User talk:SkyWarrior

This user has opted out of talkbacks

WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE! Click here to leave me a message Also note that I will respond to all questions here, unless requested otherwise. PAGE ARCHIVES: 1

-

there are alot of people here to write their propaganda. most argue and force their views without proof. wiki should get rid of them.

also that huge armenian genocide page is very very one sided. especially the way the article is written.

also there was a turkey-pkk conflict page, they made it turkish-kurdish conflict as if we fight each other. why? thats a propaganda go check. 10 mil kurds in turkey, many kurds live in istanbul izmir etc west of turkey. theres no fight, the terrorist organization pkk attacks turkish soldiers and they call this turkish-kurdish conflict. is that right? wiki will never be a reliable source because of that.

in that armenian genocide page i wanted to check some sources, but most of the sources are broken and doesnt lead anywhere or some lead to irrelevant links. those articles are a huge mess of propaganda. maybe wiki should only host articles that are proven and known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.151.232 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. If you do truly believe the article is one-sided, then please discuss the matter on the talk page in a civil matter. Thank you. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I dont have the energy, the time to do any of that. instead i asked you a simple question, why was that changed from turkey-pkk conflict to turkish-kurdish conflict? there is no such a conflict in turkey. anyways, this is a site where majority wants is accepted and taken as truth rather than real truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.151.232 (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I cannot answer that, since I don't actually follow the article. but I can say that you should read WP:NPA when you get the chance and follow my suggestion above. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Untitled X

I read the article you suggested. However it did not specify to my direct question after you removed my edit. Due to this, I will ask the following, Does CNN account as a reliable source? IF POSSIBLE, please reply to me directly, if not, i will check your User page in a few days Thanks! Malistare77 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC) 14:50 2016-29-12 (PST)

Alright, at your request, I will respond to you on your talk (that's as direct as I can get). JudgeMR (talk to me) 00:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Page move request

The article in question is Kathleen Neal Cleaver. I'm seeking to have Kathleen Cleaver become the main article page and Kathleen Neal Cleaver as a redirect page. Kathleen Cleaver is far more common, than Kathleen Neal Cleaver. Please see Google Ngram for proof. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll look into this later. I have to do some things in real life first. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, the more common name does appear to omit Neal from the name, and the majority of the sources I found appear to omit Neal as well. I'll move it. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the request, Mitchumch. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JudgeRM!

Happy New Year!

JudgeRM,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims

Hi! In November 2016, there was a discussion regarding deleting the Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims article. The decision was to keep the article. In January 2017, there is again discussion to delete the article. See the article's Talk page.

Could nudge the users in question not to nuke the article as the decision has already been made to keep the article. Thanks! WSDavitt (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

At this point, WSDavitt, since it's been two months without improvement, the fact that the article has been kept is irrelevant. The article can still be nominated for "nuking", regardless of whether it was kept 2 months ago. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for handling DaddyDonnyTrump

He was starting to drive me crazy. I had to undo his Trump Tower edit which is just insane. Maybe he is 9, or maybe he is a liar, but he is a disgrace to Wikipedia, IPs, and probably Mr.T. L3X1 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Honestly I'm glad they were blocked quick (at least when I got to them); they seemed like the kind of vandal where if they weren't blocked quickly I would've just given up and let someone else deal with them. Good thing that didn't happen. Keep an eye out, though, in case they return. JudgeMR (talk to me) 21:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Abyssinian name title needs to be changed to Habasha.

