User talk:E.M.Gregory: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:02, 16 October 2015

Welcome!

Hello, E.M.Gregory, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Death of Binyamin Meisner for deletion

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

Hi, Thanks for weighing in on the Backwaters Press article. I too think it is clearly notable and have done alot of work recently to preserve an outdated entry which unfortunately brought out the cry for deletion when it was updated. By the way, I have also been working on the Matt Mason (article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Mason_%28poet%29) which needs more work if it is to survive I fear and the article on Mayapple Press (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayapple_Press). Also in my sandbox, I have a new article readied on the Parallel Press at the University of Wisconsin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edward_Dixon/sandbox). Please feel free to look at these and make edits or comments if you would like. Edward Dixon (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Binyamin Meisner 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tobi Kahn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington Heights (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) 09:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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) 13:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of David Mikics

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on David Mikics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 12 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the The Chosen Few (book) page, your edit caused a DOI error (help) and a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Queensland Press, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Carey (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) 09:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 15 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Melissa Jenkins Case page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Denholm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of New England (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) 09:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Barbara Hines

Hello E.M.Gregory,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Barbara Hines for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Jhona43 (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some falafel for you!

Thanks for putting through the Islamist moves. I previously tried re "Islamic terrorism" yet, despite getting most of the support, the move didn't go through. Hope things go better this time

Greg Kaye 19:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The good fight at Christian Terrorism

Thanks for wrestling that back from non-admin closure. On the opposite side of the coin is Rape jihad, a well-sourced article under attack which you may be interested in. Pax 22:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 27 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Jacqueline Bobak page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helene Wurlitzer Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taos (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) 08:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Template:Z33

thank you for the warning.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding voting in article AfD

Hello. Could you please add your opinion to the AfD vote for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the succession of Abu Bakr. I only ask this because i noticed you voted on a similar hadith issue. Thanyou.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandra Bowden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marian (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) 09:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Yaacov Kaufman

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Yaacov Kaufman, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Callmemirela (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Death of Chris Currie

Hello, E.M.Gregory. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Death of Chris Currie, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
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.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this article because it is substantially the same as the article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Currie. If you believe that AfD reached the wrong conclusion, or you have new evidence for the notability of the subject, you should raise an appeal at WP:DRV.-gadfium 21:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 13 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Criminal rock throwing page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 14 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M. William Phelps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Showtime (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) 09:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC

Thanks

Hello E.M. Gregory, Thanks for your encouragement with my first Wiki entry (Lois de Menil). It's a steep learning curve, but I hope to put these new skills to use on other entries down the line. I appreciate your kind words. Vwikiv (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]

Reference errors on 21 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Journal of Young Investigators page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

To E.M.Gregory: I'm afraid I may be botching this by adding a 'new section' to your talk page, but wasn't sure how to respond to a talk message. At any rate, thank you very much for the encouraging words with regard to editing pages overall, and your support regarding the Mandel page. I'm grateful. (Do you know if there is a point where, if others concur, the Articles Proposed for Deletion tag can be removed?). Thanks once again, and best wishes. ReidWilliam ReidWilliam (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is. An AFD is allowed to run for 7 days (although it can be closed sooner if an article is rapidly tidied up and really persuasive secondary sources are added to the page) Ordinarily, After ~ 7 days, an editor will swing by and, if participating editors have come to a consensus, keep or delete it. If they have not reached consensus, or if too few editors have by and expressed opinions, the comment period will be extended, but sooner or later, an editor will make a decision to close the AFD discussion as: delete, keep, or "no consensus". If "no consensus" the article will be kept for the nonce in the hope that with time notability or lack thereof will become clear.

Think of it as like a legal proceeding, with judges doing their best. Topics (in this case, a writer) are judged not according to whether the commenting editor thinks that the writer is wonderful or dreadful, but according to whether reliable secondary sources discussing the writer exist. See WP:AUTHOR but also WP:GNG which might cover an author whose work is not highly regarded, but who has been profiled, repeatedly, in the press for some other reason. What the page needs to stay up is not articles by Mandel, but articles about him or about something he has written. He need not be the sole topic of such an article, there might, for example, be a short discussion of his work or life in an an article about writers who live in Providence. Interviews with him published in reputable publications. And book reviews in reputable publications.

The article is tagged for cleanup. Think of it as a writing exercise. You are being asked to write an article about Peter Mandel, his life and career. But zero creativity on your part. Every fact, from where he lives to what sort of writing he does must be drawn from the source(s) that appear at the end of every sentence.

There is indeed a real deadline here. 7 days after the AFD began, an editor can close it as delete. After that - even though good sources not now on the page exist - getting an article on Mandel back up will be a major production.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, again

To E.M.Gregory: Your explanation, above, and all of the information you were kind enough to provide is much appreciated. Thank you, again. I'll get back to work, and will try to be as careful as possible. Best wishes,ReidWilliam (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To E.M.Gregory: Thanks, again, for your assistance and support. Just fyi, I'm continuing to work on adding links re: notability and on 'wikifying' the Mandel page, while repairing the footnotes and numbering. (I think I've finally figured that aspect out.) Bear with me, please. ReidWilliam (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To E.M.Gregory and Fayenatic london: Thanks to you both for the editing and formatting help re: the Mandel page, and for your latest round of comments. With regard to notability, I've gone back and done a bit more research. Since it sounds like book reviews in major periodicals, significant awards, and work being anthologized are key, I've found some other relevant citations that I hadn't been aware of. These include several more of the author's books being reviewed in Publishers Weekly, Kirkus and The Horn Book; three journalism awards; and an anthology and edited collection that include the author's work. Am working on double-checking the citations. Please, if you would, give me a few hours on this. Many thanks. ReidWilliam (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To E.M.Gregory and Fayenatic london: More to come, but as noted above, I've done some further research. With regard to the notability question, I've added citations for several more reviews of Mandel's books in major journals (Publishers Weekly, Kirkus). Have put these under 'External Links' so as not to disrupt the formatting. As well, I've added citations, under 'Other Works,' for two edited anthologies that include the author's work. One is an older collection of animal related essays in the "Chicken Soup" series, the other a recent anthology of travel journalism. There's another anthology, and two other journalistic awards that have popped up as well; am currently at work on verifying them. Thanks again for your patience. ReidWilliam (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory and Fayenatic london: With regard to notability, as mentioned above, I've added citations for two more Lowell Thomas awards from The Society of American Travel Writers. Articles of Mandel's for The Washington Post won bronze Lowell Thomas awards in 2003 and 2006. (Not that you perhaps care, but these are, at least given the evidence I've encountered, the premier national awards for American travel journalism.) Thanks for your patience, and best wishes. ReidWilliam (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To E.M.Gregory: Many thanks for all of your advice and support re: the page on children's book author/travel journalist Mandel. I hope you'll forgive my showing up on your talk page again. I wondered if there might be any chance at all of getting that page out of purgatory (?). Looking back at the history, it looks as if it was first proposed for deletion on April 20, 2015; and that a week long extension was added to that on April 29th. It's been, I guess, a little more than 18 days now overall w. what seems to be a sort of stalemate from editors. To further bolster notability during this period, I've worked to add in citations for several reviews of the author's children's books in major journals, three edited anthologies that include articles and/or essays of his, and two more Lowell Thomas awards from The Society of American Travel Writers (which as far as I can tell, are the major national awards for American travel journalism.) Again, my apologies for taking up so much of your time with regard to the page. Thanks and best wishes. ReidWilliam (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To E.M.Gregory: Thanks very much for explaining that. Doesn't sound too promising, but I'm grateful for all your help--and for the clarity. Best wishes, ReidWilliam (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your view on reliable sources

To E.M.Gregory: The discussion about the entry for Lois de Menil continues and I would like to ask your opinion. The debate centers around the definition of reliable sources. The latest sources I have added include UNESCO proceedings and an exhibition catalogue from an art show at the Grand Palais, a major Paris museum. One wiki editor contends that this does not qualify as "mainstream, widely available, archival sources." I am having trouble seeing why Wikipedia would weigh a Vanity Fair article more heavily than a UNESCO proceeding. What is your take on this? Do you agree with the editor's interpretation of reliable source, or do you think there is room for interpretation here? I don't ask this question with the intention of getting you to lean in my favor, only to get another opinion, as I have valued your contributions to the discussion thus far. Vwikiv (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Vwikiv[reply]

A page you started (Christians in the Visual Arts) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Christians in the Visual Arts, E.M.Gregory!

