User talk:Lemongirl942

Need your help at COI board

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello Lemongirl,

I see you are a helper at the COI board. If you have a moment could you please read the report about the article Charlie Zeleny. there is a SPA ip editor who is acting very aggressively toward me. I think he has a conflict either being the subject himself or a friend or family member. He denied it to me, but he has taken ownership of the article and says he is going to ban me from wikipedia. Look at the talk page with all the threat and calling removing weasel words as vadalism. Thank you. Pauciloquence (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC) 13:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies Pauciloquence. Was occupied for the last few days. I have placed the article on my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why are you deleting my references?

Who are you and why are you deleting my references? They are valid and not spam! — Preceding unsigned comment added by H4km4k (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS for what are accepted as reliable sources. The links you are adding are not reliable sources for the purpose of Wikipedia. The best sources are news websites with a proven editorial oversight. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Correct they are the best links but the links I posted are also relevant and I'm pretty sure people would appreciate the reference and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H4km4k (talk • contribs) 06:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice

As you and I were discussing (separately) on Juliancolton's talk page about the inappropriateness of merging the content of Conviction: A Sequel to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice into List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, and as the merge has taken place already, I'd invite you to continue the discussion at Talk:List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiDan61 I have temporarily reverted the merge. Just commented on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Unitus Seed Fund

Thanks for your contribution to that article - it recently went through an AfD (result: keep, at my urging and that of others) and I have begun to improve it in the wake of that process. I hadn't yet worked my way down to the portfolio section, but my plan was to trim it back substantially, which you did - so, thanks!

That said, a few of the funded companies had separate profile-type articles on them in reputable publications (NYT, Forbes), so I'd consider them deserving of mention in this article. I will incorporate them into the History section, today if I have time. I'd just humbly suggest that maybe next time, if you are going to remove that much content from the page (including a slew of references) that you check the talk page first - in this case, for instance, I had flagged a couple of notable portfolio companies there. I fear that aggressive WP:NOTDIR edits like this run the risk of removing useful content - much of which deserved to go, but some of which should have been kept, albeit in a different form. Once that content is deleted, realistically, no one is going to remember that it was there and retrieve the good bits. I almost missed it myself; I skimmed my watchlist and saw that you removed the excess external links but since it wasn't in the last edit, I didn't notice the removal of the portfolio section until I went back to the page.

Thanks-

--Vivisel (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hindi (clarification)

Hi, I saw that you reverted the disruptive user's edits on Hindi. Your edit summary said that you were unsure as to why he arbitrarily removed a lot of information. It is highly likely that this user is a Dravidian nationalist, that is, a person of South Indian descent who harbours an intense and irrational dislike of North Indian culture, languages, or festivals. Hence the user's removal of Hindi, a N. Indian language, Holi, a festival that is predominantly associated with people of North Indian stock, and so on. Just informing you in case the user continues with his disruptive edits after his 30-hour block has expired. Tiger7253 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Lemongirl942

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Lemongirl942. May your house be safe, and may you and those having the privilege of your company enjoy good health in a Happy New Year 2017! Kind regards, — Sam Sailor 02:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Wishing you a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2017. Thanks for your friendship! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Query on things deleted on Algebris Page

Hi Lemongirl942!

Wanted to know the meaning of the phrase you used when reverting my edits on the Algebris page. I wanted to know what this phrase means - "Doesn't seem to be an RS"

Thanks!FlyingBlueDream (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick note

Hi Lemongirl, how are you doing? Good to see you around Afds. Just wanted to drop in a small, quick note. Generally, I would have done this by first striking out my earlier vote and earlier statement rather than overwriting it, and adding a new comment before or after the struck !vote. Nothing important, but it helps understand what your original view was and how it changed. Thanks. Lourdes 15:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of relevant attribution to Bus Interchange articles

Please refrain from removing relevant references to the Land Transport Guru website as you have done so on multiple pages with regards to Bus Interchanges in Singapore. The proper removal of SPS content as per your intentions should be the complete deletion of all copied content from Land Transport Guru, and not the convenient deletion of proper content attribution which other Wikipedia users have done.

Wheelandaxle293 (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wheelandaxle293. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we only use reliable secondary sources. The "Land Transport Guru" website is what we call a WP:SPS - a self published source. As such, we cannot allow it to be there in the references. Please do not add it back again.

Regarding "content copied from Land Transport Guru website", could you please point me out where is the copied content. I would be glad to have a look and if it is a copyvio, remove it entirely. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lemongirl942 and thank you for your reply and clarification. My concerns are with regards to constant plagiarism performed by editors to Wikipedia pages covering the Singapore bus scene. On many occasions, content is lifted word for word from the "Land Transport Guru" website, with or without attribution. One such example would be Bukit Batok Bus Interchange, which shares paragraphs copied from a similar Land Transport Guru page. Note: the "'Thank You , Bukit Batok !'" and "The Day Before- 28th May 2016" sections.

