User talk:Love of Corey

Welcome!

Hello, Love of Corey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Aurora, Illinois shooting did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. John from Idegon (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!) Fettlemap (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2020 Milwaukee workplace shooting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2020 Milwaukee workplace shooting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Milwaukee workplace shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moves & Redirects

Hello, Love of Corey,

Please be careful with your page moves and when you change the target of a redirect. Many of your recent edits have had to be reverted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using the verb comprise

Your usage of the phrase "comprised of" is grammatically problematic. Please reference the following articles for a better understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprised_of https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comprise-vs-compose/ https://www.businesswritingblog.com/business_writing/2015/01/comprised-of-vs-composed-of-a-test.html https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/can-you-use-comprised-of-grammar Sir.knem (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, too, but was waiting for Giraffedata to fix it (it's famously his pet peeve). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canada: Confederation or unitary state? re Nova Scotia killings

Is Canada a confederation of provinces with geographic divisions that mean anything? I would assume that "H" Division is the section of the RCMP responsible for Nova Scotia. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about that. What I know is that you need to have a source backing that edit. Love of Corey (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your question about number formatting

Hi Love of Corey,

I notice in your edit summary on this edit that you asked if there's a standard for how to write numbers, and the answer is yes, see MOS:NUMERAL. In the case of your edit, it could have been written either way, numerically or in words. For numbers from zero to nine, though, it should be in words. Cheers, ChromeGames923 (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. As noted there seems to be an MoS standard for everything. The only real rule is you cannot start a sentence with a number set in numerals. ("22 people were killed....") After that it depends on the editor. If a numeral startles my eye when I am reading, I set it in words. I am looking for ease of reading, but that can be a matter of opinion. In any case, keep it as you like and enjoy your day. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, one to twelve are better as their own words, then things start following a serial pattern with 13, 14, 15...you know the rest. Monotonous orderly stuff like that is for numerals. Especially 777, with its ridiculous number of syllables! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Nova Scotia Killers RCMP Rank of Chief Superintendent Leather

On one of your recent edits, you showed Leather with rank of Superintendent. He is actually a Chief Superintendent which is commonly abbreviated as C/Supt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police Air Java (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Wentworth, Nova Scotia does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Aloha27 talk 23:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Current Events.

Hello. I wanted to invite you to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events as you have done edits on Portal:Current events. Most editors aren't aware that the project became active again in April 2020. Just wanted to inform you about that and hope you join. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do? Love of Corey (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just add your name to the participates list. The project just improves articles posted to Portal:Current events. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for letting me know. Love of Corey (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to discuss dispute on talk page.

Please discuss on the talk page, rather than edit warring. A similar statement will be placed on other involved editors talk pages. [1] Jacona (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 08:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not "fix" redirects

Please read WP:NOTBROKEN, and stop "fixing" redirects. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill, thank you. This user's edit history is full of them. Love of Corey, they are as meaningless as those spaces you keep adding. Please stop--it is unnecessary, and especially in high-traffic articles like [[Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery] it is disruptive since it clogs up the history. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incel

Saw your edit summary (???) and figured I'd explain—the visual editor has a nasty habit of inserting empty "recommended" fields in templates like that, it wasn't intentional on my part. Thanks for all your hard work on that article, it's great! GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Love of Corey (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't drop inaccurate templates on my talk page

I am not "edit warring". In fact, you took the first step towards edit warring by restoring your preferred version of the article, instead of discussing the disagreement on the talk page, per WP:BRD. I merely restored the WP:Status quo. Now go make a case on the article talk page for your edit, and please don't template me without cause again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you've got a lot of warnings nd notices on your talk page for someone who's only been here for a year and 3 months. Perhaps you's be advised to slow down a little, refamiliarize yourself with some of our basic policies, and don't make edits that aren't in line with them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Learn what the definition of WP:3RR is.

(2) You are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me.

I don't have time for shit like yours. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh... Love of Corey (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to 2020 Nova Scotia attacks does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Aloha27 talk 22:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to James Scurlock does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Aloha27 talk 14:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, you do not understand what you are being told here. When you edit a page, please let other editors know what it was you did rather than simply what section you edited. Failure to do so after being warned repeatedly can lead to you being blocked from editing the project. Regards, Aloha27 talk 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I have to use an edit summary every time I make an edit? How come I see other users not doing so? Love of Corey (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*I've. Love of Corey (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you'll take a look at (for example) my contributions, except for occasions which I have rolled back vandalism, you'll find an explanation of what my edits were for. Regards, Aloha27 talk 23:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I've seen other users not doing it. How do you explain that? Love of Corey (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what about finding a dog turd in your living room suggests that the solution is go out in the yard and get some more shit to keep it company? People have gotten away with murder. Does that mean we can no longer prosecute someone for murder? I don't have an explanation for other users not using edit summaries. Why should I? Your attitude is at best childish. Use edit summaries. John from Idegon (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. :'( Love of Corey (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot my edit summary for the last one. My bad. Love of Corey (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not spam everyone's talk pages to make a point, too. Juxlos (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Love of Corey, your advice about edit summaries is the subject of a discussion at my talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Call for discussion

I initiated a discussion over a redirect you started. Geo Swan (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Floyd protests in Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American politics discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at George Floyd‎‎, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Reading stabbing

Wikipedia is not a source, but if you wanna be cheeky, here's what the mass murder article says:

"Mass murder is the act of murdering a number of people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time and in close geographic proximity."