Wikipedia editor Bfpage just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice beginning for this new article. I would like to suggest that you include an organizational template as part of the article: Template:Infobox organization to provide more information about your organization. God Bless! - a Christian artist

To reply, leave a comment on Bfpage's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your contributions to the debate during the AfD discussion of the M. William Phelps article. AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen Denmark Temple

Hi! Thanks for your continuing efforts across WP. I noticed your good-faith addition to the article on the Copenhagen Denmark Temple. I started to clean it up a bit, but then wondered what the intent of the addition is and whether it actually should be retained in the article? Is this primarily to try and help establish notoriety, to address the sourcing and other concerns? I think there would be some question (such as ^[who?], ^[when?] or ^[how?]) the asserted notability was obtained. I don't know the author or her book, so obviously not the referenced story. Is the temple notable because of something in the story, or did the young missionary just happen to work in this temple? I also wonder about how a book detailing someone's story about leaving the Mormon Church helps establish the notability of a specific temple. Thanks for any clarifying thoughts you might have. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Important missing information for "Richard K. Diran"

Hello, I can see that you've made great contributions to the Richard K. Diran wiki page and wanted to share more information, which would make wikipedia more valuable. The book Bangkok Babylon is used in many citations on Diran's wikipage, yet I don't think anyone has read the book thoroughly. I found a link from Google books which shows part of the interview with Mr. Diran in Bangkok Babylon, and certain things which he had stated that would correlate with the stolen Buddha and smuggled antiquities. Here is the link. https://books.google.com/books?id=eYDQAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT8&lpg=PT8&dq=romancing+the+stones+diran+bangkok&source=bl&ots=gf3J13jHBq&sig=tAYzbKwDOW6Wx2p6lC075LSB_6A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PKwVYejEYmfsAW4yoCYAw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=romancing%20the%20stones%20diran%20bangkok&f=false I have also found a webpage that discusses Mr. Diran's history, which may also be of value to you. http://stopsexslaveryofchildren.org/richard-k-diran.html

P.S. it seems that RickBrown has been deleting many important documented pieces from Diran's wiki page. I think he is working with Diran to remove the truth that may harm his reputation Thank you for helping to make wikipedia more accurate and dependable.Jjjulie6 (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 28 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Josh Levs page, your edit caused a URL error (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lynn Wilder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muncie (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) 09:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 4 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Ballet Magnificat! page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of diplomats

Hi E.M.Gregory.

I actually watched this happen—the deletion of an ambassador's page—to Ian Biggs the other day. According to Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability, the office itself doesn't automatically confer notability upon the office holder. I'm not what you would call a 'deletionist' but I didn't put up a fight, as I couldn't find any media about Biggs that would make him seem notable aside from as an office holder (I was expecting some news articles about some of the things he had done on post, but couldn't find any).

The re-direct suggestion on Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability is an odd one, however, because many diplomats in Australia have held several posts - so where would you redirect to? For example, for Anne Plunkett - would you link to Ireland, Holy See or Portugal? - you cannot redirect to all three.

Oh, and for Plunkett, the additions you have made I would suggest are helpful establishing notability - for example that she accepted a Papal Rebuke on behalf of the Australian people for its treatment of Aboriginal people. Clare. (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only referencing on the Ian Biggs page was the ministerial press statements announcing his appointments.

Also, sounds frustrating your edits being deleted if they are fully sourced, suggest put them back in (with sourcing), and add a quick section to the talk page with your justification. Don't use edits to fight with other editors, though—disagreements should be resolved through discussion (see Wikipedia:Edit warring).

I'm watching the page now too, and will see if I can dig up any good sources and add some information when I next get a chance (probably tomorrow sometime).

Good luck and happy editing! Clare. (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.

I posted these templates here because of your behavior on Criminal rock throwing regarding the low-quality picture which you seem adamant on re-adding. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A difference of opinion between two editors. I put an illustrative photo on the page criminal rock throwing. I found the photo at the page riot. It shows two young Frenchmen holding, presumably preparing to throw - rocks during an anti Sarkozy demonstration in Paris. DBresser's complaint is that it is dark. But the photo is at night, when riots often occur, and it is a good, clear photo. I am not sure why DBresser brought its here, rather than keeping it on the article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erez Israeli

Hello, I've noticed you've put a hyperlink tag to Givon Art Gallery in this article. Currently there is no such article in Wikipedia. Are you going to create it, or I am going to revert the edit. Thank you Eran Shakine|Arthistorian1977]] (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arthistorian1977Creating the article now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rachel Jacobs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rachel Jacobs 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/Rachel Jacobs (2nd nomination) 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. John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing the Rachel Jacobs article

User:E.M.Gregory, in response to the comment you posted on the AfD, what is needed in the article is adding background information from newspapers and magazines written about her prior to her death, not just adding more sources to the existing content on the page. The sentences in the Rachel Jacobs article are beginning to look over-sourced. This is just a friendly suggestion. Loading it with references for the existing content will not save the article. In the meantime, I will continue adding content with sources, not the reverse (adding sources to content already there and already sourced). Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

You may not have noticed my follow-up response here. -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

I noticed that a couple of AfDs you started last week Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Shawki (socialist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Socialist Review (1997) were missing headers. This prevents the AfDs from showing properly on pages sucg as this, and may have other impacts as well. I suspect that a step in the initial AfD creation was missing. I added headers manually, which hopefully will resolve the issue. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Museum of Contemporary Religious Art

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Museum of Contemporary Religious Art requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Compassionate727 (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Roscoe

I removed the content you added because I feel it is not the kind of content that should be put in the article's lead. Weegeerunner (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, E.M.Gregory. You have new messages at Weegeerunner's talk page.
Message added 16:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Weegeerunner (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Ballpark Synagogue

Hello! Your submission of Ballpark Synagogue at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Seattle (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating article! I was going to review it for DYK, but got interested in the sources and did some expansion instead. Whenever something is listed on the NRHP, it's important to include some architectural details, which I added. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, no interior shots; I just drove past, got this image and one other that I didn't upload, and drove off to the next site on West LaSalle Avenue. Thanks for including the link; until I followed it, I assumed that you'd left a note for the wrong person :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for initiating and developing the Alice Goffman article. Hopefully the article will become more balanced as it is developed further... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

[1]. Please be careful :) duffbeerforme (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... listis The American Muslim for deletion. I have tried , and failed, utterly failed, to list it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 3 and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/News media. And please tell me where I went wrong.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have listed it a half-dozen times. Please cease attempting to fix it and let me clean things up. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the instruction on voting on a deletion page. And also for the The Writer's Barnstar. It's great to have the entries on linguists noticed! LingLass (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D Seaman

I'll keep it short: what do you consider "disputed"? Please clarify, otherwise please do consider removing the tag.
- If it is Seaman's biographical data: it is not supported by any citation, but shouldn't be too controversial (Jewish, US, Israel, jobs & awards). He commented his own edits several times in the first person singular ("I know best where I live").
- If you mean his verbal attacks and his controversial acts as a leading govt. employee, those are all very well backed up by citations.
So please, before making readers mistrust a page which contains only undisputed, or disputed but well backed facts, do more than drop a tag and leave it to its own devices. I will be happy to give you more info. Should you chose though to stay out of this, I will consider that it's OK to remove that tag. Thank you. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