I do apologize for the slightly overzealous reverting of edits on the other pages with regards to freely available information. -- Wheelandaxle293 (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Wheelandaxle293 Thank you for your diligence. I managed to find the edit responsible. This is a pretty blatant WP:COPYVIO. (In fact on Wikipedia, copying content is not allowed, unless the source has released it under a compatible license). I also noticed that it actually replaced previously sourced information. I will try to clean this up maybe later today and ask for a revision deletion. I will also check the other contributions, particularly the bus interchange articles. In the meantime, if you know of any other plagiarism incidences, please let me know. I would be happy to help remove them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey Lemongirl, long time no see. I wanted to apologize for the things I said a while back, it wasn't professional of me and I hope you can forgive my actions. In the meantime, I've looked into Too High to Riot and made some changes to it. I was hoping to get your opinion on it whether what I did was right or wrong. Thanks. JayPe (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey JayPe. How have you been doing? I was on a Wikibreak for the past week. Don't worry about the past . All of us are human and we make mistakes and learn! Anyway, am gonna have a detailed look at the article later. But for right now, it would be helpful to source the information about the producers of the individual songs. In the references I looked, I wasn't able to find them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mayank Prakash

Hi,

I see you've been monitoring the Mayank Prakash page. It looks to me like he's been editing his own profile from an IP address of 92.237.49.254 - the amends sound like his rather distinctive use of English. Is it appropriate for him to be puffing his achievements in this way?

Sjoh0050 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Manulife page

You were probably right about the list of presidents - but I've seen it on other bank pages so I thought I would get some credit for adding it here. Not sure why you would then question my motives. The Kendall-K1 removal of sponsorships and awards is not warranted. Those are both common sections. This page is easy to update so I was trying to score some points.

Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastboy18 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan moves

Hello Lemongirl942. I noticed your recent request at WP:RMTR. In fact, there is a recent trend to have ROC things renamed to be Taiwan things. I don't have the links handy, but it's not a question of pure nationalism any more. More like common usage. This happened even with some election-related articles. So I wouldn't be shocked to see some undiscussed moves go by in this area. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I understand. But I also think that it needs a bit more discussion. The terms ROC and Taiwan are not always interchangeable and this needs to be looked at in a cases by case basis. (For example such as here and here). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: FAC

Thank you for reviewing This England. I withdrew my FA nomination, but also asked you a question on the nomination page, which I hope you can answer there or on my talk page if the page is closed. Also, I wonder if you would have similar concerns about Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King, or if you think this sourcing is better. I'd consider nominating this article for FA status, but only if I knew sourcing was not a problem. Thanks again for your time and feedback. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts, Lemongirl942? I'd really appreciate feedback here or on the FAC page. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Another Believer Apologies for the delay. Will do it today after evening today. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The FAC nomination page has been closed, but I am still curious about your thoughts on Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for all the delay. I had a brief look at this a while ago. The sourcing here seems to be much stronger - the reviews in Deseret News (Utah) and SunSentinel (Florida) are by staff writers. The Billboard charting is helpful as well. There is another brief review in Washington Post which can be added to the article as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Another Believer in case this was not watchlisted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Ping - Arrow Scout Group

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrow Scout Group :)--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh! That's been left untouched since months. OK, will do it today. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Arrow Scout Group: Revision history Ping?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yay  Done! After delaying it for months (for which I honestly deserve to be trouted). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback at Renzoy16

Hello, Lemongirl942. You have new messages at Renzoy16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please Read this

Since u all are talking to me with no respect while u all are idling the way sending me message I suggest u all should make a wiki page for Tan Jun Sheng u all have the time to leave message on my chat page I suggest u all use the time to do a research Bryan4562013 (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lemongirl, I hope that you would help me do a wiki page of a Singapore an kid actor named Tan Jun Sheng. Thanks. 😊 Bryan4562013 (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bryan4562013! I see that an article about Tan Jun Sheng was recently deleted. The reason for deletion was that there were no sources in the article. Whenever we create an article, our first job is to find sources - these can be news article or mentions in books. (For example, a good source for Singapore related article is a news article in The Straits Times). According to Wikipedia's policies, we should create an article only if we have enough sources first. And these sources need to have some significant information about the person. I tried searching for sources about "Tan Jun Sheng" but I could not find much (except for 2 sources with only 1 sentence mention). Would it be possible for you to find some more sources? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

page move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thanks for your advice, will do page move according WP instructions. I read carefully the article. I moved page w/out talk page because old name is mistake apparently, doesn`t reflect the content and it means old talk page is not applicable. The article should be rewritten as I note on the talk page. Thanks for your thoughts.Swissfishpool (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Swissfishpool Please don't move pages again, particularly not without the talk page. And if you are using any other accounts, please disclose them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How do I challenge this decision? Both the admin and the user need to be punished. That page was under 1rr and I documented 4 reverts, and admin just writes "no violation" without comment. I am refiling too