The FBI definition does not apply as this occurred in the United Kingdom, where the FBI does not have jurisdiction. Therefore, three is a number of people, and it evidently happened pretty simultaneously. Buttons0603 (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI defines it as four or more dead, and that's what Wikipedia goes by. Love of Corey (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to what? John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen an article about a mass-casualty incident with two or three dead that have been categorized under mass murder or massacre categories. Love of Corey (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:June 2020 crimes in Europe

A tag has been placed on Category:June 2020 crimes in Europe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from COVID-19 pandemic in the United States into Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. 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) 14:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Thanks for the notification! I didn't know that. Love of Corey (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same on COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden → Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Attribution is required under the terms of the Creative Commons license.— Diannaa (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template is optional; the edit summary is mandatory.— Diannaa (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that. I misinterpreted your message. I'll keep that in mind now. Love of Corey (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic

The article Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Coat rack article - copies material from COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ---Snowded ^TALK 04:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020s crimes in Canada

A tag has been placed on Category:2020s crimes in Canada requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 18:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Talk:Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Talk:Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ---Snowded ^TALK 10:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic 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/Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. ---Snowded ^TALK 19:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you did, but I think your AfD link is incorrectly written. Love of Corey (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting articles

I see you made another split of an article, creating Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, and I see no previous discussion and consensus about the splitting. I therefore see the splitting as unfortunate, and I would like to ask you to stop splitting articles without reaching consensus for splitting with key article authors. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Article size; one of the relevant portions is this: "As browsers have improved, there is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage. If uncertain, or with high profile articles, start a discussion on the talkpage regarding the overall topic structure. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. If the discussion makes no progress consider adding one of the split tags in order to get feedback from other editors." --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. A "Very long" template has been on there since May. As far as I know, a WP:BOLD split is fair game. Plus, the social impact article has been up since July 24, and not once did anyone complain about it then. Love of Corey (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The readable prose size of the current revision of COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom is 90 792 bytes. And the policy text I just quoted suggests that splits should not be bold. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a notable, distinct topic that should be on its own and not be dedicated to a significant portion of the main COVID-19 article. Love of Corey (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I'll repeat myself: no one complained the moment I split the article off. Both articles have been edited many times since then, and I hadn't heard one peep from any dissenters from July 24 to now. You are the only one who's raised an objection to it. Love of Corey (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just quoted you a guideline (Wikipedia:Article size) and hope that you will abide by it in future. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I just pointed out a "Very long" template in the UK article and hope you will do something to address it. Love of Corey (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Are you going to respond? Love of Corey (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Love of Corey (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. Love of Corey (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can put an inapplicable template into an article; as pointed out above, the article has 90 792 bytes of readable prose and it can even be much longer per Wikipedia:Article size if justified by content requirements. (I have noticed the curious impatience above, expecting me to respond within a minute; I don't know what to think about it.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. We must make articles as comfortable and navigable as possible. Love of Corey (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't explain why you seem to be the only one making a huge deal about this. Everyone else seems to be very cool with it. Love of Corey (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you haven't even removed the template tells me it's not as inapplicable as you claim. Love of Corey (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. :) Love of Corey (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Frankly, anyone who shows the above level of patience should not be doing any splits at all, in my view. Structural edits should be made only after careful, slow deliberation, by editors patient enough to carefully read and apply Wikipedia:Article size. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT much? Love of Corey (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're clearly deflecting. How is it that you're the only one to complain after weeks of silence from other editors following the split? Very suspicious considering it comes just as you're trying to get the Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic article deleted but the AfD isn't currently going your way. Love of Corey (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic is the same story, a split created in violation of Wikipedia:Article size. It is true enough that multiple users in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic did not realize as much, but that does not make the violation of Wikipedia:Article size claim invalid. If there was a discussion before the split was made, the split would never gain consensus, as apparent from Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden#RfC: Splitting content on government response to separate article. The result is that the time of actual content contributors was wasted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This pandemic is the story of the century and you're trying to minimize and censor valuable content. Gotta love deniers. Love of Corey (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every angle to this story is important. No detail should be wasted. Love of Corey (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'll repeat myself: "How is it that you're the only one to complain after weeks of silence from other editors following the split?" Love of Corey (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. :D Love of Corey (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the RfC, the only people to comment on there were mostly the only people to vote to delete on the AfD, including yourself. The only two to not participate in the AfD were bladjur and an unsigned user. That's not really a fair comparison to make, nor an accurate picture of what the community consensus would've been for a split. Love of Corey (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) This increasingly looks like a waste of time, but anyway: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic does not show consensus for the split: there are 5 keeps and 3 deletes, and from reading the keep comments, they are uninformed and do not reflect on the violation of Wikipedia:Article size. In the RFC, additional votes against split are from Blådjur and David A. As I said, there would have been no consensus for the split: there is no consensus in the RFC, and there is not even consensus for the split in the AfD since by the conventional 2/3-supermajority, 5:3 for split is not a consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're not going to address other points I've been trying to make, I'm going to ask that you leave me alone now. Good night. Love of Corey (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kiwi Party (2019) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kiwi Party (2019) 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/Kiwi Party (2019) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. IdiotSavant (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot revert

Hello, I noticed your revert of my edit on Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot with the edit summary "More accurate. This was a criminal act." However, per the sources I cited (Vox article and BBC article) and other general research I conducted (happy to pull the links again) entering the Michigan capital with firearms is legal (to quote "Michigan is an open-carry state, and people are allowed to openly carry inside the state Capitol" (Vox) and "It is legal to bear firearms inside the statehouse" (BBC)). In sum, while the kidnapping plot is clearly illegal, simply entering the Michigan capital with firearms is perfectly legal under that state's laws and is not a criminal act. Further, as I mentioned in my edit summary, we generally try to avoid using loaded terminology/labels unless widely sourced. In this case, both of the news articles I cited use the term "entered" instead of "stormed" and as "stormed" has a strong, usually negative, connotation given the lack of use of "stormed" in the sources I saw I went with the more neutral "entered" (as is used in the sources I cited) to not unduly insert a point of view into the article and to be consistent with our main articles on the protests (both of which use the more neutral term "entered"). Based on all this, my inclination remains that "entered" is the correct term to use here (though I am also happy to ask for a third opinion here and to open the discussion up more broadly). Finally, as you likely saw, I swapped the word "entered" in to replace a well explained/reasoned edit by an anonymous editor which you reverted with no explanation. As a general note going forward, it is generally advisable to explain when reverting a non-vandalism edit so editors can understand your rationale and discuss the changes (as we are doing here). Thanks, Mifter (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to follow-up on this so we can either agree on an approach for the article or involve additional editors to come to a consensus on how the article should read. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that and a q