Hi. I'm on my way out from WP, but some very few articles I'm keeping an eye on. Daniel Seaman is a top "hasbara" right-winger who always allowed his political inclinations to take precedence over civility. Just read the quotes mentioned in the article, and these are just a selection. He treated every perceived "enemy" with the basest type of expletives, f-words included, dissenting journalists were refused Israeli press cards not in an open manner, but by intentional foot-dragging techniques, etc. He was supposed to head the new Israeli department created to coordinate a project having foreign students and such from Israel fluent in foreign languages work anonymously and for pay from the government, and promote right-wing positions through the online media such as Facebook, Twitter and different forums, when the Japanese gov. strongly protested his rude postings and he had to be ousted, rather unwillingly, by his pals in the Netanyahu government. He is a skillful media man, fully taken by his "mission", short-tempered, rude, who knows how to use rhetorical means to give any story the "right" (forgive the pun) twist. Now out of a government position, he is heading a new private online radio station. No problem with that, except that since 1947 the name "Voice of Israel", in Hebrew "Kol Israel", is already taken! It was and still is the name of the official radio broadcast. They (he?) are using the twist that "Kol Israel" is a registered mark, while its widely used English translation "Voice of Israel" apparently isn't explicitly so. That's Seaman at his best for you, even if the idea wasn't maybe his. Now listeners of this strongly right-wing station, staffed with Anglo editors able to sugarcoat their message, are easily and intentionally confused into believing that they are listening to a government-sponsored, vetted and neutral radio station.
Mr Seaman's WP page, until taken under scrutiny by a few people after the scandal hit the fan due to the Haaretz article, was a purely self-crafted CV, maybe even a copy-and-paste version of the CV he used when applying for a job. Every now & then, either Mr Seaman himself or somebody from his circles "drops by", always anonymously (without an editor's account) and tries to remove every last bit of info from the page that sounds like criticism. You are the first one in years who suggests rewriting the page, while using a proper WP name and account with contributions on more than just ONE single topic: Mr DS. There is a well-oiled and -financed, govt-sponsored machinery of online "hasbara" on one side, and a number of individual editors on the other. Please do keep that in mind, should you insist in redoing this article. Of course, by pasting together bits of Mr DS's sanitised own CV, next to his every bit as real professional and verbal excesses and the criticisms they induced, creates a weird juxtaposition. But that's WP to you, as long as both sides are presenting well-sourced facts, they must stay next to each other, with no explanatory "binding sauce", which would be reverted as "bias" and "point of view".
Please notice that almost all facts regarding the life and official career are NOT SOURCED, they haven't been touched by me or any other critical editor so that we cannot be accused of bias. DS's horrible verbal excesses, as well as all other critical bits on the other hand, are all well sourced and proven. Imagine the page with all its unsourced data missing: you'd be left with just the controversies! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

Thanks

Hey thanks for your advice on the Devlin article, unfortunately an admin closed the discussion (which seemed unfair as people were still presenting evidence, I asked him to reconsider, but expect he'll just ignore me like the other WP users - unless you have a billion edits no one takes you seriously on this regardless of the strength or depth of an argument). Quirinus X (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I presented the Young Blood profile they closed it. Within minutes. I'll hang on to see if there's any more coverage, their convention is due soon. Have spent enough time on it tbh. Another page I created, Barry Saul, went through without a peep? Go figure. Quirinus X (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to improve article

Hi, You voted to delete this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nmwalsh/Annuity_Shopper_Buyer%27s_Guide on May 5 last. Any suggestions for improving it and making it acceptable? Nmwalsh (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ballpark Synagogue

On 14 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ballpark Synagogue, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the gift shop of the South Bend Cubs is located inside America's only Ballpark Synagogue? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ballpark Synagogue. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks, if you get a moment then give out a barnstar today. Victuallers (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Roscoe

I just went to my corner store for a quick junk food run, and something suddenly hit me: you talk about seeing a source in which Roscoe more or less disavowed the more flamboyant aspects of his early marketing bio. That's a source I'll admit to having missed out on — but what suddenly hit me is that it just might buy us a way forward after all: if we can actually source that he disavowed it, then that buys us a way to talk about the gay prostitute thing as a promotional hook instead of asserting it as simple biographical fact the way we did before. Could you throw me the citation details, if you have them handy, so that I can take a look at that article? Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canelo (Publisher)

You suggested deletion of the Canelo (Publisher)page. I've added to the discussion on the page itself, but any advice you have for making the article more appropriate would be much appreciated. We're keen to provide basic information without losing balance or making any exaggerated or biased claims. I've listed some of the coverage we've received as evidence of notability, and could provide further references if required. There will be further coverage (and excitement!) imminently, when we announce our first books. Thanks for your consideration. (Iainmillar18 (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)).[reply]

I take your point. The page needs immediate expansion from existing sources, and an info box with link to company page, logo, etc. How imminent? If it's a matter of days, you might mention it on the deletion discussion page. It cannot be an actual argument, just the fact that titles will be announced on such a day and the fact that there may be news coverage of the event. Wikipedia does not find a prediction that there will be coverage useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Roscoe at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Writing.ie

Hello, E.M.Gregory. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Writing.ie, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
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.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Benedict

Hi EM Gregory! Do you have any thoughts on this dispute? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.161.20.219 (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Hines (immigration attorney)

I have addressed the issues you flagged with Barbara Hines (immigration attorney). Can you remove the issue tags? Mbcoats (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Patrick Roscoe

Hello! Your submission of Patrick Roscoe at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on the DYK nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Monica Green (historian)

Hello, E.M.Gregory. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Monica Green (historian), for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Monica Green (historian) to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, ubiquity (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Max-Liebling House at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Max-Liebling House

Hello! Your submission of Max-Liebling House at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Smerus (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yehuda Leib Krinsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibn Ezra (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) 09:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting 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/2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting 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. nableezy - 20:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 20:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golden syrup

But... what's wrong with molasses being bitter and stronger than golden syrup? I like both! Der yck C. 08:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Bracewell Smith

This may one may have to be redirected to Smith_baronets#Smith_baronets.2C_of_Keighley.2C_Yorks_.2828_June_1947.29 and Charles Bracewell-Smith equally has issues while George's father Bracewell Smith looks a little better. My searches found this, this (first two results, passing) and this (mentions Charles Bracewell-Smith). Thoughts? SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shooting of Danny Gonen

Hello, E.M.Gregory. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Shooting of Danny Gonen, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
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.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing memorial articles

Hi, You can't use Wikipedia as a place to memorialise non-notable people just because you want to memorialise them. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Regarding article titles, see WP:TERRORIST. Zero^talk 15:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Danny Gonen is obviously not a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue that on the AfD page I just created. But the purpose of the page is pretty obvious. Zero^talk 16:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It has exactly the same purpose as my edits on 2015 Chattanooga shootings E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Danny Gonen. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post false accusations on my talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Max-Liebling House

Hello! Your submission of Max-Liebling House at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, E.M.Gregory. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Simon Cottee

As per your suggestion, I've created a stub article about Simon Cottee. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries

You just broke the 1RR rule at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. Expanding as well as reverting doesn't make it not a revert. I invite you to self-revert quickly so as to avoid being officially reported. Zero^talk 01:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see on the talk page, our edits were simultaneous.. I.E. I did not realize that you had removed the material when I clicked to add new material.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You and your cohort are , however to be congratulated, on effective WP:OWN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say the special rules on Arab-Israel related pages have the opposite effect of what they are claimed to have as their goal. Having such threats of sanctions if you edit means that editors who do not care deeply about the issues involved will run for their lives, and only editors who care deeply, which translates generally to editors who are very biased for one side or the other, are likely to make edits to the pages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly has that effect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discouragement