Hey JudgeRm you said if I wanted to request a change for the title of the page "Abyssinian people" I should do it here. First let me give you an example of why the title doesn't make sense for this page I am habasha, Tigirnya habasha to be exact and Tigrinyas are only found and are native to Eritrea our Ethiopians Counterparts the the Tigrayans the difference is they live in Ethiopia and we live in Eritrea that is the main difference and we are both habasha but we are not both Abyssinian, Abyssinia was used as the name of the country now called Ethiopia it was used by outsiders as name for people who come from Ethiopia but we are not Ethiopians we are Eritreans so we can not be Abyssinians. Every ethnic group in Ethiopia was considered Abyssinian therefore the title of the page is incorrect.The ethnic groups listed in the page as "Abyssinians" is not correct because Tigrinya Eritreans are not "Abyssinian" they are Eritreans but they are still listed in this page when they are not Abyssinian(Ethiopian) but what is incorrect is the title of page "Abyssinian" the tile should be Habasha that is what the Ethnic groups you listed are and what they are mainly referred to by outsiders who have knowledge about them and by Habasha people themselves. This page has always been called Habasha as far as I remember until last year. Whoever made that mistake has confused a lot of people on a non confuseing issue. We are called and mainly refered to and refer ourselves as Habasha not AByssinians so I request you change the title from "Abyssinian" to its original title before it was changed which is "Habasha" thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:8414:7800:60DF:232B:C910:9CC8 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello IP. When I said "on the talk", I meant on the article talk page. The message on my userpage is for uncontroversial moves only. Since I find this move could be controversial, I will start an RM on the article talk for you later with your message above, if that is fine by you. JudgeMR (talk to me) 21:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh ok JudgeRM I am new at this so I'm not used to the editing I am the IP user and when I messaged you When I was not logged in (i forgot) i am the person who requsted to change the name of the page "Abyssinian people" name to "Habasha people" 02:44 8th January 2017

Alright, honest mistake (I kinda figured it way you anyways). I would tell you about the RM but I see that you have already commented. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

WHY DID YOU NOT RESPOND

THE MESSAGE PLEASE STOP REVERTING MY EDIT - WHY DID YOU NOT RESPOND - I AM THE SAME PERSON WHO DID IT - PLEASE RESPOND - 49.149.113.205 (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not required to reply to anyone; maybe because I didn't see the message, maybe simply because I don't want to reply. I honeslty have no clue what you're talking about, so please care to explain? JudgeRM (talk to me) 12:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

112.198.72.164 (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Major party. The new country Democratic People's Republic of Robotsylvania. you shouldve done some reaearch before reverting the edit

Untitled XI

Mr./Mrs.

The whole article about Croatian Kingdom in period of 925-1102 is croatian propaganda, which only goal is to create the feeling in world that the Croats are people that have statehood manners. In that period there is no such evidences, and the books and articles from list of reference are made when the Croats where in period of succesion from Yugoslavia, mostly of them in 2000's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.185.116.48 (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not a reason to just replace the entire article with your own version, and it certainly isn't an excuse to do this. I suggest you discuss this on the talk page. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

strict policy against living people

the people are dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by K1744498 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources confirming your statements, K1744498. We simply cannot put the info on the page without reliable sources. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Whiskey tango foxtrot

The move discussion seems to have been lost in the move. At least, I can't find it. Can you put it back? Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Gorthian. The move discussion is still there, I think you're just looking at the wrong page. The talk page was moved with the article, so the move discussion is located at Talk:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (it's the last section, shouldn't be hard to find). JudgeMR (talk to me) 00:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No accounting for my missing that! Thank you! — Gorthian (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing Discussion

You closed the move discussion I opened here at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Requested_move_15_January_2017. I would ask for justification for the close? I put down the logic of my opening of the request and if there was consensus to develop for it to wait, it had not developed yet. I would ask you to reopen the discussion. Casprings (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Short answer, no I will not reopen it. Long answer: there has been three RM discussions in the past month, all of them closing as either not moved or no consensus; one went to move review, where the decision was endorsed. It's time for everyone, including you Casprings, to drop the stick and wait one full month before starting a new RM. If you disagree with me, then go straight to move review or ANI or something; don't reopen the discussion. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings:, myself, Bradv, and even George Ho all said this was getting out of hand. That is a consensus for a speedy close, and when the immediate renomination is obviously disruptive, a good admin who came across the debacle could have closed before any objections had been registered, IMO. A WP:TROUT for you; JudgeRM was absolutely correct in his/her actions. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Andrewa (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference

On the River Forest High School website I have a reference but the thing is it isn't on a website it is something I know personally what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth4515 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Darth4515. If you don't have a reference, you can't add it. Personal observation amounts to nothing here on Wikipedia, and if that's your only source of information, then you can't add it (see WP:OR). You could try to find reliable sources (either online or in print), but if you can't, then you can't add the info since original research isn't allowed on wikipedia. JudgeMR (talk to me) 16:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:John Andrew Barnes, III

Did you mean to suppress the talk page redirect from Talk:John Andrew Barnes, III on moving the article? Doesn't seem right to me... but I'm always learning. Andrewa (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Andrewa. Sometimes PageSwap (which is what I use when performing round-robins such as this) will just delete the talk page of the redirect automatically when moving, usually when the redirect that the page was swapped with didn't have a talk page to begin with, or did but had only one edit. It's an automatic thing, it's nothing I can control, and I do move all talk pages, though if a talk page is deleted, then I will usually just leave it deleted since there's really no point of having a talk page for a redirect (unless I'm missing something important). If you want, I could redirect the talk page, but it's something I don't usually do. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You know, after reading it over, WP:PM actually does say to redirect the talk page... I'm learning as well, it seems. Well I should fix that (and probably read more). But, yeah, it's an automatic thing. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Request to read my comment on the talk page for the YouTube Play Button.

Just read the sub heading to understand my request. Love, Shepherd. (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'll look at it. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Beezid page

Is it you that removed the updates to the Beezid page concerning the current status of the site? If so, why not keep the updates current? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belle Readneck (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your edit was reverted by some editor because you provided an unreliable source, and violates WP:NPOV. Please read WP:RS also. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much what KGirlTrucker81 said. Also, I was not the user who reverted it; that would be PigeonGuru. (Also to note, if any of the pinged persons are looking at this, the edit was added back, though more neutral and with a link to their official Facebook, though it still contained the unofficial forum site). JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2017 Williams-Sonoma → Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

The company (Williams-Sonoma, Inc.) and brand (Williams-Sonoma) are two separate entities with different names, logos, website, products, number of stores, locations, executives, number of employees, and slogans. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. is the parent company over 7 brands, which are referenced in the existing Williams-Sonoma article, including Pottery Barn, west elm and Rejuvenation - these three brands each have their own article. The brand (and cookware line) is independently notable with coverage that differentiates the brand from the corporate entity in these reliable sources (sited below): Yahoo Finance, Forbes, Businesswire, San Francisco Chronicle, Oprah.com. The reason for decline I have seen is naming conventions, however this rule is not enforced by other retailers, ie. Macy's Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy's,_Inc. and Macy's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy's. When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate (for example, Oracle Corporation, Borders Group, Be Inc., and Illumina (company)). Ideally there would be some sort of disambiguation using (company), Inc. or Corporation.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/williams-sonoma-launches-chocolate-collaboration-110000107.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/williams-sonoma-debuts-exclusive-tabletop-130000522.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/meggentaylor/2016/03/28/a-chefs-life-celebrity-chef-vivian-howard-launches-her-brand-on-william-sonoma-today/#2abd7bff2cd9 http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160825005394/en/WILLIAMS-SONOMA-KICKS-NATIONAL-FUNDRAISING-CAMPAIGN-BENEFITING-KID http://www.sfchronicle.com/food/article/A-slew-of-smart-gadgets-for-the-high-tech-kitchen-7950010.php http://www.oprah.com/gift/Williams-Sonoma-Croissants?editors_pick_id=25904

Thank you Lmurphy1 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lmurphy1. The RM discussion was closed as not moved since Williams-Sonoma appears to be the common name. If you are asking me to follow through with the move, the short answer is no. In fact, you were the only one to support the move in the RM.

