{{collapse top|Let others decide. I am taking a break from that article.}}
You mentioned that there's an issue "about our earlier dispute which managed to confuse two editors who participated in the discussion" - which I believe is this
You mentioned that there's an issue "about our earlier dispute which managed to confuse two editors who participated in the discussion" - which I believe is this
Revision as of 05:12, 23 October 2016
I am primarily interested in editing WP pages on philosophy, history, and literature.
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.
Sorry I didn't step in to defend you, or get involved in any other way for that matter. I see you got banned, and if I'm honest I could see it coming. And if you being banned had anything to do with them thinking you were me, I apologise. I've no information to think that was the case, since I'm also banned, but honestly, seeing how they dealt with me, I really wouldn't put it past them to be so stupid. On the wider point, if I were you, I really wouldn't bother with Citizendium, it's a dead duck, and has been for years it seems. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sur les femmes 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. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted
ABEditWiki, i am afraid real life commitments take precedence over WP. Thanks for remembering me, and good to see you around as well. I saw your comment on the talk page of 'Caste System in India', my suggestion is not to bother with this article anymore and leave it for posterity to make the necessary corrections. Soham321 (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, true that regarding the article. Well, may not be even so. Guide me appropriately and I am okay to spend some time over it. Give me pointers on how to go about it in wiki. Thanks ABTalk14:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My advise to you is to leave that article for posterity to correct. If you still insist on working on it, then my suggestion is to talk to Twobells. He had some good ideas about how to improve this particular article, and his ideas were tallying with your views on the subject. He is also as enthusiastic about this topic as you, so it might be a fruitful collaboration. Soham321 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Soham321. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Muhammad Ali:The Glory Years, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
I have no experience with WP's bots or scripts. Every single edit I've made since day one has been done manually, although sometime I would like to learn about automating such repetitive tasks. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muhammad Ali vs. Richard Dunn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Dunn (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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali vs. Oscar Bonavena 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?16:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann08 I have earlier confirmed from a senior Admin that what i am doing is *not* canvassing since i am using neutral language when seeking feedback and since i am not doing selective pinging, but only pinging those who have edited other Ali related articles. (In fact, had i not pinged you i could have been accused of canvassing for doing selective pinging.) But as per your request i will not ping you any more if any feedback related to an Ali article is sought by me. Soham321 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A Bluegrass Barnstar for you!
The Bluegrass Barnstar
For the creation and improvement of many articles covering Muhammad Ali's boxing matches. Ali is pretty much Louisville's favorite son, and I for one am delighted that you have put all this time into creating such valuable content about him. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassius Clay vs. Willi Besmanoff 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?20:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassius Clay vs. Alex Miteff 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?20:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassius Clay vs. Alonzo Johnson 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?20:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassius Clay vs. Donnie Fleeman 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?22:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cassius Clay vs. Jim Robinson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Robinson (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.
I made this edit to reflect what was said in the three different sources that were used in Ivana's section. One was "Ivana Trump was married to Donald Trump from 1977 to 1992. {ref name="NPR List" /} "
I'm wondering if there were aspects that weren't finalized until 1992, final settlement, etc.
Can you help me sort out why the New York Times might have said in 1990 that the divorce was finalized, but recent sources say that the divorce was finalized in 1992? I ask because you seem to know much more about this than I do.
CaroleHenson, Let's start with the New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/12/nyregion/trumps-get-divorce-next-who-gets-what.html Now it says in the beginning: "After 11 months of turbo-charged rumors and worldwide publicity over their separation, Donald and Ivana Trump were granted a divorce yesterday." However, near the end (third paragraph from the end), it says: "Mr. Trump's lawyer, Jay Goldberg, said he was not optimistic about negotiating a settlement with Mrs. Trump. "I do not see any alternative but a trial," he said, although he added that he would ask the judge to dismiss any further proceedings."
So what we can gather from this is that the divorce had been granted in 1990 based on the agreed ground of divorce, which was uncontested ("Cruel and inhuman treatment by Mr. Trump was cited as the grounds for the uncontested divorce."); but the financial settlement negotiations had not concluded. These only concluded in 1992 as per the other two sources.So when the other two sources say the divorce proceedings concluded by 1992, they are right; but these were divorce proceedings related to the financial settlement. The actual divorce (which involved determining the ground for divorce) had been granted in 1990 as per the New York Times article.Soham321 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why the 1990 year is important is that Trump was free to re-marry after his divorce in 1990. He did not need to wait until the financial settlement negotiations concluded to be able to remarry. Soham321 (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is so weird. I get your point, but anytime there's a question about things like this - I've been told to generally rely on the more recent sources, but provide a note about the discrepancy. I made this edit which uses the recent source's 1992 date in the body of the article.
It would be really good to find a source that mentions the 1990 date and the 1992 date - what you say makes sense, but it would be good to get a source that ties all this together. I'll check around and see if I can find something, based on your summary of the situation. Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson(talk)23:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have it, based on your summary - I get it. People said "The Trumps won’t reach a final financial settlement until after April 11, 1991, their next date in court." Lovely, thanks!--CaroleHenson(talk)23:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I am going to try and find a source for the "cruel and unusual" sentence from Ivana or her attorney. If I don't find one, it's fine. But since the section is about Ivana, it would be good to get her input on that. I summarized the info in the article on that topic, I don't know if you saw that. I appreciate the other changes to the article and so quickly helping me sort out the years of their divorce/settlement, much appreciated!--CaroleHenson(talk)00:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson,Do you want to change the line "Ivana Trump was married to Donald Trump from 1977 to 1992" (first line in the Ivana Trump section) to "Ivana Trump was married to Donald Trump from 1977 to 1990" since the article goes on to mention that the divorce had been finalized by 1990 meaning both of them were free to remarry despite the ongoing financial settlement negotiations which did not conclude till 1992?
