User talk:Laterthanyouthink

Welcome

Hello, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. – --palmiped |  Talk  09:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Chelseawoman1 (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Pointless

Please read this re File:Hands, Reginald Harry Myburgh (1888-1918).jpg. I was amused to see you protesting the speedy deletion tag that you had applied. But surely if this guy died in 1918, any photo of him must be firmly in the publick domain and we don't need to crawl to the master and fellows of University College, Oxford? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• To RHaworth : I'm not experienced enough yet, as an only occasional contributor, to know what the rules are relating to privately-owned photographs from archives. The source I found it in said 'by permission of University College', so I wrote to them to request permission for publication on Wikipedia. They assented but requested that I publish that it was 'by permission of the Master and Fellows of University College, Oxford.’ So when I got to uploading it and hit the question about permission, thought that I'd better make sure that it was okay. I hoped to get an email in return within 24 hours but as yet haven't heard back. Please advise what determines if a photo is in the public domain, as I didn't find the Wiki guidelines clear last time I looked.Chelseawoman1 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think {{PD-old-70}} is fairly clear. The only problem is that we do not know who the photographer was. My recommendation is: be bold - post the image to the Commons. Say "photographer unknown but presumed to have died before 1946" and apply a PD-old-70 tag to it. Also write back to University College and ask them if they know who the photographer was, etc. If they claim to own the copyright, ask if they are willing to release the image under {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} because, as you found out, "permitted only on Wikipedia" are not acceptable terms. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

RHaworth - Okay, thanks for this guidance. I will get back to it soon. I have to refresh my memory about categories and how to post the photo to the article first too because I've only done that once before. Chelseawoman1 (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability

Hi. I think you're on thin ground citing a former POW's opinion as verification in this edit]. I'm sympathetic and know it's a general truth that the Italian PGs were unsanitary, lousy and short of food (for guards as well as POWS!). I know because my own Dad was in PG 54 and was very vocal about the "Eyeties". My point is just that you have not observed the rule that "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". I believe published sources must exist, so there is no need to introduce an unpublished one. Maybe we should look for a general source and add a statement at the top of the article, say "The camps were poorly administered, food rations were insufficient to maintain health, standards of hygiene were low, and lice infestation was common." What do you think? Bjenks (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bjenks. Okay, fair enough, thanks for the feedback. I did think twice about this but wasn't sure. At some point these memoirs (and others) will be published on a website or two dedicated to the camps - so do they become published sources then? When I get to the end of editing these memoirs, I will be doing further research and interacting more with a couple of POW sites and people I've encountered, so I may be able to contribute more effectively then. (As you can see, I'm a very junior editor at this point!) Would you like me to revert my edit, or will you? Chelseawoman1 (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no great urgency--leave it be while we think about it. Mere publication is not enough for a reliable source. Check out these ideas and look at these WP guidelines. Regards, Bjenks (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for those links Bjenks. I'll come back to it another day. As a librarian in a former life, I do understand the need for reliable sources, and in general concur completely. I suspect though with topics such as these, any descriptions and everyday details would be based on somebody's memories of it. But perhaps these are better left on other sites and not included in Wikipedia. BTW this memoir complains about the "Itis" too, although does mention in a couple of places that the local people were kind and sympathetic towards the prisoners, gave them food when nobody was looking, etc. Chelseawoman1 (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's a great deal that needs to be said on the whole subject (which can and must be represented in Wikipedia). Personal memoirs may be usable if they are systematically collated and published in a reliable and rational way. One site I've found is SWWEC (Second World War Experience Centre), which is a registered charity in the UK and thus legally obliged to operate in an accountable manner. This page, for instance, says some useful things about Italy. I'm now thinking in terms of a new article headed "World War II prisoner-of-war camps in Italy" which will flesh out overall facts like these and point to the existing list. We could also reference important biographical stuff, e.g., Iris Origo's War in Val d'Orcia. Bjenks (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again - that site looks useful - and good idea. I have a way to go before I get the hang of all of the editing tricks and various rules, and unfortunately just don't have the time and health to contribute substantially. It's a bit frustrating because I see things I'd like to add to or improve, but because the actual editing can end up taking me a long time, and I don't want to mess up, and because it's often in the middle of doing something else (non-Wiki), I just leave it. Almost every edit leads to learning something new, but because there are - or have been so far - such long gaps between edits, it doesn't always remain in accessible memory! Chelseawoman1 (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Laterthanyouthink. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of HMS Forth (1813) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HMS Forth (1813) 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/HMS Forth (1813) 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. – 333-blue at 09:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Bolton (post-captain) has been accepted