There is an option of creating a seperate article for the company alone, though if you do go that route I recommend you read our general notability guideline. Alternatively, and I don't recommend this route as it will likely be turned down, you could contest my RM close at WP:MRV, or (in about a month's time) start another RM discussion. JudgeMR (talk to me) 01:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Untitled XII

I didn't actually write an auto biography I wrote a Page about my son who has the same first and last name as me but we have different middle names please don't take down my page about him thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewsefolson (talk • contribs) 03:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Drewsefolson. Simply creating an autobiography is, on its own, not a valid reason for deletion. Failure of WP:GNG and WP:BLP, which at the moment the article fails both, is. If you want your son's article to remain, then please meet the requirements listed at WP:GNG (as well as WP:N) and WP:BLP. See also WP:RS. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the citation please can you take the warning off of the post we have redbull sponsorship coming in and i would really like for the big red warnign sign to be gone it might scare them off — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewsefolson (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Drewsefolson. As I have stated on your talk, your son's website is not a reliable source, which is required for removal of the template. Furthermore, I doubt that the template is going to scare off Red Bull or other sponsors; most sponsors don't really care about whether or not their client has a Wikipedia article or not, at least not enough to deny a sponsorship, so you should be fine with Red Bull and others. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Drew's Mom, again, Wiki is not a marketing site.Postcard Cathy (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Drew W. Olson

You denied the speedy because you claimed an endorsement is a credible claim of significance. I have been unable to verify anything in the article. If you have any sources, can you add them to the article? Postcard Cathy (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Postcard Cathy. Sources are not needed for an A7 to be declined, only a "claim of significance," sourced or not. Per WP:A7:

"The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines"

Since a claim of significance was stated, A7 does not apply. JudgeRM (talk to me) 15:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

ok, I misunderstood your edit summary but my point, IMHO, is still unanswered. I can claim I am the most attractive woman in the history of the world. You've never met me, and you've never seen a picture of me. So are you going to say my claim is credible because I said it, so of course it must be true, or are you going to want to see me or get reliable sources to back up my claim? Be careful how you answer. I picked that example for a reason. If you say you would want want to see my picture or verifiable sources backing up my claim, why would you NOT want the same from Drew's MOTHER? Postcard Cathy (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:CCS:

"'Credible claim of significance' is a two-part test: Credible and significant. A good mental test is to consider each part discretely:

a) is this reasonably plausible?

b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable? Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?

So, a claim that the person is the King of Mars would satisfy b, since a person who's King of Mars would almost certainly have coverage in sources that would constitute notability, but of course it fails a, since it's not plausible. Conversely, an article describing a subject whose main claim to fame is that they've been the top of their class for the last four years would pass a, since it's quite plausible for that to be true, but not pass b, since that kind of thing is not likely to lead to notability."

Essentially, Drew passes both points a and arguably b, since having sponsorships is entirely plausible and would arguably make him notable, which makes a credible claim of significance and therefore A7 does not apply. On the other hand, your example would pass b (being the most attractive woman ever, if true, would likely cause you to be notable), but would not satisfy a since such a claim is unlikely to be plausible (no offense) since it's a matter of opinion, similar to the realm of someone claiming to be the King of Mars. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

From a logic point of view, I follow. From a critical analysis POV, I still have issues.Postcard Cathy (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Postcard Cathy, I could explain further later (but not now, as I am at work). What concerns do you have with my explaination? JudgeMR (talk to me) 23:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail RFC

Just FYI, the arbitrary break in the Daily mail RFC was simply so that users don't have to scroll down through the whole thing every time they click the edit button if they want to add something new to the bottom. I've seen this done in lots of other very long discussions, so I had decided to implement it here as well simply for convenience. Some people didn't get the idea and continued to edit in the upper section though, so not a huge success. Forgive me if the effort was inappropriate.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, Insertcleverphrasehere, the only reason why I removed it was because of my personal opinion of finding it useless; your explanation actually makes sense. You can add it back if you want (though if you do, add another one; the arbitration break is going to be useless by your description without it). Though if people appear to be editing above the arbitration break regardless, it would be wise to just leave it out. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I think I'll just leave it now, it was an experiment based on what I've seen before, and seems to have been largely ineffective, so I'll just leave it how it is.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright then. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Year of the Rooster

I am not familiar with editing or responding to articles.