How does one edit the double-dagger footnote in that info box? It should say ‘Infections’ rather than ‘Suspected cases’. Thx Humanengr (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure. Love of Corey (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll ask at tech support. Thx again Humanengr (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Love of Corey (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with ref names

Hi! Your edit here introduced a duplicate ref name error. (Search for 'error:' in the revisions before and after your edit.) I have since fixed this error. --Palosirkka (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that. I was copying-and-pasting it but forgot to fix the original ref. Love of Corey (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murders, Islamists and English sources

Hi,

Thanks for your welcome. Unfortunately, I don't think that I would be a regular member, since I created an account to narrow the islamist vandalism but it seemingly is a lost cause. You can't exchange with people who are triggered by a simple picture and refuse to admit that other people can have a different opinion on the matter. Plus, I'm concerned by the use of English sources, which are utterly biased on the questions of racism and religion. Those sources blend ethnicity, skin color and religion, which is exactly why the contribute to diffuse lies and lack of understanding on certain subjects. I saw articles on CNN, NY Times and others that show a total lack of neutrality and comprehension. Since this wiki use essentially English sources, there is no way articles on the murder of Samuel Paty would be covered correctly, as it is just a pretext to slam a "laïcité" they do not understand, and to diffuse (perhaps unwittingly) islamists ideas. It is difficult to explain that, no, muslims do not have less rights in France, no there is no official islamophobia, but yes, as everywhere there are racist and intolerant jerks, including muslims, Arabs, Chechens, Europeans, Asians, etc). Frankly, I'm a little scared by how those pages are systematically raided and how English medias view all this. Hopefully I also saw reasonable people, trying to maintain neutrality.Passant67 (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhhh...okay...? Love of Corey (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought your welcome was a reaction to the debates over the article of the Murder of Samuel Paty and was willing to explain why it is complicated. Didn't want to cause problem. Forget that. Passant67 (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you a basic welcome template. Nothing remarkably special. Love of Corey (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Im' not used to how the English Wiki works, sorry !Passant67 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Love of Corey (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you Love of Corey

And why are you sending me messages?

PS: I would like to report unconstructive editing by an editor. Do I do that to you or someone else? Thank you for your contribution! 85.148.213.144 (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alert from WikiProject Current Events

Hello. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events format is currently being updated. However, one new change is a section for "Current discussions". The Portal:Current events has debates all the time to determine if things are notable for the portal (international news) or if they are better suited for a place like 2020 in the United States. In the past, small 'edit wars' have taken place between editors over topics. This new section on the WikiProject is a new place where editors can discuss between each other and have an easy access to 'outside opinion' from other participates. Members in the Current Event WikiProject are welcome to invite other editors that have disagreements to start the discussion on the WikiProject. (Unlike RFC's, discussions about topics would be about 1 week or whenever the topic is no longer relevant from the WikiProject).

Thank you for reading and thank you for participating in the Current Event WikiProject! (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up

You need to update the internal section links, e.g. #Missouri (special), after altering the capitalization, an example of which is here. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links broken by capitalization

Regard this edit and similar edits, if you're going to change the capitalization of headings — such as "Georgia (Special)" to "Georgia (special)," a lot of links are broken because they are sensitive to capitalization.

Some of them are:

internal (in the "Change in composition" section, 1972 United States Senate elections#Change in composition or 1972 United States Senate elections#Race summaries)
other articles
redirects (1972 United States Senate special election in Georgia)

What do you think? —GoldRingChip 13:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elections

Regarding your edit here, thank you for adding data on the recent election! Assuming you'll be adding more, I'd like to suggest some minor formatting methods: "Incumbent" is capitalized in these boxes and does not need linking, the parties can use "US" in the name instead of "United States" for better template-matching; please leave a space between the bar "|" and the parameter, as in, | percentage instead of |percentage so editors can read it more easily. All of this makes the page easier to read and easier to edit. Keep up the great work! —GoldRingChip 22:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Love of Corey (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New draft started relating to an article you worked on

Hello. I saw you added information to Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer. I have recently started Draft:Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine as the articles of impeachment were announced today. Just wanted to let you know in case you wanted to help add information too it. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States

I saw a massive change (not by you) to the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States) made a little while back that resulted in a great loss of information. I see that you had some intermediate changes that you may want to take a look at re-inserting. I have not reviewed your edits or citations, but am assuming in good faith that they were of value, and wanted to give you the opportunity to re-make them with the restored version of the page/article. One thing I would note is my entry on the talk page, where I mention that one of your edits of case count date incorrectly uses a cited article's publication date as the date of the increase in case-count. While using news articles for citation is certainly acceptable in many cases, keep in mind that, especially in the case of your cited article, which was published at 4am and written the day before, publication date does not necessarily equal event date. Thank you for your edits. GtoTheCizzay (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder

Your recent editing history at COVID-19 pandemic in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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

Love of Corey, yesterday you removed a paragraph with the edit summary "I agree that this doesn't really belong here. It should ideally go to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on politics#United States." Today I restored a fraction of that text with the edit summary "Undid. Politics impact on Covid in Bemidji. Not about Covid impact on politics." What I meant by that is that the paragraph said the opposite of what you said you removed it for. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the original rationale that the information is politically-motivated and can offer no substantial contribution in the article's context. Love of Corey (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. Please follow up on the article's talk page. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Love of Corey (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden in notes