Honestly, did you see that? Ridiculous! This wasn't even close! He reverted 4 times in a row on a 1rr page, and the admin says "no violation!" Is every admin in this joint corrupt? I don't get it. 4 is obviously more than 1. I didn't even get an explanation.63.143.196.107 (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Umm, who are you? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hang on, is this related to this and this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry my IP address keeps changing. I do not understand the decision. The page was under 1RR. This is clear. User warred with me reverting 4 times when I told him to stop, and that this article is under 1RR. I report him. Admin says "no violation by JFG", yet gives no explanation (and then protects the page, effectively locking me out, when JFG was the 1st reverter, and I had every right to keep reverting him after he ignored 1rr and reverted again. I don't get it. Aren't rules rules? If the rule says "no more than 1 revert per 24 hours" and I provide clear evidence that he did so, why does an admin just ignore it and say "no violation" without even so much as giving an explanation? Not only that, JFG repeatedly lied, 1st lying about the document he kept removing being "copyrighted" (it is not), lying about the fact that the document "isnt used on any other wiki pages" (it is, in the corresponding page on German wikipedia, which he knew), lying stating the page is not under 1rr (it is, as he should have known when I told him to discuss the removal on the talk page, since two other editors had already restored it that day before he reverted their edits, and in fact all US politics pages are) and then lying about the relevant policy, stating the "burden of proof is on you" (he provided no evidence for this either. So far as I can tell, the policy just says content that violates copyrights will be deleted, and there is no evidence that the document is copyrighted and it would be implausible that the document is copyrighted) There is no legiitmate argument to not linking to the document the article is about, and more to the point, he simply flaunted the 1rr restrictions to get his way, and he's just getting away with it. This is corrupt! I do not even see what the argument can possibly be for not linking to the primary source. He has zero evidence that it was copyrighted. Aargh.63.143.196.107 (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Whatever, I think I'm just going to let it go, since I doubt filing again is going to get anywhere. . But he clearly crossed the line, and he was very dishonest about his reasoning, and he's getting away with deleting the relevant document, which no one claims to have a copyright. And the admin isn't even going to stop him from flaunting the revert rules. I don't get it. The admins seem to play favorites, since every time I even come close to violating 1rr or 3rr I get slammed. He went way over. It really doesn't make much sense to me.

Umm, I don't know which article is this and what is the dispute about. In general the place to post any challenge of closes is WP:AN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It's Donald Trump Russia dossier. The article included a link to the dossier hosted at Wikipedia commons. He reverted the addition of the dossier (not mine). The article is under 1rr. I reverted his addition. He then reverted me 3 more times. I reported him. I don't understand what the meaning of 1rr is if someone can revert 4 times and be told "no violation" by the admin. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I posted diffs of him reverting 4 times. I guess I'll take it up at AN. Thanks. 63.143.196.107 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This IP is a sock of Kingshowman, just to let you know. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Taiwan under Japanese rule. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Matt Smith Wow, retaliatory template? Heck, I opened a discussion, but you didn't even look and didn't bother to participate. Instead you decided to blindly revert quoting IAR. You behaviour is tending towards WP:BATTLEGROUND here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read this message

Every edit all must be made by you It is also let us new editors to gain some experience if not why not u run the entire Wikipedia if that is the case or close down Wikipedia!!!!!!!! 😡😡😡😡😡 Bryan4562013 (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Bryan4562013: Please do not disparage editors on their own talkpages. And if you are going to do so, please make yourself clearly understood. You have not so far. Carry on, LG! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 06:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bryan4562013. I am happy if new editors gain experience. But some of your edits are creating problems. For example, on a school article, you copy pasted stuff (which is not allowed on Wikipedia). We also do not create new articles - unless absolutely required. Before creating an article, we need to look at sources and find news articles. Otherwise, someone will come along and delete it.

I know that you have created some nice articles, so I don't want you to be blocked by an admin. If you want, I can help you learn a bit more (such as how to add sources, what are reliable sources and more. Tell me if you want to learn!. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Reasons of the revert

It has been two hours since you reverted my edits on that article. I hope you have been preparing a list of your reasons of the revert for starting a discussion in that article's talk page. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Matt Smith My suggestion here for you would be to try editing in an area other than Taiwan/China. That would help you to understand better how policies and guidelines are applied in practice. It will also help you to understand that a lot of what you consider NPOV problems are actually not problems.

As for this particular revert there are multiple reasons - adding coatracky information, changing content which doesn't follow the source, and adding redundant info. If you edit in different areas (where you are not involved in the topic), you will understand better how NPOV works. For example try American politics. You will also find more editors there willing to help you to understand. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. But I have been editing Taiwan/China articles on Chinese Wikipedia since October 2014 and I know mostly how Wikipedia works.