I am a little discouraged about the outcome of the Carroway discussion. Cavarrone's claims about LDS Living being "just a content aggregator" is false. It is a magazine that creates its own content. Related to this is the bizarre heading to the article on Hannah Clayson Smith that claims the article lacks references or sources. I made sure to wait until I had multiple ones before putting up the article. The best ones are connected with either the Becket Fund or the Deseret News, with a few others doing OK being BYU publications. No one else has yet bothered to give her much coverage, but her roles in various cases involving the Becket Fund does get a lot of reference. I have held off removing the totally bizarre claim to no references or sources because I have found that doing so often generates more push-back against an article. With the trajectory that the Becket Fund in on with a growing case load and more of them reaching it to the Supreme Court, the longer I can hold off on a facedown on the article the better off it will be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contraty to what Cavarrone says, I am not accusing everyone of bigotry. Only those who try to make blanket rules that exclude all Mormon created sources and Mormon friendly sources from being considered reliable. These people are a mix of willfully ignorant of Kellerism and believers in its principals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Add sources. Remove tag. I understand Deseret as a valid and reliable source on news, facts, although not accepted to establish the notability of church related topics. Carroway worked for a church-owned media company. I did have a problem with the refusal to accept non Church-owned news sources in that AFD. merely because they are in Utah.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you said elsewhere about discouraging editors is so true, User:Johnpacklambert I just has the experience of being so horrified by two article about terror attacks on Israelis. Extremely well-sourced articles showing links with demonstrated impact. One was immediately taken to AFD and deleted after a series of editors with intense views on the Middle East all voted to delete, and every usually neutral editor stayed away. I think it's not simply that the rules in that area are daunting for editors lacking partisan passion, I think it's the tone of the debate and the personal attacks that are visited on anyone who dabbles a toe into the Middle East.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Johnpacklambert Here's a bit of a theory to cheer you up. Mormons, like many people with serious commitments, are too busy running businesses, rearing children, and making sure the pantry of the local soup kitchen is full to have time to fight battles on Wikipedia.
Perhaps LDS Living just needs a better WP page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point about the tone. Just reading the calling of Israeli organizations as "not particularly known for telling the truth" and the like makes me so made, that I know there is no way I can calmly edit the issues. I try to keep up on AfDs, but there are a lot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robin N. Hamilton AfD debate

Hi user:E.M. Gregory,

I just wanted to reach out to see if you had a chance to read my rebuttal to your argument on your probable delete vote. I'd love to reach consensus to keep the article, and I've made a bunch of edits and laid out some arguments that I'm hoping will sway you to the Keep side. The article now has 30 references.

Thanks, Techtacular (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity article unsupported by sources - Lori St John

For your reference and ease in review I have compiled a list of just some of the secondary sources you will find Ms. Urs, now Lori St John. Mention of Lori Urs (now St John) in Secondary Sources

New England School of Law http://www.loristjohn.com/RDT-1.6.html?scp=1&sq=Joseph+O'Dell&st=nyt

http://www.loristjohn.com/RDT-1.3.html?scp=1&sq=Joseph+O'Dell&st=nyt, Urs referenced and acknowledged throughout the article as the reason one of 3, 000 death row cases became an international cause. See columns, 1, 3, and 4, noting: column 1: Days after the Supreme Court stayed O’Dell’s execution on Dec. 17, the New York Times reported “there can’t be many people left in Italy who never heard of O’Dell. The “nagging question” the story asked was “how this case was singled out for Italy’s’ national embrace. They need have looked no further than Urs, a driven woman who has dedicated her life to saving O’Dell’s. Column 2, O’Dell’s case was already known in Italy via the Internal... but but so too were the cases of more than 3,000 other Americans on death row across the country, and no one was demonstrating about any of them until Urs reached Farkas.” Column 3: After the story ran (front page story of the most widely circulated newspaper in Italy), Neri, a locally elected official representing the region of Umbria , called Farkas looking for Urs, and things took a political turn. Column 5- “ In January, Urs toured Italy to thank O’Dell supporter and drummed up more attention. Ferrarotti, the sociologist, appeared on a television show with Urs during the visit. He said Urs “captured the imagination of the Italian public at large. I was quite amazed myself. He said she was “very forceful, very attractive, obviously very dedicated and you know all of this put together somehow made an impact.” Leoluca Orlando, major of Palermo, made O’dell an honorary citizen.

Urs was invited by the Italian Parliament, who sponsored her trip, to tour the country of Italy. She began her tour in the President’s office, meeting with his aid, and then met with the President of the Senate, President of Constitutional Affairs and numerous high dignitaries throughout Italy, including doing a TV show with then Foreign Affairs Prime Minister Dini.

She was also invited twice to the Vatican, met the Secretary of State, who gave her a rosary from the Pope and was invited back to meet privately with Pope John Paul II, at the Vatican. She also received a phone call from Mother Teresa, in acknowledgement of her work, and invited her to stay with her in Calcutta. See The Corruption of Innocence, a Journey for Justice, pages 326, 338-9, 340, 441, 440-1, 417, 417, 427, 429,

World’s appeals can’t stay execution http://www.loristjohn.com/RDT-1.5.html?scp=1&sq=Joseph+O'Dell&st=nyt

Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.loristjohn.com/TPI-1.1.html

About Urs... read how her mission led her to take extraordinary measures to obtain the evidence for posthumous DNA testing.

A Jersey woman’s fight for justice http://blog.nj.com/perspective/2013/10/when_injustice_proves_too_diff.html

Urs (now St John )and her story, purchased for the film adaptation by J. Miles Dale http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/fl-creative-production-idUSnBw105718a+100+BSW20130910

Lori Urs debates evidence with Commonwealth Attorney Humphreys in Virginia, http://www.loristjohn.com/RDT-1.4.html

New York Times; Front page Lori Urs’ website page was the first to be noted for its uniqueness, reaching people worldwide, where a petition was started to fee O’Dell. This same web site was the one picked up by 24 hours in Cyberspace (see wikki) for her notability in touching human lives around the world. see the wikki article about 24 hours in Cyberspace http://www.loristjohn.com/NYT-1.1.html

Washington Post

see picture of Lori Urs with Sister Helen Prejean. She called a press conference and recruited the famous nun to join her cause to save Joseph O’Dell. http://www.loristjohn.com/NYT-1.1.html

International- Italy See http://www.loristjohn.com/ItalianMedia-5.1.html

Message to Lori Urs from Mother Teresa, who phoned her personally in August. http://www.loristjohn.com/Document-4.html

Lori Urs wrote an appendix to the U.S Supreme Court citing the factual errors in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in this brief summary she includes some of her legal research and investigation . http://www.loristjohn.com/Document-1.1.html

Book Reviews and other secondary sources

http://www.whomyouknow.com/2013/07/read-this-corruption-of-innocence.html#.VcJnls5cvyc

https://readersfavorite.com/book-review/the-corruption-of-innocence

http://www.lideamagazine.com/usa-book-expo-america-books-books-books-and-again-books-part-2/

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/books-corruption-innocence-joseph-odell-story

http://www.crimecasefiles.com/forum/life-on-death-row/47551-books-the-corruption-of-innocence-the-joseph-odell-story.html

See testimonials

http://www.loristjohn.com/index-bookreviews.html

Photographs of Lori Urs with Italy Parliament Members, and other High Dignitaries

Photographs with Lori Urs and Italian Parliament Members (and European Parliament member Leoluca Orlando (member of both parliaments).