William Bolton (post-captain), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Remembrance Sunday into National Service of Remembrance. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa - I will add that "copied" template for this one and follow this practice in future. In this case, I found that quite a lot of the text was identical or factually very similar in both places, and possibly added by the same person (or perhaps someone had copied some over from one to another at some point in the past?), and quite a few facts lacked citations. (I still have the original section in my sandbox and was going to go through it all to double-check again.) I've recently done similar with a couple of other related pages so will also review those. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Laterthanyouthink. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Good catch on that user that you came into IRC with. I checked them out and I totally agree with their behavior. I will continue to keep my eye out! Snowycats (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking that up,Snowycats. I just didn't have time to look up other ways of reporting that user (who should probably be banned?) or systematically reverting their edits, as I was already running late and then my keyboard started playing up just as I got into the IRC! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem! Keep an eye on them and I'd ARV them if they keep going after the last edit I reverted. Hope you enjoy the rest of your day! Snowycats (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Snowycats. I am wondering about all of those edits they did to Foreign relations of Taiwan, United States military deployments and probably others. Hard to discern at a glance because of the type of edits they are (numbers and other atributes in tables, etc.), but on at least one table where they've changed the total, I added up the figures and the last digit seems to be out. I suspect that they are deliberately vandalising and am tempted to undo everything they've done, but because of the subtle nature of their changes, think that it would take some time to cross-check everything. Should I start a discussion about this one on the Help page for some pooled energy and experience or just post one of the standard templates on their page? I'm not sure what ARV means, but did find some pages about the processes involved in flagging vandals, mainly via this thread. The repeated edit summary of "Fixed grammar" seems to me to be a clue that it's intentional. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Alright! So to start, ARV just means Advance Reporting and Vetting, it's a Twinkle script term. Basically what I meant was to report them to get some admin attention to it. However, it seems that as for now, they're done with their activities. I'm talking over what happened with another editor in case any further action should be taken, and I will keep you updated if I do anything else. I agree that it seems intentional. However, sometimes those edits that just don't contribute, are better to just leave and move on with. I think that in this case, there is nothing too extreme that they did and just to keep an extra pair of eyes on their future activities. Thanks! Snowycats (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, great, thanks Snowycats. I'll leave it to you (although would still like to undo those past edits just for the sake of tidyness, if it's false information! - but will leave as is for now). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! I'm usually on IRC if you ever want to chat about that or anything else. See you round'! Snowycats (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your efforts at the Apex (gang) page. You've improved it a great deal. Cheers mate. Bacondrum (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and no worries, Bacondrum. I had to get rid of all of those unnecessary subheadings and irrelevant details that someone (re?)added recently, and then just decided to have a go at a re-vamp for the reasons stated. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Northwood Cemetery, London

Hello, Laterthanyouthink,

Thanks for creating Northwood Cemetery, London! I edit here too, under the username Doomsdayer520 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Thanks for your new article on Northwood Cemetery, London. The article would benefit from more sources with content on anything that makes this cemetery notable, such as famous people buried there, events that made the news, etc.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Doomsdayer520:. Thanks for your note. I do recall at the time that any other information about the cemetery was rather thin on the ground, but I'll add it to my list of things to get back to and see what I can do. If nothing else turns up, would it mean that the whole article should be removed?