Please make it clear that which edits are adding coatracky information, changing content which doesn't follow the source, and adding redundant info, respectively. You may also explain about them in that article's talk page. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Matt Smith: The English Wikipedia works differently from the Chinese Wikipedia. (Every language Wikipedia has its own rules). And the way policies/guidelines are applied in spirit here, often differs from how the guideline is actually written. I know this is hard to understand, but the only way to understand is to edit outside your comfort zone. I myself learnt it that way. When you edit in an area outside your own, it also helps to provide an additional perspective - for example you might be able to see bias/undue content in an article, which an American may not be able to see. And this helps to improve the encyclopaedia while also helping one to realise one's own bias. Editing in one narrow area is also generally frowned upon by the community here due to multiple instances of POV pushing and disruption and WP:ADVOCACY editing. I suggest you try editing a different area for once. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion.

Please rationalize your revert by making it clear that which of my edits are adding coatracky information, changing content which doesn't follow the source, and adding redundant info, respectively, in either this page or that article's talk page (preferred). --Matt Smith (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that later today. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

24 hours have passed and still no response from you. Are you encountering any difficulty drafting the list? I will restore the article to my last revision if I still hear no word from you after 2 hours. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Matt Smith: please note WP:NODEADLINE. In any case, I would advise against restoring edits that removed sourced material. I also suggest that far too often you take conversations to user talkpages rather than article talk, which is, of course, the preferred venue. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It was not me who proposed a "deadline"; it was her. Note that she said "I will do that later today" yesterday. I was just showing my patience by allowing for 2 more hours.

It is weird to me that you only saw my edits removed sourced material and didn't see her edit removed sourced material. Also, my reason for removing a certain sourced material was clearly summaried. Feel free to let me know if you still have any question.

I will start conversations in talk pages of articles whenever possible in the future. Thanks for the suggestion. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Restored. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Strange editing skills

Hi there, I noticed, several times, that you keep reverting true info to untrue and, in fact, this is an attempt to defend untrue info. I noticed that you don`t work on how info is correct or incorrect. On top of that you disseminating conspiracy and that I am the paid user. It is very strange to see how you don`t examine true or untrue information but escalate simple situation to conflict. Sorry about that, but it is very strange and non-constructive behaviour.

Also, how do you come to conclusion that corporate info is not useful info? Please give the source or link.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.216.246 (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, still no reply on my questions , so I am feeling that I am entitled to ask you , please, stop disruptive editing/reverting. Most of them doesn`t make sense and it gives feelings that you are defending untrue information and in not-good-faith mode. Thanks and kind regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.216.129 (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I presume this is related to Nobel Oil Group. I reverted it because the sources you provided are either affiliated to the company (or reprints of press releases) or they do not provide enough context to verify the information. I suggest you open a discussion on the talk page rather than reverting on the article itself. I also see a history of sockpuppetry on the article, so it would be helpful if you declare your other accounts. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

regarding recent edit dispute

hello. The reason that I'm writing here on your talk page is because the discussion on the notice board was closed before I got a chance to respond, due to the Admin's decision and action (that you had a bit of a disagreement with). Forgive this lengthy comment here, but I needed to thoroughly state some things, on this matter.

Anyway, thanks for your consideration and concern to this matter from yesterday. I want to say that I do apologize for going a bit past the 3RR rule myself (though Jytdog went further beyond as you can see), and also my occasional somewhat battle-ish tone, or maybe sometimes over-bluntness.

And I do appreciate that later the editor Jytdog made an excellent modification, and found an agreeably better and more solid source for my section and paragraph. If he had done that to begin with, I swear I would NOT have undone it or fought it, as I respect people’s meaningful modifications, adjustments, or better source referencing. You see though that that’s not what he did at first, nor later on even. But only after he went beyond 3RR and for some reason afterwards he went to the noticeboard where he didn’t think that he’d be reprimanded or would get in trouble or have 1-day block himself. But after I wrote my defense on here, he did see (is my surmise) that he broke 3RR badly, and was gonna be in hot soup as well as myself. We both edit-warred, obviously, with 3RR violation, though he a bit worse, and yes I a bit worse with a more combative tone (though not every statement of mine). But I was rightly and understandably both hurt and annoyed, at what was disrespectful and overly hasty, and it came across as "Own" and "I don't like", rather than totally valid reasons to completely delete. Yes, admittedly the source I put in was not the best, or the most reliable, in WP policy, but I hope you can see that WP policy is not necessarily to wholesale remove everything just because the source used is not the most reliable by WP standards.