I would like to express an opinion about the topic of moving discussion of the Year of the Rooster in the Chinese zodiac, but am unable to find how to submit a comment.

I would support renaming the article, but certainly NOT to the year of the chicken. That would be totally absurd in my opinion.

The Chinese creature for which the year is named is definitely NOT a chicken. It's a bird, true, but NOT a chicken.

It is the fenghuang, which as one of your commentators points out is gender neutral. But just like the dragon, it is a mythical character, and has no representative in real life.

The fenghuang is a magnificent, powerful bird, and is linked to female leadership. It represents the female ruler or empress, just as the dragon represents the male ruler or emperor.

Please do not make this amazing creature into a chicken. If the name is changed, it should be made the Year of the Phoenix which comes much closer to being a literal translation, and much more appropriate cross-culturally. Only trouble is, it is NOT the phoenix of Western culture since it did not arise from the ashes.

If the name is changed from Rooster, it should be changed to Phoenix, a much more appealing, appropriate and literal name in English.Twintx (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Twintx. You can state your opinion on this here under the request for move section at the bottom. However, I would oppose a move to Pheonix, simply because no one (except for you) call it that. You are free to give your opinion, though I doubt you'll be successful in your goals. JudgeMR (talk to me) 23:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Then marked me opposed to a move! twintxTwintx (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want to vote oppose, Twintx, then you gotta do it yourself. I cannot !vote for you. (You can place your vote here and I can then transfer it, but I cannot vote directly for you). JudgeMR (talk to me) 00:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

68.228.254.131

That was strange. I reverted it with Huggle which also added a warning. Never seen that happen before. Thanks for the fix. Jim1138 (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm quite puzzled myself on what exactly happened. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

He's back at the talk page changing it again. Home Lander (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. I'll leave the blocking admin a message to revoke TPA. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

TPA revoked. Thanks Northamerica1000. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Had to take a second look to see what happened above. That was funny. Home Lander (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I was already working on the matter when you messaged me at my talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I somewhat agree with you, however the people who primarily wrote this article (those from rationalwiki) also have a stake in this too as they are vehemently opposed to and vandalize conservapedia. Godspeed Trump supporter 1776 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Trump supporter 1776. You must adhere to WP:NPOV in articles at all times, no exceptions. Failure to do that could result in a block. JudgeRM (talk to me) 12:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Failure to live by american values will lead to you being thrown in jail! Godspeed 12:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trump supporter 1776 (talk • contribs)

Editing date citation for clarity

Greetings,

I recently made the following edit. My concern with the original is that its lengthy structure, in which two year ranges are followed by "respectively," delays clarity, and might make some readers suspect that the first 2017 is an error for 2014 (as if Mr. Costos served two tenures as ambassador to both nations: 2013-2014 and 2014-2017). In my edited version, parenthetical year ranges after each nation interrupt the syntax, making it clear that Mr. Costos's two ambassadorships overlapped. This was not a test, but an intentional edit. Could you please let me know if something was amiss? I welcome your feedback!

BEFORE: James Costos (born 1963) is an American diplomat who was the United States Ambassador to Spain and Andorra from 2013 to 2017 and 2014 to 2017, respectively.

AFTER: James Costos (born 1963) is an American diplomat who was the United States Ambassador to Spain (2013 to 2017) and to Andorra (2014 to 2017).

Thanks, TeiseiMG (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)teiseiMG

Hello TeiseiMG, I was using a bot when I reverted your edit when I should've manually reverted and left a message.

With that said, the original flows better and is preferable; the edit you made doesn't flow as well. The change isn't needed, nor encouraged. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you please be specific about what makes the original flow better? Flow is largely a matter of taste, but there are concrete differences between these versions: my edit requires less space, and resolves the confusion of year ranges by hewing each range to the nation it applies to, while mimicking the punctuation style used for year ranges elsewhere on the site, such as for lifespans (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Taylor).