Incidentally, you have taught me how to play around with templates in my sandbox without causing them to be invoked, so thanks for that too! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Crime in Tasmania moved to draftspace moved per your request

An article you recently created, Crime in Tasmania, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Barkeep49. It's part of a larger project and I will be returning to it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Behrouz Boochani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kurdish

Lemur-like ringtail possum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cape York

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixed! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Reza Barati

Some of the content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/19/reza-barati-men-convicted-of-asylum-seekers-to-be-free-in-less-than-four-years. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

All re-worked and re-added! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

apology

very sorry - please accept the apology - I thought I was looking at a diff with definitely not MOS relevent something - back to as you were. JarrahTree 10:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries, JarrahTree - easy enough to make that kind of slip-up! No harm done. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be very useful to keep your items up to date on the talk page side of things - or at least get a hang of it JarrahTree 12:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi JarrahTree. I'm afraid that I don't know what I should be doing unless you point me to some guidance. I notice that you have updated some of the info in project boxes on the talk pages of a number of articles I happen to have edited recently (in some cases very minor editing), and a couple I've created or merged (some still WIPs). Not having yet had any involvement with projects, the only changes I have done on those is to bring over relevant info from the project boxes on the talk pages when merging articles and edit them in a way which seems to make sense. I have no idea how the ratings system works and have assumed that project admins curate these. I've found WP:PROJECT and will start reading it when I have time. But please feel free to list specific items you think would be useful. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No big deal to worry about - in some cases we do not have anyone following our edits (oh well not always..) and if we have low edited areas - it is worth getting a handle on the value of being to up-rate items. In many cases the default of anything is low importance... always worth reverse engineering to see what happens... The crime/law/political framework in Australia has very few editors who take the time and trouble to review ranges of categories or articles. When it comes to social action even less, apart from fly-bys in most cases. I will try to find a range of links to explain the nuances if I can get the time. JarrahTree 00:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay - well I'll try to keep an eye on those boxes and venture to change a few if I think them more important than currently categorised. I have only started editing in these areas relatively recently, but as I get more familiar with them I'm sure I'll get a feel for it. Thanks for the suggestion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Arclight

Hi Laterthanyouthink, I commented out your edit to Arclight. Since disambiguation pages are designed to be navigation aids to existing articles, only internal links are used (WP:DABDD). There are lots of mentions of Arclight Films scattered here and there, but no article that actually talks about the film company. Maybe if someone goes to the DAB page looking for the film company, they will see the commented out entry and be moved to write an article! Leschnei (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Leschnei:. No worries, that's fine and thanks for the heads-up. It did cross my mind to create a stub article at the time, but being so busy at the moment with so many side-issues leading to improvements in articles other than the ones I've been trying to concentrate on, I decided that this one could wait for the moment. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Operation Sovereign Borders

Please restore your edit. Sorry for the inconvenience. I had reverted a non-neutral edit and seeing what I viewed as another reverted back to my previous edit. I think you were adding a clarification and my edit removed two edits including yours. I don't want to make a mistake in trying to restore what you were trying to do. If it was simply a matter of rolling back my edit, I would do so. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries, Donner60 - will do. Thanks for the note. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your consistent efforts in fending off vandalism on Australian far-right pages and for helping ensure that the true nature of these groups is told, that their supporters arn't able to sanitise these groups public image by presenting them as "concerned mums and dads" rather than what they are...violent, criminal neo-Nazi thugs. Have a beer mate! Bacondrum (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bacondrum, and thanks for your efforts too. I always aim at writing in a neutral tone about these people, their aims and their activities, but by the very nature of their activities, there's not much positive to report! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, I aim to be neutral too...nothing neutral about the attempts made by some editors to paint Nazi's as merely concerned citizens. The deliberate attempts by their supporters to obfuscate around Nazism drives me nuts, it's so dishonest.

A page you started (Crime in Tasmania) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Crime in Tasmania.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your new article on Crime in Tasmania. Note that there is a problem with text that has been copied from a copyrighted source. Follow the links in the notice at the top of the article for pointers.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Doomsdayer520:. I know I was in a hurry creating it and can't recall where I sourced it - but will have a look at it now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis

Hello, thank you for the comment you left on my page. The reason why I have deleted the some of what was written on the Azerbaijanis article is because the claims made are not only biased, but also because they are fabricated lies. If you have a look at the sources used to justify what has been written on that article, not a single word of what was written on that article, that I have deleted, corresponds to the sources used. It is not the question of whether or not those sources are reliable, the question is that those sources do not mention anything written there. Except the one of the sources, which judging by what's written on it is full of pure bias. I am referring to this source: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/iranian-azeris-a-giant-minority . It is like if someone came and said that all whites in America are white supremacist racists because of some radical groups, what this article is saying is exactly that. This "source" is not reliable and is heavily biased. To be perfectly honest, the talk section will get this article nowhere, because this article was hijacked by such people which wrote these things long ago and now that we are trying to correct these errors we will have to discuss it in the talk section. I will go ahead with it strictly for that source but if there is no discussion I will assume that there is no objection and I will delete it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migboy123 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Migboy123, and thanks for your comment. The subject matter is not one with which I have expertise nor familiarity; I was merely concerned with the way you made such a wholesale deletion without discussing it first on the talk page, as is usual on WP. I can see that you don't yet have a long history of editing on Wikipedia, so wonder if you have familiarised yourself with the various guidelines such as WP:EDIT and WP:NOT? If you look at the top of my talk page, you will see a Welcome panel which someone posted for me when I started becoming active as an editor and which has lots of useful links. You may find it useful to keep a copy on your page too? I can only suggest that you continue to discuss this issue on the talk page, taking note of the text at the top of that page and realising that the article has a long history and obviously attracts attention from people with differing points of view. I hope that you will continue to edit constructively on Wikipedia, but go cautiously because deleting swathes of text and claiming bias without consensus could get you into trouble with other editors. (Also, don't forget to sign every comment with 4 tildes!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink Thank you, I may have misunderstood your message. I am still familiarizing myself with Wikipedia's guidelines, but I have put up a section in the talk page of that article regarding this. However, my main issue with the majority of what I deleted was false information that was supported by sources which were not even related nor mention any of the false information written. Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention about discussions on the talk pages, I wasn't aware of it but from now I will definitely use it. Thank you once again. Migboy123 (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries, Migboy123 - it takes time to learn all of the conventions, and we all have to start somewhere. Just be patient - sometimes it can take a while to get a response on talk pages. If in doubt about anything, ask for advice at the Teahouse or Help Desk. Good luck! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A little gesture of thanks

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

'Bother that Assad Government' is my opinion on the Syrian Civil War. I visit the page every week. I did so today, and when I looked at the contents to see the latest news from the 'Timeline' section...

What the Cheese?

I had to find out the person who did that. I had to. I tell you.

I h a d t o

Okay, enough of that.

I thought, I'm going to find that person and thank them on their talk page. Not a barnstar. A real thank-you.

The Version History of the article revealed that a certain user named LATERTHANYOUTHINK was responsible for the big operation.

So here I am, saying (well, typing) a thank-you to you. That must have been really tedious. And rewarding as well.

And in the case that you happen to be a resident of Australia, here's something to either make or break your day--I'm from across the ditch. Nudge Nudge, Hint Hint :). Visit my userpage if you can't work it out.

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 08:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rebestalic

Ha ha, that gave me a laugh, and thank you for your thanks. Indeed, bother that Assad fellow! I can confirm that the job was rather long and tedious, and there were times when I asked myself, "Why, oh why did I start on this one?". It's still not great, and it doesn't look as if anyone has taken up the gauntlet and continued with updating it, but I had to walk away at some point. I hope it's a little better than it was, at least. And in less of a mess than that war has left that poor country. (Excessive duplication of factual material, especially when articles don't accord with one another, is one of my bugbears, and this is probably what got me into that one.) And you're right about my current residency. Thanks again for noticing and taking the trouble to thank me! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

you're welcome

Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 06:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Domestic Violence

Hi, A few weeks ago, I started trying to find information to help a (male) relative that was a victim of domestic violence (DV). I came to the page on Wikipedia and found it incredibly confusing and unhelpful. It echoes what my relative says the real world is like: almost the only references about DV on men were men as the perpetrators. And women can only be little delicate angels (I'd like to see someone try that on ME!!). Like you, I thought that if nothing else, a piece at the top (which I later found is called a hatnote) of the [Domestic Violence] article would help other readers to find the information they are looking for. Flyer22 behaves as though the page is hers/his to control. I don't know Wikipedia well enough, but is that right? Anyhow, I added a comment to your point about hatnotes because I still think it is the right thing to do. Or if not, make the [Domestic Violence] article into a disambiguation page with pointers to all the various other bits and pieces. The current article could then just become a real [Domestic violence against women] article, which it almost is, anyway. Varybit (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)