There are plenty of other sources, more solid, for the drift of my addition. (And Jytdog, to his credit, did a good job later on in finding and placing one, and modifying etc.) But before that was the problem, where he totally removed hard work, that a very good-faith (and accurate and copiously sourced) contribution, and hard work, were just summarily dissed and dismissed by him, simply because the source that I put was not the best, but he wrongly accused or said that it was just “original research”. That is patently not true. I did not come up with the Jesus using Lot’s wife to warn against clinging to material possessions at the end of a world thing. That’s obvious from the Biblical text itself, AND ALSO FROM VARIOUS OUTSIDE SOURCES. Yes, I may not have picked the best source (admittedly), but it seems to be forgotten that WP policy and strong recommendation is to NOT destroy another contributor’s edits because of that, completely, but to try to find a better source, or give a source TAG, or modify the edits or additions. Not totally remove or eliminate. And sorry, I had a very valid point with that. '

And as I said, it was arguably very needed, and sorely lacking, the thing that was only slightly briefly mentioned in the lede. Needing elaboration, as NO "New Testament" reference in the body of article regarding "Lot's wife" was present anywhere.

Now, as far as another thing that’s been said by both Jytdog and you Lemongirl etc, that is actually a misunderstanding, and NOT what I did, regarding “pointy” about the name of God matter. No, that’s not what I meant. The edit itself (in that small matter of putting the Anglicized form “Jehovah” instead of what was there “God”) was to NOT “make a point” but for valid varying and clarity, in the Jewish context, of the God of Jews, and elaboration etc. When I said “my point” that was only in my comment on the TALK page, in response to Jytdog’s objection that that form “Jehovah” (the tri-syllabic English Latin form) is somehow not used by “scholarly sources” even though it clearly is, past and present...in various reputable works, by various scholars and theologians...though maybe not as much as the less-accurate two-syllable form “Yahweh”. When I said “it was not that big a deal to me” I meant if consensus (which is what Jytdog was later calling for on that specific matter) went against having that form there in that specific place. I would not fight against that so much, because it’s overall minor...though my EDIT on the actual article was NOT “pointy” but simply clarity and varying and elaboration. The edit itself was not meant as “to make a point”, but rather my comment to Jytdog on the talk page about “scholarly sources” and that the motive to remove that form was not really warranted given the fact that it’s a long-established form and found in a number of scholarly books, sermons, and references, as well as in a number of reputable Bible versions. THAT was my “point” about “point”. Not the actual original edit itself in the article. That was just for clarity in context.

Anyway, as I said, I do appreciate your thought to all this, though I do not think it was all that necessary for Jytdog to even go on the board to report me, since he was (though unintentionally) also ipso facto reporting himself. But his subsequent modification and compromise and collaboration and better source that he found I do appreciate and have no problem with. It’s cool. I appreciate also Jytdog’s diligence for good sourcing on Wikipedia, though I don’t agree that he handled it originally in the best way or in line really with WP recommendation or policy. And that was my argument with all of that. Anyway, sorry for the long presentation here. I appreciate your taking the time to read through it. I felt it was necessary (since I was not able to all day yesterday) to further state my case and maybe clarify a misunderstanding or two. thanks again. Regards....... Namarly (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Rachitha photo.

The photo File:Rachitha Selfie.jpg you requsted to delete was given me by that person itself. So how can you report it for deletion???? Do you know her in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KumaraNeeson (talk • contribs) 11:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Notification

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regenteditor (talk • contribs) 08:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Regenteditor. Where is this canvassing you are talking about? Is this related to Nobel Oil Group? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Rap music articles

Hi Lemongirl942, thanks for your note on my talk page. I stumbled into editing so many rap music articles about a year ago after writing a biography about Kodak Black. I quickly found that keeping that one article properly sourced and free from spam took a huge amount of time, and the article has been permanently page protected. I would often follow the non-IP editors who added unsourced content to the Kodak Black article, and noticed a similar pattern. These were editors who exclusively edited rap, electronic music, and DJ/producer articles, and the bulk of their edits were mostly unsourced cut-and-paste discographies (no text or prose). I suspect some of these editors work for large music companies, though some of the most prolific of these editors turned out to be teens (they would disclose this on their talk page or in their block appeals). The problem was, when I checked the accuracy of the few sources that were ever added, only about 75 percent of each edit was correct, which does not really help these articles. As you've seen, I've been relentless with some of these editors, and a few have been permanently blocked.

Going forward, my concern is how to protect these music articles and enhance their accuracy. Most of my edits are to small towns in the United States, where I rarely see this sort of mass unsourced editing. These small city articles are well-patrolled by experienced editors, and unsourced "cruft" is quickly removed. Another example is the mass production of sports biographies (eg. US football players). I rarely see unsourced or inaccurate sports bios. These rap music articles are not like that (though there are a few very hard working editors who make well-sourced contributions). Compounding the problem is that discographies are exceeding difficult to accurately edit. Yesterday I spent ages teasing out unsourced content from just one article, Plata O Plomo (Fat Joe and Remy Ma album). As well, these discographies use very complex tables that are difficult to configure.