For edits such as this, I suggest that it is better suited to put the non-existent or WP:SELFRED links in  so future editors can use them when appropriate. —GoldRingChip 02:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify how to do that? Love of Corey (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes… I just did it here. Does that help? —GoldRingChip 02:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification! Love of Corey (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland (July–December 2020) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland (July–December 2020) 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/Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland (July–December 2020) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. noq (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Aloha27 talk 16:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Love of Corey, even if your edits themselves are decent, the lack of an edit summary is pretty disruptive for other editors. Please don't be that guy. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gaetz

Hello! I noticed you inserted this edit into the Matt Gaetz article: [2]. While I share your concerns, none of the sources you provided actually directly mention Gaetz. As such, you edit is comprised of original research and synthesis. Additionally, the edit is far too long and it seems rather undue for the article since this was a very recent event and Gaetz was not a major individual in the lawsuit (see: WP:NOTNEWS & WP:RECENTISM for more information). Would you mind self-reverting yourself? Afterwards, we can try to find a source that directly mentions Gaetz and we can attempt to summarize the article in about two sentences. Would that be acceptable? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've self-reverted, but we shouldn't summarize in two sentences. It's very noteworthy if Gaetz and hundreds of other Representatives are unseated because of their actions. We must reflect as such. Love of Corey (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Love of Corey: I really appreciate your self-revert! The problem is that the article is about Matt Gaetz. If readers want to learn more about the lawsuit, we have a article for that as well: Texas v. Pennsylvania. What is Gaetz's exact role in the case? At the moment, it seems that Gaetz (and other Representatives) merely signed on to an amicus brief. In effect, Gatez was not a major contributor to the case. By signing on to the brief, he signaled that he supported the case. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But he was in danger of being unseated because of it, and there are sources indicating this. That MUST be mentioned. Love of Corey (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind providing me the source you're referring to? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[3] :) Love of Corey (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the source. It seems as though Bill Pascrell, a Democrat, is "urging" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to refuse to seat the Republicans who support the case. In reality, the chances of Nancy Pelosi refusing to seat over 120 duly-elected members of Congress is very, very low. I don't believe such an event has ever occured. You and I could also send a letter to Nancy Pelosi asking her to give us $1 million, but, again, the chances of that happening is also very, very low. Additionally at his time, according to your source, Nancy Pelosi has made no indication that she will actually do what Pascrell is asking. We typically refrain from speculation here at Wiki. However, if in the future Nancy Pelosi does indeed refuse to seat those 120 Republicans, then we can definitely include it in the article. --Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt

FYI, your edit here broke the excerpting of COVID-19 pandemic in the United States to COVID-19 pandemic#United States; see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Bug_report_for_Excerpt. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Not really an expert in that sort of thing, so I didn't know. Love of Corey (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Nashville explosion

Hi. If you are going to constantly revert other editors contributions, please follow WP:BRD and post a message to the article talk page with your rationale to assist other editors in refining the content and help us understand your views. None of us are mind readers. Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Nashville bombing

Just a reminder that you do not WP:OWN this article, and should allow other editors to contribute to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing wikipedia

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page 2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you wish to improve the article, do not remove valid, sourced information from it by undoing changes. Instead, consider rewriting the article as appropriate to incorporate that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.28.8 (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, did you not understand the warnings I've sent you? Or are you actually going to address them? Love of Corey (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources?

Re; your summary for the diff here. I am puzzled by your summary. CBC, Global and National Post are all as reliable a source as there can be, Regards, Aloha27 talk 02:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you unintentionally link to a different diff? I'm not seeing any differences on my end when I access the diff. Love of Corey (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixerated. Aloha27 talk 02:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Anyway, as I mentioned here, the content included was already mentioned elsewhere in the article (including the same section, might I add), so I didn't see it fit to repeat it. Also, the IP user adding the material was using unreliable sources (gun blogs), and their writing style was potentially WP:POV, so I saw the material as wholly problematic. I tried writing a compromise, since I reevaluated some of the material and did see it as notable, but evidently the IP user wasn't having it. I've been attempting to warn this IP against this kind of writing, but it doesn't sound like the IP is interested in listening. Does this clear things up? Love of Corey (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then THAT should have been the summary used, not the claim that the sources were not reliable. Regards, Aloha27 talk 02:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did come to use that edit summary, though. Love of Corey (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don Carter Lanes shooting

Hello, you recently reverted my edits on the page I named above. Question, if I were to add the reference/citation number things, would the names be allowed to be put back up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.194.41 (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. We don't include victims' names per WP:NOTAMEMORIAL nowadays. You're going to have to take your concerns to the talk page. Love of Corey (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but Wikipedia most certainly includes names of people involved or killed or injured in shootings. Take a look at The Columbine High School massacre. You are clearly wrong. 2601:483:101:3D40:ECA4:A96F:9B10:5239 (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Texas V Pennsylvania

Hello I have a few questions about the Texas v Pennsylvania sub headings that you put down particularly around Nancy Pelosi and Bill Pascrell's statements. Also I removed the Pascrell information that you stated on outgoing members since they were not going to be seated regardless of what might have taken place due to retirements or having already lost reelection. However I still remain conflicted about the statements you put on the pages. Since Wikipedia is meant to remain neutral in terms of political events I would kindly ask to explain to me what about the statements is neutral? Wollers14 (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty historic that all these Representatives were under threat of expulsion. Love of Corey (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that argument which is fair but I fail to understand why Pelosi and Pascrell's statements are needed as the members who are challenging them were seated anyways in the 117th Congress. People can draw conclusions if only their support for the case is indicated but the statements from Pelosi and Pascrell whom are politicians of one party onto politicians. However I think that these statements can be removed and say that the members were threatened with expulsion by the Speaker. This I believe will show neutrality to the subject. Wollers14 (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"2012 Gilbert shooting" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2012 Gilbert shooting. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4#2012 Gilbert shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Love of Corey (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I picked a random Wikipedia user and it was you congrats

Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am honored to receive this kitten. :) Love of Corey (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Pointing out that a deletion argument is not grounded in policy is obviously not an AGF violation. Pointing out that an argument is inconsistent with existing practice is clearly not an AGF violation. Pointing out that a claim is not an accurate representation of existing facts is unquestionably not an AGF violation violation. Leaving a false AGF accusation against another editor who disputes positions you hold in a Wikipedia discussion is often an AGF violation, and is almost always a form of WP:HARASSMENT. Do not post such a message on my talk page, or any other editor's talk page, again. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't really explain why the article should be kept, from a policy-based perspective, and claim the AfDs were borne out of an WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude, which is patently false given the references to WP:SPLIT and WP:GNG. Then, you just go on a tangent on how it makes "Wikipedia look ridiculous", not to mention the WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE argument you presented. And let's not forget how you just lazily copy-and-paste the same argument for every AfD KingSkyLord posted for a congressional race. So yeah, that template was appropriate. Love of Corey (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which has exactly nothing to do with assuming good faith, of course. Nor does using the same keep rationale in response to a set of virtually verbatim-copied nomination statements. And if you had actually read my keep rationale, you'd have seen that I didn't cite or mention WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You really should stick to reality-based arguments. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, misread your comments. Still, accusing the nominator of WP:IDONTCARE is not a valid reason for keeping the article either. Love of Corey (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: it appears you edit Wikipedia like I do, with more of a logical thinking. I added a delete comment on that Afd with a logical reason. Hopefully that helps. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how what I just describe about their vote was "logical thinking", but okay. Love of Corey (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murders of Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olinda, California.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2021 California wildfires for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2021 California wildfires 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/2021 California wildfires until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...? Love of Corey (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was an automatic message 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 23:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Love of Corey (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

I made a few minor changes, including - fixing grammar - removing opinion statements about partisan politics which I considered not consistent with Wikipedia policies. Why did you revert them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmwittko (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The statements about Trump are most certainly true, since he's consistently downplayed the scale and severity of the pandemic. Love of Corey (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion of tables to lists in election articles

Hey Love of Corey, I noticed that you've been changing tables to lists in election articles. I don't believe there is a single format election articles must use, but tables make this information easier to read and sort out, and they include images. These tables aren't recent changes, and they've been in the articles for a while. In addition, you say that other articles don't do this. However, you made this same change on 16 articles, so you're kind of contributing to that. If you think they should be left as lists, you should use the talk page. Let me know what you think. Shadowrvn728 ❯❯❯ Talk 17:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear that this is only being applied to upcoming elections being held in 2021 and 2022, though. If we're going to keep the tables, we need to apply those to pre-2021 election articles too to maintain consistency. Love of Corey (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think there’s a need to make them all the same. Articles don’t have to all be the same, and it would be a waste of time to go back and change them all. Shadowrvn728 ❯❯❯ Talk 23:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are presidential election articles structured the same, then? Love of Corey (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of election articles. Making them all the same is unnecessary. There is only a presidential election article for every four years, so it makes it easier to be consistent in format. Other elections don’t have to follow a single format, and tables present information better than lists. Shadowrvn728 ❯❯❯ Talk 23:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If tables present information better than lists, why is this only being applied to upcoming elections being held in 2021 and 2022? The user who's been adding them hasn't been making an effort to apply them to past articles too, and they're the only one who's been advocating for their inclusion. Love of Corey (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love of Corey, I see you have now undone many of Shadowrvn728's, Dmoore5556's and PJRoRo's reversions of your edits while this discussion is going on, in violation of the principle of WP:BRD. I believe you are doing this to illustrate a point. I am requesting that you undo your edits until the discussion you were striving for has completed, and wait until a consensus is reached. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I give up. It's going to be hard applying all those tables to all those other election articles. :'( Love of Corey (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Boston mayoral election

Hi, content that you removed at 2021 Boston mayoral election was properly sourced. From the edit comments made, I gather that you did not like the formatting and style that the information was presented in. Where, if anywhere, has a consensus been reach on what a "presidential" format is; and where, if anywhere, has a consensus been reach on restricting the use of such formatting to presidential elections? Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove any sources to my knowledge though. Just the table. What sources have I removed? Also, yes, the table was uncalled for and should've been consulted with the community first. Love of Corey (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Your response indicates that a) no consensus has been reached on defining a specific "presidential" format, and b) no consensus has been reached on restricting the use of such format. If either of those statements are incorrect, please provide a link to discussions where such as consensus was reached. Lacking demonstrable consensus on the prior two items, continued reverting (direct or indirect) on the part of on editor (you or others) of such content is WP:OWN. Please discontinue such reverting. Thank you. Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say any consensus was reached for those two topics. But there was no consensus developed on the inclusion of those tables beforehand either. But I digress. Love of Corey (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dude

idk what you have against photo tables, but my god you are going to a lot of effort to nuke something for literally no reason. Also super cool how you demand that everyone else get consensus for literally every change but you feel no need to get consensus before removing all the photo tables (even though there was some consensus to have the photo tables before you crowned yourself king of the universe and banished them from existence). Super funny that you even tried removing the photo table from 2021 Boston mayoral election even though literally every other Boston mayoral election page since 2009 has had them. >:( :O :) :( :P stop using cutesy emoticons my guy, they don't make you seem any better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything against photo tables, but you should've gone through with the community first about this new policy. And screw you; I didn't bother to check the prior Boston mayoral election articles. I didn't think they'd have them based on my experiences with the other past election articles. Love of Corey (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He never said there was a new policy, but the edits you were making were going backwards, undoing other editors' work. You also made big changes to many articles without "going through the community". You claimed that no other election articles used tables, but then said you didn't bother to check. Please just leave the tables alone, there's no need to change them to a list format. Shadowrvn728 ❯❯❯ Talk 17:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Your recent editing history at 2021 Boston mayoral election shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Aloha27 talk 18:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2021 Atlanta spa shootings