http://www.loristjohn.com/index-3.html

see also her book.Galaxygirl0505 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kissufim tank ambush, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labor Party (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, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Meyuchas ben Samuel

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Raphael Meyuchas ben Samuel, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.thefullwiki.org/Meyuchas.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, E.M.Gregory. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 23:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ARISE Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria University (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) 09:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Metropolitan Museum of Art, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

Just FYI, you have broken WP:1RR on Susya. This edit was a revert of mine, this is a partial revert of this. You obviously know that both of these edits are disputed. Why the rush to add this? Discuss on the talk page and get consensus first. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not. I made several reverts of several different sections on the page. Mpt multiple reverts of any single item. Also, some of what I did was not reversion, but linking , tightening, and improving the prose of non-native English speakers for accuracy, non redundancy and intelligibility. I did not violate "1 revert).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "aggressive". I thought I was as non-aggressive as I could be. I will not report you, but you did indeed break WP:1RR. Ask any admin if you like. Be careful in the future, as other people are not as "aggressive" as me. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EMG, it doesn't matter if the reverts were in different sections. The rule counts reverts on the page, not reverts to particular parts of the page. Zero^talk 12:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zero.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Whitaker Page

I understand that you have continually undone by edits on Dr. Whitakers page, but my question is to ask why. I have done nothing but expand upon his other accomplishments in life, as well as created new sections about him. You continually have undone my changes, choosing to focus only on his controversies and none of his other successes in life. I have very respectfully wrote the sections, as well as addresses his controversies as well. I am trying to present all facts, not just focus on the bad. Thank you very much.

I had to create the new sections, as well as correct false information that was presented incorrectly. By clicking undo, you are choosing to focus on only the 'controversies" instead of reading the other information presented. You can not present the wrong information and call it "fact"

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasehunt1 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go read your talk page, and go familiarize yourself with Wikipedia. What you have don is to come to this encyclopedia, repeatedly blanked a page and replaced it with poorly sourced flackery. I can see that you edit from Arizona. Are you Matthew C. Whitaker, or a friend of his? If so, you do him no favors with your behavior here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     What I have done is expanded upon each area of his work and not dedicated 3 sections to "controversies". The controversies are still addressed under his career section, as well as sourced. I apologize if you are looking to only paint negative images, but I am looking to explain fully about different individuals. I am not Dr. Whitaker, and I do not appreciate you thinking that I am.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasehunt1 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Your recent editing history at Matthew C. Whitaker shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Matthew C. Whitaker

The article Matthew C. Whitaker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Having reviewed the article, the subject does not meet WP:PROF. As written, he is notable for being a plagiarist, which, while sourced, is WP:BLP1E, and the extent of the effect of that activity is grossly overstated.

While all constructive 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. MSJapan (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this editor is WP:HOUNDING me on multiple pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: It is not cool to leave this comment on the Susya talk page. You have never edited this page before, why make this comment there? This raises suspicions of WP:HOUNDING. Please don't do that, whatever your history might be with EMG. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: I added links so you would see why I made the comment. It is inappropriate for an editor to claim on one article that the bio sourced from the topic's workplace is basically hagiography and therefore remove it repeatedly, yet, on another article, when it suits his purpose, he has no issue with "self-description" and wants to keep exactly the same type of material in the article. That's the comment I left, and that's why I left it. MSJapan (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The material in question was an instance of an SPA blanking a page about an academic and replacing it with text lifted from that professor's university homepage. In all universities with which I am familiar, professors compose and maintain their own homepages. This one is a model of immodesty. and it produced not only a hagiographic WP page, but one on which the facts were unsourced. I have again requested, on MSJapan's talk page, that MSJapan cease WP:HOUNDING me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you made your own judgments about an official source based on what you personally thought, and decided not to include it because you thought it made the subject look too good? If you knew the added material was from the University, you had no right to delete it as unsourced, because it wasn't. You were dealing with an SPA with no editing experience whatsoever. You, on the other hand, had the obligation to add the source if you knew what it was or could find it, and yet you chose to delete the information. MSJapan (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan was wrong on every allegation. But seems to have realized that, or, at least, to have ceased Wikihounding and slandering me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

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.

John Plender (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Wiley and Paul Wallace

Susya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Yatta

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A word of warning

Reference errors on 21 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Alice Goffman page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Matthew C. Whitaker for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matthew C. Whitaker 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/Matthew C. Whitaker 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. MSJapan (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another instance of WP:HOUNDING by User:MSJAPAN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because we encourage editors to remove failed verification templates from articles they create. I've restored them, by the way. This is entirely about substandard editing. If you don't like being corrected about that, stop editing in a manner which is damaging the encyclopedia. MSJapan (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice 2

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush

The article 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS. Relatively minor attack in the context of Palestine-Israel conflict with no long-lasting notability

While all constructive 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. AusLondonder (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of SeaGlass Carousel

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on SeaGlass Carousel, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. AusLondonder (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 30 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

On the Peabody Museum of Natural History page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
On the Albert Eide Parr page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2012 Paros (Greece) rape for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2012 Paros (Greece) rape 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/2012 Paros (Greece) rape 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. AusLondonder (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of SeaGlass Carousel

The article SeaGlass Carousel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS local media coverage of a carousel opening does not entitle to an article. Highly promotional, including ride price and times and language such as "new"

While all constructive 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. AusLondonder (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know...

If you simply engaged in discussion on your edits, you would avoid a lot of trouble. However, your engagement consists of "I added links! I'm right!" Two of those sources you re-added by reverting my edit were already tagged by others as not supporting the statement. The third was behind a paywall and can't be verified. Another was from six months before the incident, so can't possibly be related. The last of the five also made no connection between the incident and the party. The problem is that you are making the connections, and then you refuse to discuss them when others disagree. That is WP:OR, and I'm sorry if you think I'm wikihounding you. The fact is that you are a poor and noncollegial editor, and your editing is damaging to the encyclopedia.

You have clearly indicated that any source you don't agree with is automatically not usable, even if the same type of source is usable elsewhere when you do agree with it. You have also clearly indicated that you don't wish to discuss your edits. You have also clearly indicated that you don't want to show any part of a story that doesn't fit your view. The Whitaker article now looks nothing like the version you were fighting over, because you only used those parts of the sources that supported your position, even when your position was contrary to facts stated in the source.

I get the sense, by the way, that your familiaerity with academia means you are an academic or retired academic. Wikipedia is not academia. It is not a research platform, nor is it a place to tell other people your personal conclusions based on what you think happened. That is basically the crux of what you are doing, by the way. You tried to create the Whitaker article based solely on scandals with no regard for WP:BLP or balance, despite three editors raising concerns on the talk page. You created an event article on a stabbing at Ikea to talk about political impact when there is none, and apparently based that on Breitbart, which we simply don't use as a source here, period. So then, you found everything that mentioned SDP, even if it was six months ago, and then said the rise of the SDP was related to this incident, and another, and another, which basically showed that there was no correlation with this latest item at all, as no source mentioned it. I'd also point out that you can't even be bothered to get a last name right. However, according to you, these are all other people's issues, and they should be fine with fixing your mess. I bring this up because that's also unacceptable in academia, isn't it? So why should you be comporting yourself differently here and to different standards than you would professionally in the real world? MSJapan (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

WP:ARBPIA3 is now open and evidence can be submitted until September 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.5.221 (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nebraska Book Award

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Nebraska Book Award requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Charlie the Pig (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with a redirect. I started the page Nebraska Book Award with the intention of redirecting to Nebraska Center for the Book How do I enable Nebraska Book Award continue to appear as a bluelink on the pages of several authors, and be findable in future (because news media use the phrase) while redirecting to Nebraska Center for the Book. I could easily write and source a page for Nebraska Book Award, but that seems silly. Help.

