had, it's not a notable claim. 2. The point isn't to put in citations you think are interesting; it's to have a neutral and verifiable article. Citations are meant to verify the claims; it's not the responsibility of anyone to pull interesting things out of sources you provide. You have it backwards. 3. If your content has been reverted please discuss before re-inserting, as you have done. __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Got it. I’ll take a look into the citations myself and see whether they make any worthwhile claims. --Vindeniträden (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. (And since sources can always be added in later if a new statement is made, there's never a strong reason to "preserve" them in the mainspace until that happens.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 06:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dock Ellis

This is not the first time I've noticed you editing an article right after I have made a change. Is this a coincidence?Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh you know...you comment on the main BLP noticeboard a lot so I sometimes check your history to see if you've actually made a particular change you've discussed. If I see something else interesting I might comment. The incidents aren't related, so I suppose that's the exact definition of coincidental. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit creepy,Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think the last time I noticed an edit of yours you were blanking sections in pages. So I remember checking back then to see if vandalism was habitual (which I think is an appropriate thing to check for) but I don't generally care what you do, as long as you're generally within policy. Are you saying you'd like me to stop editing in some way? __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like for you to stop following me altogether, it's creepy. So stop.20:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't and am not following you. That's an unfair assessment. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Then I trust this will be the last time you ever appear right after me at a low profile article. Ever.