On 19 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Atlanta spa shootings, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. P-K3 (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sean Duffy

Hi. I have started a discussion at Talk:Sean Duffy#Duffy's Feb 2017 CNN interview concerning a matter you may be interested in. Nightscream (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Boulder Reaction

Thanks for the editing. I rarely do much with Wikipedia, and suspect we're chalk and cheese on views, but regardless your paragraph changes made things smoother and more accurate - perpetrator=/=suspect. 人族 (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome? Love of Corey (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doh it was fine and then you broke it again. The MSN piece is not a Conservative source, the current Wikipedia text is thus untrue. 人族 (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh and chronologically the liberal reaction comes between the YouTube stream (relevancy???) and post-event gun control discussions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 人族 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove the MSN source; someone else did. Also, I believe the reactions section should be categorized based on relevancy, not chronology. I will continue to reorganize it. Love of Corey (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KK. I think chronological - where obvious, makes more sense. Didn't realise the MSN\Newsweek (I think?) piece had dropped out - there's been a score or more changes in the last couple of hours, and only the first few were mine. I might suggest tweaking the tense\grammar a bit but given the headache it's been to get it to this stage I'll go softly softly for a couple of days, then draft a suggestion in Talk!!! 人族 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only going by my past experience with other mass shooting articles; government reactions tend to come first, by and large. Love of Corey (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

for the artcile

cant you tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.236.204 (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really don't. Please don't be coy with me and cut to the chase. Love of Corey (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there are some dead links in the artcile as well as other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.236.204 (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind actually saying that in the article's talk page so others can track down those dead links? Love of Corey (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 03:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:2601:C0:D:A1E3:709E:3294:366B:9C07 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 07:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 07:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I failed to assume good faith? The edit in question was evidently spam. Love of Corey (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New editors may not be familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Even for things like promotion, we have level 1 warnings for a reason. They are also more specific than warnings like disruptive editing where it does not include details of the guidelines or policies that were violated.

(Assuming good faith) They could have seen an edit of yours and wanted to talk to you about it over email, or saw an edit you made related to what they did and thought you might be interested but not have known it violated a police. As far as I'm aware, asking someone to email you isn't a policy violation (in fact, you can send emails to editors if they have it enabled), but the email in question appeared a bit promotional. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 07:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Love of Corey (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 at the University of Notre Dame

Hi there! I noticed that you had moved the COVID-19 at the University of Notre Dame page to University of Notre Dame COVID-19 outbreak. I don't think that the move was an improved title (the only other article I could easily find regarding COVID-19 at a university is titled University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is about Illinois' response to the pandemic. I think a descriptive title along the lines of COVID-19 pandemic at the University of Notre Dame might also be acceptable, though I think the scope of the article is broader than that of the UIUC article (as well as the White House COVID-19 outbreak cited in the move you had made). I'm leaving this so we don't wind up moving a bunch of times and so that we could flesh out a firm title before moving the page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is less about the title's descriptiveness and more about standardization, considering a vast majority of the articles on the COVID-19 pandemic have, well, "COVID-19 pandemic" in the title. And I personally think "COVID-19 pandemic" can refer to a lot of things outside of the actual pandemic at this point, including certain responses. But now that you mention title descriptiveness and looking at your article, I do think a title like University of Notre Dame response to the COVID-19 pandemic would be more accurate to use since the article predominantly covers the university's controversial handling of COVID-19 over outbreaks at the school itself. Love of Corey (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal commentary

Please don't add personal commentary to articles, as you did at Greene County, Alabama, even if it's true. You wrote, "In modern history, Greene County is reliably Democratic at the presidential level." Please just add the facts and let readers form their own conclusions. Please take a moment to read MOS:WTW. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was just trying to fill in some blanks and saw that other county articles were doing virtually the same thing. Love of Corey (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Houston County, Alabama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adlai Stevenson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Shooting Sources

I'm not the best at editing citations and sources, so for the WSJ article I referenced on Indianapolis FedEx shooting, would you kindly add this archive link? https://archive.is/5abrS The WSJ article itself requires a paid subscription but the archive is more accesible. Thank you. Deku link (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Love of Corey (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Hi! I would like to thank you for initiating a thoughtful AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Chestnut, and for carrying out the requested merge at the end of that discussion. I appreciate your contributions! Edge3 (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance?

158.174.128.166 (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC) I hope this is how I should answer you. Thank you for the welcome letter. But what was "last chance" all about?[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. Love of Corey (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to List of companies that halted political contributions in January 2021. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. I saw another editor placed another higher warning template that may have been the wrong one, as it looks like an intentional edit. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 21:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thought the edit was a test, but on closer look, not, so your edit does not seem out of order after all. However, in future you may want to use a more descriptive edit summary than "=". Dl2000 (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why? Love of Corey (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Template:2020 Western United States wildfires

Hello, Love of Corey. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Template:2020 Western United States wildfires, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Votes on riot commission - edits