E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User, User:Charlie the Pig can you fix this?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done [2]. Redirects are created by using the following code on the page in question: #REDIRECT [[Target page name]]. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 16:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I couldn't respond in time, but it looks like you got it covered. Special thanks to @User:NickW557 :) Charlie the Pig (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Al-Bazi, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. samtar^{(leave me a message)} 07:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

While I understand you're frustrated with the user's editing coinciding with yours, comments like this are considered obvious personal attacks. If you feel someone is hounding you, places like WP:ANI are where reports need to happen. Failing that, arbitration. AFDs, on the other hand, are for content, not commenting on the personal characteristics of contributors. --slakr^\ talk / 07:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice - BLP

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

Template:Z33 --slakr^\ talk / 07:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska authors

Thanks for your comments and encouragement. You mentioned that you think Greg Kosmicki deserves his own entry. I also think there should be one for other Nebraska authors for which there isn't one yet, including Greg Kuzma in particular, but also Marge Saiser, Paul Dickey (poet), and Brent Spencer (writer). So I have been looking into these. Kuzma is a bear though it seems because what has made him notable goes back to his prominence in the 70's and is hard to find online. So far I have some tentative entries for Kosmicki and Dickey. Check them out if you want in my sandbox at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edward_Dixon/sandbox/Greg_Kosmicki &

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edward_Dixon/sandbox/Paul_Dickey

In particular, let me know if you find anything that might strike an editor as not neutral. No COI here, but I do admit personally to admiring the work of all these writers.

Edward Dixon (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I get a chance. An equal rights campaigns that I would love to see get more attention is the right to open access]] to virtually all older, published sources. the disadvantaging of the gerneral public in terms of knowledge availability is an enormous - and correctable - injustice. Just fyi, Many archives make access available to designated Wikipedia editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M. Gregory, As you expected it would, the Dickey article was rejected because of the poor job I did at sourcing. I have tried to fix it based on your suggestions. Is it ready to resubmit now, do you think? The Kosmicki article was rejected due to notability concerns. Please advise if you think Kosmicki is still worth pursuing at this time. Thanks for your great help. Edward Dixon (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is needed

I just created an article about the Murabitat. I will appreciate your help in expanding it. Settleman (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murabitat, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gulf States and Taibeh (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) 11:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian stone-throwing

As I saw, you have started a few articles about people who were killed in those terror attacks. I noticed an RfD that said only incidents with articles should be mentioned. Truth is, I'm not sure how useful those articles are. How would you feel about starting an article called List of deaths by Palestinian stone-throwing and put Template:Main in the original article?

BTW, I just found out the first one to be killed in such attack is Ester Ohana in 1983. Settleman (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kraxler's Incivility

I have created an ANI Notice reinforcing your warning to User:Kraxler concerning his repeated, habitual incivility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Kraxler_Repeated_Incivility_Citations.2FWarnings_from_Various_Editors SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing 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/2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing 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. Huldra (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Can you not delete other peoples comments, including their votes? That would be awesome. K thnx bye. nableezy - 17:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I have no idea what Nableezy is talking about.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a couple of comments, I'm guessing because of edit conflict. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely this diff samtar ^(msg) 18:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So when I posted a new comment it erased a comment being posted at the same time? that doesn't seem like a very good thing to be able to just happen. I was certainly unaware that it could or did happen. Learn something new every day.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely, an edit conflict normally stops one of the two editors from saving their version. Not sure how this happened. samtar ^(msg) 18:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it didn't. And what possible motive would I have for deleting a comment by an aggressive editor like Nableezy in an AFD in one of the most aggressively patrolled topics on Wikipedia?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You must have got a message about edit conflict, like the one I just got. I am not sure how you resolve edit conflicts normally. My guess is that you copy-pasted your version of the article in the box and pressed save. You also removed my comment by the way, I restored it since I guessed what happened. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Apologies if that seemed accusatory - it was not meant as such. I did leave a message on Nableezy's talk page to try to confirm which removal he was referring to and de-escalate the situation. samtar ^(msg) 18:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did not copy and paste. This was only a couple of hours ago and I would remember having done that. What I might have done is double click - a rather bad habit of mine, I sometimes make programs jam by impatiently double-clicking when, you know, I'm late and I want to save a page before rushing off. I don't remember double clicking on this, but it's plausible. Copying and pasting did not occur, let alone deliberately deleting Nableezy's comments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Death of Julie Catherine Laible, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tuscaloosa (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) 11:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Tuscaloosa (city) is not the primary. Who'da thunk? Should probably be changed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For involvement in AfDs and rescuing some articles such as Douglas Al-Bazi. Settleman (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

For doing some important changes in List of terrorist incidents, 2015. I appriciate this kind of edits and will love to have more help from you to deal with this messy but improving article. I would also like to ask you to participate in the talk page since there are only three persons including me who are active in this talk page, two of them (includimg me) share the same opinion on most subjects, which can hurt the quaility of the article. Anyways, continue the good work :D Bolter21 18:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 24 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Thorvaldsen Museum page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing 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/List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vinegar Tom

Didn't mean to revert without a summary (the auto-revert loaded just as I clicked the regular undo button), but are you kidding me? You're going to follow my edits because you're annoyed that I nominated your list for deletion, and that's the article you're going to PROD? A benchmark work by a major playwright? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a "benchmark" work; source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement warning: Israeli-Arab conflict

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Template:Z33

Your comments on my talk page and elsewhere, where you referred to an editor as "driving sane editors away", make me recommend that you read WP:BATTLE. If you do not heed it, you may be sanctioned. Sandstein 15:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Avinu Synagogue

I will spend some time on this article. Feel free to help :) Settleman (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerold Auerbach

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jerold Auerbach, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jerold_S._Auerbach.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bots can be wrong. This one is. I first met Professor Aurbach this afternoon when an attempt to source the previous article in my edit list turned up a book he wrote. Everything else I know about him is from the sources listed on the page I just started for him. Of course, much of the article is pretty boilerplate: earned degrees from, taught at, list of book titles.... Still, it's nice when a know-it-all bot gets it wrong.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

are you plannig on making an article for the attack yesterday in the West Bank?

since it seems you usually starts those articles, I don't want to start an article if there's already someone who made/makes it. --Bolter21 13:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should. If you have time to start it, I'll help you build it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am also considering a rewrite of the article on the the recent death by rock throwing, after closing editor denied my request to let the AFD run longer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both can agree that such attack is no different then the Duma attack, just because it is 'less devastating' doesn't mean some anti Israeli hypocrisy can denay it's importance. If they will call for deleting the new article for this current attack it will be a record in hypocrisy. Anyway if you are not creating it so I will make it later today. Bolter21 20:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC+2)

In what way is it "less" devastating? An attack that makes every driver feel vulnerable to death-by-sniper is pretty devastating. Besides, the AFDs are simply a tactic employed a small group of intensely POV editors to get their way.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lions' Gate stabbing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intifada (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) 10:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation

I notice you have created Lions' Gate stabbing. Do you not think that simply concentrating on the deaths on one side creates an WP:NPOV problem? According to the UN, there have been 25 Palestinians killed in 2015. The past few days have hardly been violence free on the Palestinian side, with over 500 people injured (source) with a disputed killing at a checkpoint here. One of the people accused in the stabbing (there are two separate incidents) was himself killed in disputed circumstances, with some people alleging that the police shot him on the urging of a mob. I am not saying that the latter is necessarily true, but these are hardly incidents lacking in coverage and WP:RS. Is the way to depict this on Wikipedia to create memorial articles for each killing on one side, with little or no discussion about the other side, and no wider context like the Al-Aqsa clashes? Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think terrorism is notable, and that acts of terrorist violence are notable. And that WP:WIKIHOUNDING is contemptible. so stop it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the requirement to avoid value-laden labels, probably not one of the easiest subjects to contribute about on Wikipedia, though. ← ZScarpia 23:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one simply uses the descriptors used by the police, prosecutor and judge. The real difficulty is with aggressive editors like Kingsindian who attempt to whitewash murder. Thank you for bringing that source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases it would probably be preferable to attribute the descriptions to whoever had used them. The word murder has a technical, legal meaning and the circumstances should determine whether its use is appropriate, though it's possible that the legitimacy of the jurisdiction under which the murder is supposed to have taken place is under question, which can create neutrality issues. ← ZScarpia 20:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was pretty much copying/borrowing the style/language of similar articles, but I'll look into it further.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ZScarpia: Do you happen to know of any really good and well-worded articles on terrorist attacks? That I could use as a model?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Very good articles would usually be the work of a small number of dispassionate editors. Articles on terrorism-related topics usually aren't produced under those conditions. ← ZScarpia 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of disruptive editing.