A few of my concerns are:

• Tightening the criteria for editing discographies (perhaps through a proposal). For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#References does state "take care in identifying reliable sources that are added to articles." However, Template:Track listing, which is used on many articles, does not even have a parameter in which to add sources, and when a source is added within the template, the template stops working.
• Finding a more efficient way to support WP:E=N and WP:SOUNDCLOUDBAND. Take a look at the number of articles at User:AlexNewArtBot/HipHopSearchResult. How are so many of these articles going live? Does the criteria for notability need tightening? Should a help page tutorial be created to assist the editors of these articles (along with a quicker exit for problematic editors)?

I'd be curious to hear your opinion. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I would support a tightening of the criteria for discographies. Sourcing the tracklisting is tricky as it invariably will be WP:PRIMARY, but perhaps a 'source' field can be added that links to scans on Discogs.com for instance. I have to say, the number of articles to appear on that list does not look excessive to me. That said, notability is always an issue with album pages. Perhaps enforcing them to go through WP:AfC would remedy this issues and is worth considering. Karst (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I rarely do articles based on discographies, while I edit articles based on albums, but I mostly edit articles that are in my watch list (you can see the articles on my user page). I really don't know about this, I suggest to add a digital booklet or any other reliable source in the track list, to prove the credits are correct. That just my opinion on the issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I don't know why you want to start a discussion here on somebody else's talk page, I suggest to start a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums talk page, that way you can get more responses from other editors who are more experience with album articles. You can also start a discussion at Template:Track listing talk page, regarding your concerns about track listings being unsourced. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry for my delayed response here Magnolia677. There are actually 3 problems I see here

• The persistent addition of unsourced (and someone unverifiable) content in music article. (Whether by COI editors or enthusiastic young editors)
• The mushrooming of article about albums - and a low entry barrier. (The GNG is interpreted in a way which creates a low barrier)
• A growing culture that somehow it is OK to add unsourced content. This is also coupled with a lack of understanding of what is RS.

My biggest worry is the third point as it affects consensus (but I will talk about it later sometime). I think a starting point right now would be to clearly describe what are RS in the context of album notability. Are simple reviews on any website sufficient? The second is to ensure verifiability of credits. Should the album jacket/any other source not be found, content should be removed. I would be happy to discuss a bit more and once we have something concrete, I guess we can go to WT:ALBUMS and propose a solution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me draft something in the next week or two and go from there. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Personal reminder 20 Jan 2017

(This is a personal reminder of the stuff that needs to be done today)

• File SPI
• Reply to problem about rap articles
• FA review comments
• Primary sources at Talk:Jonathan Cohler  Partly done
• 2 Chinas
• Selective merge of scout group

--Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Referencing

Hello, I'm Simpletester. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Umid gas field, 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. addition of improperly cited material, dead links, put correct sources,please —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose this is again about the Nobel Oil Group right? Honestly, how many socks do you guys have? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

FAC: House of Music

Hello there. Would you care to review or comment at my nomination of House of Music for featured status? The previous nomination did not gather enough commentary, so anything at all would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The AFD Barnstar
		A note of thanks for your due diligence at AfD, especially on refbombed nominations. Though the AfDs may not close justly, I wanted you to know that your efforts do not go unnoticed. Happy editing, czar 06:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Czar. I am happy that you appreciate it :) To be honest, sometimes I actually don't feel like analysing the sources (as it is time consuming), but given that results of an AFD can change just due to one analysis, I try to do it wherever possible. Thank you once again!. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Swami Nithyananda

Hi, this is regarding your aggressive edits on the page of Swami Nithyananda. You have made the whole page into a mockery and destroyed the hard work of many editors including wikipedia admins over the past few years. If there are specific references that you are opposed to you should discuss them. I am wondering if there is any COI from your side and whether you have a vested interest in writing against the subject of the BLP article. Acnaren (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The "aggressive" edits were done since the BLP article was highly promotional and extensively self-cited from WP:SPS. All edits had edit summaries with clear reasonings. If you are still aggrieved please discuss on article talk page under WP:BRD to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. Inlinetext (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Lemongirl, there is a user who just deleted all of the content of the page... I was simply reverting it back to the version you had previously. It's obviously defiled and lost information in its current state — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rurban23 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I have replied to this editor on the article's talk page. Inlinetext (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy Lunar New Year!

	Happy Lunar New Year!
	Hello Lemongirl942, May you have success, prosperity, peace, love and good health on this Chinese New Year. Here's to another year of productive editing. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for this new year. Kind regards, Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year

	Happy New Year
	Wish you a prosperous, lucky, blessed and otherwise wonderful year of the rooster! Timmyshin (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your combination of diplomacy, resillence, and stoicism at the wiki- coalface. Happy new year! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy Chinese New Year

Thanks a lot for your wishful message on my talk page User talk:Lemongirl942! Just wondering, how do I insert those templates for birthdays and festival templates to you? I always see other contributors doing so for a very long time, but I have no idea how to do so. Besides that, how do I get started for inserting those introductory templates on my User Page? Do provide me with tips accordingly for that.