Hi there. I'm not in any way trying to give you a hard time, but you and I have been working to accomplish the same thing... update "tenure" and other appropriate sections to reflect those 35 "R"s who supported the establishment of a commission to investigate the 1/6 Capitol riot. It's info that would probably be of interest to many of those WP readers who look at the articles. You've made a mistake, not the end of the world or anything, but not "all" Democrats voted to support the establishment of the Commission. One was absent (as were 2 "R"s). So I've changed your words, adding ...Democrats "present," in a few articles that I was intending to edit, only to reflect that correct number. Also, when you're pasting text into articles, you need to show the actual posting date, GMT or whatever they call it. So that should reflect the actual date in London at the time you make the posting. You've been posting on the 20th, but showing that you're doing so on the 19th. You should be careful in the future to get the date correct. If some nitpicker doesn't like your posts, they're likely to make a big deal of it. also, I posted a couple of other cites in those articles I edited, the Washington Post because it had a fuller story than CNN, which cite I retained, and the actual roll call, if anyone is looking for that, so they can i.e. look at the states represented, etc. Again, I appreciate your work, and this is just a heads up. Activist (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad about that. Also, I live in the West Coast of the U.S., which is why my edits are being posted on the 19th. Love of Corey (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Clara VTA shooting

Can you provide a reason why you removed references to the shooting from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority light rail and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority articles? TheGGoose (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not the appropriate places to put them. I've put them in History of San Jose, California and Timeline of San Jose, California. Love of Corey (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing

Go to any page and create a new section, as I did here. Notice that when it is created, there is a space after the heading. There are several editors that will do this automatically, but in the standard editor, which is the one most use, space can be added or removed. There is no need to remove correct spacing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the pages I've visited never contain any of this "spacing". I don't see how this is considered standard. Love of Corey (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of "WP:RS"

Before you revert citations for being WP:RS, I suggest you do some research. The citation: Greenwald, Glenn (14 June 2021). "The Enduring False Narrative of the Pulse Nightclub Massacre". Scheerpost. Retrieved 15 June 2021. names Scheerpost (see Robert Scheer) as the source, Glenn Greenwald as the author. Both are impeccable US journalism sources. Thank you. Seligne (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, considering Greenwald is a highly controversial figure. Love of Corey (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategory edits

Your category reverts to Nationals Park shooting, Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack and Wakefield standoff for example are not appropriate. Your edit summary here is, frankly, preposterous, and without basis in policy. That incorrect and imprecise information exists on some pages is not an excuse to introduce such information on other pages. Articles should be placed into the most specific categories in which they belong. Category:May 2021 crimes in the United States for example is a subcategory of Category:2021 crimes in the United States. One is not an excepting non-diffusing subcategory.

I see on this page that you have given the "I've seen it elsewhere" reasoning before, that you have a substantial amount of warnings and notices about your problematic editing, and that you've been given advice to slow down and re-familiarize yourself with policy. Did you take that advice? DoubleCross (‡) 15:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Domestic responses to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

Hello, Love of Corey. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Domestic responses to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 storming of the United States Capitol

I'm too lazy to find an appropriate barnstar to award you for your continual cleanup of the referencing on this article - both ensuring that things appear in numerical order and using "multiple references" footnotes when appropriate to avoid breaking up text/sentences with many many inline references. On such a controversial (and long) page like this, it's nice to see that someone is taking the time to simply make it uncontroversially better. For this, I award you whatever barnstar you think best fits my comments here. Or none, if you'd rather just have this personal thanks :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Not sure what would fit either, though. Love of Corey (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1. you make so many great and thoughtful edits. I want to say something nice that would bear over the objections to the very few of your edits that I've had. Basically: imagine that for every negatively-toned word about what you've been doing, I've said at least ten as many positive things. :-) — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:2020 Iowa's 2nd congressional district election

Hello, Love of Corey. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2020 Iowa's 2nd congressional district election, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your ping

Hello! Regarding your comment about the people you pinged, my apologies for the delayed response. I've become relatively inactive because in-person socializing is popular again (at least where I live), and I found new hobbies that don't involve a computer. :-) It's great to hear from you! I hope you're well. Edge3 (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing other people's talk page messages

Hi, LoC. I'm wondering if perhaps you didn't notice my revert summaries at Special:PageHistory/Talk:1998 United States Capitol shooting. Adding '''Comment''' - to other people's comments does not fall under any of the situations described at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing others' comments. And WP:RfC does not include any requirement or even expectation that people will mark their comments that way. Marking my comment that way could have a material effect on the outcome of the RfC, implying that I don't consider my statement to have taken a position. (In fact, it's pretty clear from what I wrote that I oppose restoring the articles; I just didn't see a need to include a boldfaced "oppose".) I don't know if North8000 feels as strongly about this as I do, but there's no reason to assume they don't. You've now reverted me twice in favor of your edits to North8000's comment, with the first of your reverts also modifying my comment. This is a really trivial thing to edit war about, so could you please self-revert? Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Thanks for the ping. My thoughts are the same as yours, I don't want my posts modified, and such is against policy. (But undoing the tampering, as you have done is fine and welcomed) And a significant change like that exacerbates the situation and does repeating it after undone. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're passing like ships in the night here. To answer your question on my talk: Well, I've partly answered it above, but generally it's up to the RfC's closer to determine how to interpret any comments that aren't marked with a boldfaced !vote. Even boldfaced !votes may not always be as straightforward as they seem, which a good closer will know. There's no need to keep a tally. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:2020 Iowa's 2nd congressional district election

Hello, Love of Corey. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2020 Iowa's 2nd congressional district election".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About an edit you made to the "List of offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States"-article

You made an edit to the List of offenders scheduled to be executed in the United States-article, putting an "excessive citations"-tag by the citations for the "All of these executions are scheduled over five calendar years in five U.S. states"-claim. I would like to argue that, with one possible exception, all of those citations are necessary. The first source is about the executions scheduled in Texas. The second source is about the executions scheduled in Ohio. The third source is about the execution scheduled in Missouri. The fourth source is about the execution scheduled in Alabama. The fifth source is about the executions scheduled in Oklahoma. And the sixth source is about four of the Ohio executions being delayed. With the possible exception of the source about the Ohio executions being delayed, the sources are (as far as I can tell (at the time of this writing)) all necessary for the claim that the executions are scheduled over five calendar years in five U.S. states. If any of the sources (with the possible exception of the source about the Ohio executions being delayed (since there already is a source about the executions scheduled in Ohio)) were removed, the sources would (as far as I can tell (at the time of this writing)) only be about executions scheduled in four (or fewer) U.S. states. Heart of Destruction (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discussion to re-merge NZ covid timeline articles

I've tagged the half-yearly covid articles for merge back into the annual articles, which is the most natural split and less annoying than having to type and remember "February–June".