I made this edit. How does that work for you? Another by the way, I posted that summary that we got to together on the talk pages of Donald and Ivana's articles, with the goal of: 1) ensuring that I'm not missing anything and 2) seeing if they want to clarify (Ivana) or correct (Donald) the information on their articles - so that people don't read different things in different articles.--CaroleHenson(talk)00:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make 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. Please ensure that you are not duplicating information where Trump's reactions are stated in the accuser's sections, mixing up the Trump affliliate's subsections, removing citations from the article, and making POV issues by the heavy-handed addition of information.CaroleHenson(talk)01:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a note that can be used more than once
Hi,
Here's how you create a note that can be used more than once:
{{efn|Barton James says that on cold days you should wear a coat. On warm days, not so much.<ref>citation</ref>|name="James comment"}} It doesn't matter what the name is, but it's nice if it's somehow descriptive of the content. You establish the main text and the name once.
{{efn| |name="James comment"}} Then, use a shorthanded version with just the name and no content. I put a space to ID the lines (I forget what they are called at the moment), and it may be that it's better not to have a space (i.e., it could be considered a value for text.)
I removed the section you were commenting on. Please read WP:Canvassing before you accuse someone. The person that I was talking to is off-line and would have known from past experience as I mentioned known that I was asking for advice, NOT to get involved in the discussion. If you prefer to take this up with the WP:Canvassing talk page, that might be a solution that would give you more excitement to pursue this undeserved claim.--CaroleHenson(talk)20:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see now why you are upset. I should have not worded the Teahouse posting that way and I had not remembered that I had. That was wrong. I wouldn't have considered it canvassing, but the way it's worded could surely have been taken that way. I apologize for that. My unfortunate wording might be the reason it was deleted before anyone could respond.
The person that I was pinging is not an American - and has no horse in the race and I knew would not get involved in the discussion, that's why I chose them. I still do not believe this was canvassing.
Regarding the Teahouse posting, you have helped me to ensure that any postings that I make in a public arena are as measured and objective as if I was posting to the article talk page.--CaroleHenson(talk)21:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, is it all right with you if i request an uninvolved Admin to look into whether your ping to Sitush constituted canvassing? The purpose is only to help both of us get familiar with what is canvassing, and what is not, so as to help both of us in any future editing we do on WP. Soham321 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to say, because this seems like it could become a tit-for-tat discussion. You got things resolved by opening up the "Dispute" discussion. I thanked you for that, because that was a good way to handle it. I said I was wrong about the Teahouse posting. I gave you the link to my request from an individual, because I truly felt that you weren't going to let this die. And, I'm right. I'm not ashamed for asking for help from a non-American who regularly deals with these kind of issues about editing. If I asked an American for help, I would be rallying with you against me.--CaroleHenson(talk)00:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, I am not trying to quarrel with you. I am only attempting to help both of us understand what constitutes canvassing since i continue to think your ping to Sitush constituted canvassing, and you clearly believe your ping to Sitush was not canvassing. If we ask an uninvolved Admin for feedback on whether the ping to Sitush constituted canvassing, it would help both of us understand WP:CANVASS better. This would help both of us in any future editing we do on WP. As far as Sitush's view of canvassing is concerned, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kenfyre/Archives/2015/July#Caste_System_in_India . Specifically, Sitush's comment: "OK, I'm now going to be reporting people for canvassing. The three of you have already demonstrated dubious competence levels and this is just not on."Soham321 (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to your assessment of where we're at. How about it we call a truce. I won't place that kind of comment on a user's page again as it relates to any Donald Trump discussion? I love your solution for getting input from the talk page and I will use that in the future instead.
However, if feel it's important - go ahead. You'll notice that in my comment I never asked you not do an outreach - and I provided you the link to that edit early on.--CaroleHenson(talk)00:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, I shared my concern with you, and since you have accepted it in a positive manner, this issue comes to an end as far as i am concerned. I appreciate the fact that you took into account my concern in a positive manner.Soham321 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! Thank you!
Just in case you see this edit, this is someone who sees the issue differently than I do. He wants the section deleted entirely, I think that there should be some reference to Jane Doe.--CaroleHenson(talk)00:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let others decide. I am taking a break from that article.
You mentioned that there's an issue "about our earlier dispute which managed to confuse two editors who participated in the discussion" - which I believe is this
"The talk page discussions have not been fruitful, despite my pinging every editor who had done any editing on the talk page. For instance, with respect to the first dispute, Mandruss wrote "This looks like one of those things where I feel over my head, so I think I'll sit this one out." And J mareeswaran completely misunderstood the first dispute thinking it is an organization-related dispute, and not the content dispute that it was as you and I both pointed out to him. I support the views expressed by Isaidnoway and Zigzig20s on this page; both of these editors have expressed concerns about bias in the main article."
Could you help me understand what the issue is? Did I pull the right pieces together? Once we can get a clear statement of the issue, we can take it back to the talk page. It just seems like it needs a little sussing out.--CaroleHenson(talk)01:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. We had a detailed discussion on the talk page of the article and we were unable to reach an agreement. I am not going to revisit that discussion again. Let other editors weigh in and decide consensus. This is too important an article for unresolved disputes to be settled by you and me on my talk page. Soham321 (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I did want to talk to you in good faith about this and have a better understanding, particularly since you brought it up again. I have a career in consulting that is probably getting in my way. I hear a problem, I want to help.--CaroleHenson(talk)01:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