You are always so kind and patient with me, I am still grateful that you defended me at Anon a few months back when almost every other editors were criticizing me but you always believed my true intention of edit and have excellent faith in me; thank you so much for that! :) Don't mind me asking, may I add you on any social media accounts (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) so that we can continue to communicate with each other even outside of Wikipedia? Of course it is your choice, but I do believe and trust in you a lot since you seem to understand my editing patterns very well and not forgetting the fact that you are a Singaporean too. Hope you have enjoyed this festive season with your family and friends; 3 cheers to that! :D Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for review

I'm wondering if you are interesting in reviewing the article on the Kingdom of Singapura as you have contributed in article on Singapore before, and I'm inviting reviews for the article - Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Singapura/archive1. The reason is mainly because I believe the article needs to be overhauled, but it may not be easy because of the extensive amount that's written already, therefore I would like suggestions that can improve it. The main problem is the uncertainty in the history and what appears to be skewing of the narrative (some points raised in Talk:Kingdom of Singapura). Many historians believe that many of the kings may be mythical. Suggestions, or even edits on the article if you want to, would be appreciated. Hzh (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Lemongirl942,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 816 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Singapore independence DRN

Hello, I have opened a DRN case regarding a Singapore discussion you participated in. If you wish, feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty. Best, CMD (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Advanced Bionics

I noticed you eliminated my article. It is factually incorrect that Advanced Bionics is "Not indepednently notable at this time." They are the world's second leading producer of cochlear implant systems. MED-EL, the worlds third leading producer, has a wikipedia article. They are featured in countless journals and articles, independent of the audiology world. The Sonova talk page, may I quote, requested that separate articles for major Sonova divisions be created. "Child companies and Grand-Child companies Sonova owns Phonak, Unitron, Advanced Bionics, and Connect Hearing Group. Connect Hearing Group owns at least 10 other brands. I've added the grand-children companies -- it'll probably be helpful for some searcher. The majority of the grand-children companies are in non-English countries, so I chose not to add a redirect. If you think it's needed, please do. I'm also gonna go through and add links to the brands. Also, it appears that the majority of these children (or even grand-children) companies have notability. Enough to merit their own page? I don't know so I'll just leave the children and grand children on this page for now. If it's deem that they have enough notability for their own page, go ahead and create it. CerealKillerYum (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)" Advanced Bionics is notable by all measures, hence the article should stay.PlanespotterA320 (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Dream Coder

Hi, since it is a copyright violation, I've come up with a new plot. Would that be too similar for your taste?

Zheng Hong Yi (Desmond Tan) and Yuan Jing Cheng (Teddy Tang) established BEGAN APPS three years back. Hong Yi is inspired by He Jian Ming's (Aloysius Pang) capacity to unravel his recreations outline and contracts him. Be that as it may, the organization's product design Fang Ru (Carrie Wong) can't coexist with Jian Ming. At the point when Jian Ming at long last accumulates his valor to pronounce his adoration for Fang Ru, he understands she is enamored with Zhong Zhen Long (Romeo Tan). Zhen Long's previous sweetheart, Rui Qing (Seraph Sun) returns and the combine needs to set their emotions aside. Zhong Ya Yun (Joanne Peh) was an upbeat housewife who lost everything after her significant other runs off with his courtesan, taking without end all their cash. At first subject to her sibling Zhen Long, she lifts herself up and joins BEGAN APPS as a Data Analyst. Exactly when BEGAN APPS is going to bring off with a noteworthy venture, Jing Cheng betray the organization. Hong Yi is profoundly harmed by his closest companion's treachery and separates…

33ryantan (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day

	Happy Valentine's Day!
	Happy valentine's day dear!-- Mona778 (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Adnan Saidi and Battle of Pasir Panjang

I think you wrongly revert it. You need to re-revert to the latest version that you revert. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.12.118 (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I reverted that because there are certain issues with the edits such as

• We don't usually put flags in the infobox
• It removed a citation needed tag. (It is not supposed to be removed unless the problem has been fixed)
• It also removed content and added some unsourced content. (We need to provide reliable references for adding content)
• It also added an image whose copyright status is unclear.

If you are able to find sources for some of the edits, I would be glad to discuss them. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Advanced Bionics Notability

Advanced Bionics is notable, they are the second leading producer of cochlear implants. There was no reason for it to be deleted. In terms of consensus, fully owned subsidaries do have independent articles about them. For just a few examples, Delta Air Lines and (Delta Private Jets), British Airways and (BA CityFlyer) (OpenSkies), El Al and (Up (airline)). PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Lemongirl942,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 816 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to the Wikipedia Selangor Meetup 2

The 4th Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup will be held for the second time on Selangor, and you are invited!