Discussion → Talk:Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_Zealand#Further_splitting Nixinova T C 19:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Love of Corey (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your contributions to 2021 United States Capitol attack‎! ––FormalDude talk 21:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Kongsberg attack

On 16 October 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Kongsberg attack, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Guideline Proposed which you might be interested in.

Hello. I am letting editors know who participated in the recent discussions that decided whether the Killing of David Amess should be called "killing, murder, or assassination", about a new Wikipedia essay being proposed for a new guideline. The essay, Wikipedia:Assassination, explains how the common definition of "assassination" does not determine an article's title. Only reliable sources can determine whether it is murder/killing or assassination. Since you participated in those recent discussions, I wanted to drop a message to you about this new proposal. If you want to leave your opinion about it, you can do so in this discussion. Have a good day and keep up the good editing! Elijahandskip (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

Can you please tell me what was incorrect about the sources I used for my edits? I was told specifically that the edits were, in fact, constructive. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the edits were well-sourced. Adding a list of victims requires a discussion and consensus on the talk page, and the last time this was discussed on the Sutherland Springs church shooting talk page, the consensus was to exclude the victims' names. Love of Corey (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, although I was told the edits were constructive and there is no way that I know of to add to the consensus since it is archived. I appreciate the response though. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 04:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas is NOT in Iowa

Kansas is NOT in Iowa, please fix 100+ county edits ASAP. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allen_County,_Kansas&curid=95750&diff=1053638497&oldid=1050472953&diffmode=source

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, CRUD. Sorry about that. I was doing some serious copying-and-pasting, but I forgot to proofread. My bad. I'll take care of it when I can; I've got a bit of a busy day tomorrow IRL. Love of Corey (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

FYI, there were suggestions to contact this talk page. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the article collision

Sorry about the collision on edits - I've restored your edits to the article. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your excellent contributions to the Oxford Shooting page! TheXug (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rust shooting incident has been nominated for deletion

Category:Rust shooting incident has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Please keep our conversation concerning the photo of the weapon where it belongs. I’m dying to know how you will explain the relevance of a stock photo of the weapon used, yet revert edits including Myre’s name continuously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingobunnybaby (talk • contribs)

"the couple was missing."

I think this may be a US/UK thing - 'collectives' are freer in UK usage to choose whether the unit, or the people comprising the unit are being referenced at the time. The couple/pair etc 'was' is almost always wrong in the UK when talking about humans, the family/team/class can be singular/plural according to context. Normally UK usage is more grammatically pedantic, but the opposite is true in this instance. Pincrete (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2021 Osaka building fire

On 19 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Osaka building fire, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding ", United States" to places in Puerto Rico

You should stop adding ", United States" to places in Puerto Rico because Puerto Rico is not in the U.S. WP:PR --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, so it's technically a part of the U.S. Also, you linked me to WP:Peer review, not anything to do with Wikipedia policy regarding Puerto Rico. Love of Corey (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRUS. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least remove the part of the descriptions that say "United States" rather than undoing all of the other changes I've made to the articles. Love of Corey (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contributions to Iowa County, Wisconsin

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Iowa County, Wisconsin. Kyo Aston (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Edit summary

Nomination of 2020 Milwaukee workplace shooting for deletion

Moves & Redirects

Using the verb comprise

Canada: Confederation or unitary state? re Nova Scotia killings

Archive

Re: Your question about number formatting

2020 Nova Scotia Killers RCMP Rank of Chief Superintendent Leather

April 2020

Invitation to WikiProject Current Events.

Invitation to discuss dispute on talk page.

Important Notices

Do not "fix" redirects

Incel

Please don't drop inaccurate templates on my talk page

May 2020

June 2020

Call for discussion

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

American politics discretionary sanctions notice

June 2020

2020 Reading stabbing

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:June 2020 crimes in Europe

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Proposed deletion of Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020s crimes in Canada

MfD nomination of Talk:Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Nomination of Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic for deletion

Splitting articles

Nomination of Kiwi Party (2019) for deletion

Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot revert

Thanks for that and a q

Careful with ref names

Murders, Islamists and English sources

Who are you Love of Corey

Alert from WikiProject Current Events

Cleaning up

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Links broken by capitalization

Elections

New draft started relating to an article you worked on

Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States

A reminder

Hidden in notes

Nomination of Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland (July–December 2020) for deletion

December 2020

Matt Gaetz

Excerpt

2020 Nashville explosion

2020 Nashville bombing

Please stop vandalizing wikipedia

Unreliable sources?

Don Carter Lanes shooting

Texas V Pennsylvania

"2012 Gilbert shooting" listed at Redirects for discussion

A kitten for you!

February 2021

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Nomination of 2021 California wildfires for deletion

COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

Conversion of tables to lists in election articles

2021 Boston mayoral election

Dude

March 2021

ITN recognition for 2021 Atlanta spa shootings

Talk:Sean Duffy

2021 Boulder Reaction

for the artcile

April 2021

COVID-19 at the University of Notre Dame

Personal commentary

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

FedEx Shooting Sources

A cookie for you!

Last chance?

May 2021

Concern regarding Draft:Template:2020 Western United States wildfires

Votes on riot commission - edits