Ref this nonsense. Disruptive editing[edit] Your recent editing at List of terrorist incidents, 2015 has been highly disruptive, to the point where it can be viewed as a hind of harrassment of other editors and deliberate dispruption of the Wikipedia process. You have been editing long enough to know better than to behave in this way. Cut it out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This claim is not backed by any evidence at all. See the talk page in question where EM G uses OR to try and back up this nonsense claim. Every revert I have made has been correct. EM G - all claims have to be backed by an RS, not OR. Instead of dis respecting others efforts you should provide RS where they are required, not unsubstantiated claims. Please provide one instance where I my revert has not been in line with wikipedia policy, or withdraw the claim?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 7 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the John Caledon Grey Egerton page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnmcintyre

Hi E.M.Gregory, I noticed you questioned Johnmcintyre on their previous Wikipedia experience. You also posted your suspicions about them abusing multiple accounts. To be honest, I too see the similarities between their editing style and that of IncredibleHulk. You may wish to visit sockpuppet investigations and consider reporting them. samtar ^(msg) 19:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about it. It was something about the similarity of edits made by User:InedibleHulk and Creating User:Johnmcintyre1959 at List of terrorist incidents, 2015, and the similarity of approach between User:Johnmcintyre1959's approach at Lions' Gate stabbings and User:InedibleHulk 's approach at 2015 Parramatta shooting that made me think it. But why would a longstanding editor like InedibleHulk do that? Mostly, my suspicions are aroused not by anything specific, but by the fact that Johnmcintyre is so new here and it just seems incredible that he should edit with such speed and facility, not to mention knowing just how to word things so he can pass off a POV disruption for a technical flaw in the sourcing. Also, such a complain sounds like it is very difficult to make, but I am not an attorney.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EMG A 'technical flaw in the editing' is grounds for reverting material. It is called reverting material that does not have an RS. If you want to remove material on the grounds of POV, then make that clear in your revert, rather than make claims of disruption without evidence or examples to back it up. Stick to the same rules as everyone else and we will get on fine.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lions' Gate stabbings

EMG you keep edit warring on this In response to the 3 October Lions' Gate stabbing, and to other recent attacks, in particular, to a stabbing attack in the early hours of 4 October in which a Palestinian teenager attacked a 15-year-old Israeli with a knife,[23] wounding him before he, the assailant, was shot and killed by police. The attacker was identified by relatives as Fadi Alloun, 19. Before attacking, he posted on his Facebook page: "Either martyrdom or victory."[24] Please listen to me. This paragraph does not make any sense. If you are adding it as background to the following paragraph, then instead of a reflex revert every time you see my name, try this version.

In response to the 3 October Lions' Gate stabbing, and to other recent attacks, the Israeli government temporarily barred Palestinians from entering the walled Old City of Jerusalem.[25] The ban will be effective for two days, during the Jewish holy days of Sukkot when many Jews make pilgrimages to the city's holy places. Palestinians who live, study or work in the Old City are exempted from the ban.[24][26]

These attacks include a stabbing in the early hours of 4 October in which a Palestinian teenager, who was identified by relatives as Fadi Alloun, attacked a 15-year-old Israeli with a knife,[23] wounding him before he, the assailant, was shot and killed by police. Before attacking, he had posted on his Facebook page: "Either martyrdom or victory."[24]

Stop your nonsense claims about disruptive editing, and please accept that the present version just does not make any sense.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnmcintyre1959 is an obvious sockpuppet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, if so I would strongly recommend reporting at WP:SPI. I personally can see similarities but I'm not confident enough to say for sure. samtar ^(msg) 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See [3] and add your evidence there. Bad Dryer (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am still correct that the present wording makes no sense. No one seems able to deny that my suggestion is better english.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EMG NOWHERE in this source is the word hero used. I may be banned, but for heavens sake, your use of the word hero in this sentence is pure OR. 'Talahma has been made into a hero by Palestinian Arabs who wear t-shirts imprinted with his image.[23' All the source says it that at one event some Palestinians wore t-shirts with his face on. Your editing is disruptive when you revert material that has been removed because it is not in the source. You really have been getting away with some dreadful editing. Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

See here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. This is getting old. KingsIndian purpose seems to be to drive editors whose perspective KingsIndian does not like away from editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite uninvolved with your relationship with Kingsindian and Co - and me and you have had minor disagreements in the past, but this AE is pure rubbish. As I said in my statement, you can be a little abrasive when dealing with editors (but then so can I) but other than that I don't see anything else wrong. samtar ^(msg) 21:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Speaking of which, you might want to remind Nishidani that he created the article Zion Square assault (originally with the title of "Zion Square lynch"), and maybe find out if he balanced it out with some assault by Arabs on Jews (maybe this guy)? Or how he thinks it fits his standards for article creation (such as EVENT and NOTNEWS) considering nobody heard anything about this incident since the attackers were sentenced 2+ years ago. Not to mention the fact that in that incident nobody was actually killed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. There truly is something comic about intensely POV-pushing editors like Nishdani and KingsIndian coming to my page to accuse me of imaginary rules violations. Or it would be comic, if I did not suspect that it works for them, that is, I suspect that the targeted and baseless WIKIHOUNDING by Islamist-supporting, violence defending editors like KingsIndian and Nishdani often does drive good editors away from Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's undeniable that they use every tool at their disposal to drive editors they don't agree with away from Wikipedia. Take almost any article in the IP area, look at who was editing it 2, 3, 4 years ago and look who's editing it now. Mostly the same pro-P editors, almost none of the same pro-I. These guys are very good at harassing people and using the admin boards to get rid of their opponents. The hypocrisy of someone like Nishidani, complaining on AE about you creating the exact same kind of articles he creates is funny, though. On the other hand, don't be surprised if they topic ban you for it while doing nothing to him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably useless, but literally my first sentence in the AE report is that EMG is probably acting in good faith and I don't want harsh sanctions. The allegations that I wish to drive away people is too absurd: I rarely, if ever, initiate AE cases, and mostly argue against sanctions in cases that others initiate. The only two previous times I initiated AE cases were against sockpuppets, though even then I withdrew the case soon afterwards. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. You rarely initiate but you often participate. What results do you usually expect when you say "here's some bad things this editor did, but please no sanction!" on one of the admin boards? Have you spoken to your friend Nishidani about his creating the same kind of article you're complaining about? You often complain about sockpuppets. Have you ever reported or even spoken about a pro-Palestinian sock? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, he did just report a fairly obvious Dalai Lama Ding Dong sock puppet - here [4]. But your comment regarding Nishidani is of course spot on. Bad Dryer (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I checked his contributions to SPI today just before we interacted on the NoCal page, and that wasn't there. What a coincidence. Naturally he says there this is the only pro-P sock (as if PR and Passionless never existed, just to name a couple of the top of my head who I'm pretty sure still editing). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely absurd complaint: socking is a partisan issue now? And what does socking have to do with WP:AE? Is there an WP:NPOV policy for socking as well? The vast majority of abusive sockpuppetry goes on on the "pro-Israel" side. It is not my fault that this situation exists - an absolutely fair person, which I'm not, will still file SPI's against AndresHerutJaim, NoCal, Wlglunight93, 95% of the time. I have no idea about the ones you mention; if you are so sure of them existing, why aren't you reporting them? Investigating and catching socks take time: I would like to see you doing some work instead of whining about people who do it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not reporting them because unless they're being dicks I don't really care. This obsession with NoCal even if he's otherwise editing by the rules is very weird to me. Not to mention you guys don't care how many innocent casualties suffer in the process. As long as some political opponent is gone, who cares, eh? SPI is the black hole of circumstantial evidence where BATTLEGROUND is allowed, there's no repercussions for making false reports, and no recourse for the innocent. I don't want to play that game.