• Date: Saturday, 25 February 2017
• Time: 11:00 am - 1:00 pm (Malaysia Standard Time, UTC+8:00)
• Venue: Menara Sunway (check page for venue/room update), Bandar Sunway, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (3°4′8.4″N 101°36′36.6″E)
• Medium of communication:
  • English language - for the general overall meetup
  • Malay language - for Malay Wikipedia section (subject to request)

→ To collaborate between Wikipedia Malaysia User Group and Sunway Group, a large corporation in Malaysia.
→ To create Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects)'s articles and edit/improve articles on the spot.

This meetup was initiated by Chongkian and the invitation was written and sent by NgYShung. For more information and updates, see the meetup page. If there is any enquires, feel free to discuss at the talk page. If you wish to opt-out of any future Malaysia meetup invitation, please add your name here. (Delivered: 11:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC))

Please stop collapsing Vertex Venture Holdings into Temasek Holdings

Hello Lemongirl,

Please refer to the Talk Page on Vertex Venture Holdings. I have provided sources there. You may also want to contact Vertex Venture Holdings directly for comment as I believe you are in error. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caligarn (talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Caligarn: Subsidaries of a company are usually not notable enough for a standalone article. The references you have given on the talk page are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Lemongirl942 If this is true, I recommend that you fold up all entities considered to be subsidiaries of Temasek. These include [SMRT], [Mediacorp], [Alibaba], and [Singtel]. I think what you are not clear on is that Vertex Ventures is a group of entities that are NOT subsidiaries of Temasek Holdings. Vertex Venture Holdings is a subsidiary, but it is a holding company for a group of companies called Vertex Ventures. This warrants a separate page given that it is Vertex Ventures which invested in [Waze], [Grab], and more. Please note this article here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INHERITORG) for further clarification. Given that Vertex Venture Holdings receives considerable independent resource coverage independent of Temasek Holdings (see: https://www.google.com/search?{google:acceptedSuggestion}oq=vertex+venture+holdings+&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=vertex+venture+holdings&pws=0#q=vertex+venture+holdings&pws=0&tbm=nws), it makes sense for Vertex Venture Holdings to occupy its own Wikipedia Page.

Bias moderation

You issued me a warning for edit war, but not the other guy. It takes two to tango, if I'm guilty, he would be too. Point of view is always subjective. It was the other two guy who made changes, I merely undo their edit and revert to the original content, one of which is sourced from an article, refer to the section "Reaction." I think it should be kept as it is, as it is reaction from victim's perspective, Choice of words will be subjective to different folks. If someone make edit like them, usually he'll get warned. Instead you sided with them. Bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murugen (talk • contribs) 12:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Murugen. The edits by the other editor (Bertdrunk) are OK here. The way NPOV works is that we do not use subjective descriptions in Wikipedia's voice. As such, Wikipedia is not supposed to judge whether it is an "unjustified" or "justified" detention. We simply say it was a detention. This is applied consistently towards article such as Internment of Japanese Americans. I wasn't siding with the other editor, but rather just going by how NPOV works. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The reason he gave for editing was "unsourced content" but a word/adjective can't be sourced. In fact, "decisive" is not subjective if you read up neutral account of the war. There's a degree of bias from him, let's be honest. I understand NPOV, but "unjustified" is taken from a source article quoted, and it is from the "Reaction" column where victim's view and reaction are stated, not Wiki. Hence, I think it should be kept, otherwise no point having a "Reaction" column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murugen (talk • contribs) 14:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Murugen: Generally for contentious labels, we do require sources. In this case for example, the term "unjustified" is not there in the source. I understand that it may be seem strange at first, but our NPOV policy ensures that we have a detached tone and objective prose when describing events. As for the term "decisive" it doesn't seem to be used in the main article (and if I remember correctly, consensus at WP:MILHIST was against using such labels, unless absolutely necessary). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand. That Wiki page isn't about war anyway, I don't wish to dwell on it too. However, the "injustice" part is valid. The source clearly talks about injustice, hence the need for an apology. Not to mention, it is written under "Reaction" column, which is intended to express victims reaction. It doesn't come under the main subject. Do take that into consideration, it's a valid point. If victims view are prohibited, then we are not being partial and neutral. Various Wikipedia articles allow such viewpoint as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murugen (talk • contribs) 16:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Big Pun. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Smush123 (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikihounding

Rather than reverting my edits, perhaps your efforts would be better spent, and more productive, improving the pages you consider lacking instead of just reverting everything as you are not building on what is there simply removing. I consider your actions to be WP:WIKIHOUND please refrain from doing so going forward. Thanks Smush123 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)