User:NoCal. Is this spelled right? Can't find his page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sock report you put in today is the very first time I see anyone from your group of sock obsessed editors ever report a pro-P sock. EVER. In 7 years. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You see, it was perfectly safe to take accuse JohnMcIntyre of being a sock because he has already been outed on his talk page and has stopped editing. So KingsIndian got to look like he was being neutral and outing an anti-Israel sock, when the sock had already been outed and, therefore, become useless.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@No More Mr Nice Guy: So, let me get this straight, it is ok to sock if you are "playing by the rules"? Please tell me what Wikipedia policy sanctions this. Not to mention that this is an absurd criterion: the rules allow a fair bit of leeway - any open system like Wikipedia operates partly on the basis of trust. There is even a policy for this, in case you forgot: WP:AGF. With the speed that NoCal100 creates socks, he could make tendentious but technically "within the rules" edits 95% of the time, with 5% of the time doing absolutely vicious things like goading others to self-destruct (he partially succeeded in getting under my skin: see All Rows4), and do this over and over again. Psychopaths like him exist: I am not forced to suffer them in silence, afraid that some innocent person might be blocked unfairly. If you can come up with a better system to catch serial sockpuppeteers without any downsides, please propose that. I report "pro-Israel" socks mostly because (a) They are vastly more numerous (b) I come across them more during my editing. As to EMG's comments about "outing", I have no idea what they are talking about. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, No, you misunderstood. I personally don't care. As a result of seeing how the fuzzy rules are fuzzly applied based on what mood a random admin wakes up in the morning with, I don't think socking is that bad anymore. Certainly socking in and of itself is not the worse thing going on in this place. If they're not being assholes, I don't care.

If you think it's OK to block innocent people in the perusal of your political opponents, that's your business. It's pretty convenient that none of the innocent casualties share your POV, isn't it? People here regularly goad others to self-destruct (your friend Nishidani is practically a wizard at this) without being socks, so I really don't see where you're going with that.
You report mostly pro-I socks because you care about pro-I socks much more than you care about pro-P socks. How did you come to the conclusion JohnMcIntyre is a sock? He hasn't edited in 3 days. Where did you encounter him? I'm curious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between socks who goad people and long-time editors who you think goad people is that there is little recourse against socks except SPI. If you think Nishidani edits inappropriately, WP:AE exists - why don't you report them? It would be hugely time consuming to haul up every sock of NoCal to WP:AE - and it's not like I haven't tried. If I bothered to report every travesty that goes on in this area, I would have no time to eat or shit, let alone add any content. As it is, I already ignore a lot of socking activity that I think is rather benign or not too harmful. Yours is a very convenient stance to take about socking - you are not the person being goaded and trolled. As to your continued insinuation that I report socks based on political agendas, I am sorry, not everyone looks at the world through the lens of nationalism. I have defended plenty of people on the "other side" at WP:AE (see here and here for example). Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know, it's all a big coincidence. And of course I'm not being goaded or trolled. Everyone here treats me with the utmost respect and civility. You've actually participated in some of these lovely respectful and civil discussion and didn't seem too bothered about the trolling or goading when it wasn't directed at you.

How did you come to the conclusion JohnMcIntyre is a sock? He hasn't edited in 3 days. Where did you encounter him? I'm still curious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pray, tell me, which sock has goaded or trolled you? Regarding long-term editors, you already have recourse to WP:AE, the fact that you don't use it is just an indication that you don't think you will succeed. As to JohnMcintyre, I have had my suspicions for a while, ever since his first edit was an AfD I participated in (linked on the SPI page). I gave my suspicions on the AfD page itself. You will, I hope, excuse me if I don't spill more WP:BEANS. Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, but never mind. I think this conversation has gone as far as it can go. Congrats again on being the first pro-P "sock hunter" to ever report a pro-P sock. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am now also intensely curious, KingsIndian How, when did you begin to suspect that JohnMcIntyre1959 is a sockpuppet?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

asterisk

Could you please not use an asterisk ('*') in front of your talk page comments unless you're making a list of bulletpoints or everyone else is using one, like in an AfD? I really screws up the indentation. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh, sure. sorry. it really does take a while to figure out the grammar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

Ref this incorrect claim. At this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lions%27_Gate_stabbings#Visit_by_Prime_Minister_to_victim_in_hospital you made this incorrect claim. You took Ma'an news agency to the reliable source noticeboard. The discussion there is ongoing, but inconclusive. You might want to refrain from citing disputed facts to Ma'an as you just did at Lions' Gate stabbing and find a more reliable source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC) If you check RSN you will see that I did NOT take Maan news there, I asked about two other sources, and another editor suggested that Maan news was an acceptable source. This whole claim is just more of your OR. Please stop your disruptive editing and spend more time actually reading rather than reverting. Your record in poor in this area, and it needs to improve. I will of course restore the material you removed as you removed it under a false claim.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to stay with the facts, I didn't "take" Ma'an to the reliable source noticeboard. I think User:Kingsindian did.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because Ma'an News Agency is not a reliable source on fact. And your campaign of disruption and WIKIHOUNDING is not working.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is still incorrect. Anyone who takes the time can see that I did NOT ask if Maan news was an RS. You are simply making that up. I asked about two other sources, and neither was Maan news. Your claim of disruptive editing on my part is simply a way of covering up that I have picked up your inaccuracies and OR use of sources.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are right. That discussion has gone on for so long , and long ago shifted to Ma'an - I had quite forgotten where it started. If you want to argue that either www.albawaba.com, or www.middleeasteye.net is a reliable source, you would have to bring evidence for it. And take this discussion back there, your move in cluttering up my talk page this way does have the feel of more of your attempts to discredit me. We all know your POV, but this kind of hounding of an editor you disagree with on politics is not good form.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 974: / Line 974: @@
 :I am still correct that the present wording makes no sense. No one seems able to deny that my suggestion is better english.[[User:Johnmcintyre1959|Johnmcintyre1959]] ([[User talk:Johnmcintyre1959|talk]]) 20:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
+:::EMG  NOWHERE in this source is the word hero used.  I may be banned, but for heavens sake, your use of the word hero in this sentence is pure OR.  'Talahma has been made into a hero by Palestinian Arabs who wear t-shirts imprinted with his image.[23'  All the source says it that at one event some Palestinians wore t-shirts with his face on.  Your editing is disruptive when you revert material that has been removed because it is not in the source.  You really have been getting away with some dreadful editing.  [[User:Johnmcintyre1959|Johnmcintyre1959]] ([[User talk:Johnmcintyre1959|talk]]) 21:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 == [[WP:AE]] ==