TeiseiMG (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)teiseiMG

Emmett Till

The current page for Emmett Till--a fourteen-year-old boy whose murder helped fuel the American Civil Rights movement--currently leads off with an inappropriate and only marginally accurate statement that he allegedly "flirted with a white woman." This is bad for the following reasons: 1) It ascribes fault to Till, rather than ascribing fault to his murderers (or the white woman who recent scholarship has proven lied under oath). 2) It fails to capture the historical significance of Till's murder. I tried changing "he allegedly flirted with a white woman" to "the perpetrators of his murder were never brought to justice." This is an accurate statement that every single scholar of Till--along with the murderers themselves, who admitted guilt after a rigged trial--support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShanonFitzpatrick (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello ShanonFitzpatrick. Please get consensus on the talk page before making such a change as you did. Furthermore, saying that the "perpetrators... were never brought to justice" isn't exactly neutral, or at least less neutral than what is previously (aka currently) was (is). Details on the perpetrators are later in the lead anyways, so your edit is pointless imo. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

My edit is "pointless" in your opinion? What is pointless about removing the victim-blaming "he (allegedly) flirted with a white woman" clause from the first sentence when it is WIDELY SOURCED (including through admission by the woman herself, as I cited) that this "white woman" LIED UNDER OATH about her encounter? Furthermore, saying that "none of the perpetrators were brought to justice" is NOT UNOBJECTIVE. They were tried in a "Jim Crow" legal system that repeatedly and systematically excluded black jury members and refused to persecute white perpetrators of murder. There is no lack of historical or popular consensus on this assertion. As the wiki article later explains, with appropriate citations, the murderers confessed after they got off scot-free, and the "white woman" (Carol Bryant) was NEVER PROSECUTED.

please undo

Please undo your Trump disambiguation closure.

Read this... There is, in fact, no rule that says a closing editor has to be an admin, so the only argument against the closure is whether it was mere vote-counting. But that's an issue for the move review discussion, if you would like to start one. StAnselm (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Read this...(WP:RMNAC) Some editors do not approve of non-admins closing contentious debates. Non-admins should be cautious when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved.

Thank you. Lakeshake (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I have clearly read WP:RMNAC, Lakeshake, apparently more closely than you. The page states that non-admins should be cautious when closing contentious debates, but they're not banned from it. The page also clearly states that "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure".

See also this discussion here, where consensus explicitly states that you cannot revert a closure of a discussion for the simple reason of the closure not being an admin. Age is also not a reason to revert a closure (also since when is 17 considered a "child"?)

Furthermore, since you participated in the discussion, you were involved, so you shouldn't have reverted the closure in the first place.

In short, no I will not reopen the RM for the simple reason being that I'm not an admin. If you still disagree with my closure then here's the link to move review. JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

About my case Fanny46

	About my case Fanny46
	Look dude i have no intentions in doing anything bad i just like to add cause i know more thing than Snowflake91,Karpich and Kante4 and i like to give them a warning not a threat to stop deleting my edits i asked them to stop doing that but they did not listen to me so now what's going to happen? Fanny46 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Fanny46, you are not allowed to remove talk page sections that someone else has written. Period. If you continue to do this, you could risk getting blocked. Same thing could happen if you continue the threats and edit warring. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

<reply redacted>

About the UC Berkeley violent protests news sources.

Hey listen, i apologize for adding too many sources on Milo Yiannopoulos. EntertheNinja (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fine. You're new, you're going to make mistakes. Don't sweat it. Just don't do it again. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! :) EntertheNinja (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

And listen, i apologize for copying your userpage. It was a horrible mistake. I'm new here. EntertheNinja (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Don't do it again. Remember, don't copy anyone. Period. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Owler spam section

Hi. I noticed you recently reverted a change to Owler. Have you taken a look at the history of that page, its talk page, and Mgc5256's user-talk page? 2620:0:1000:1601:48EC:9A93:5902:46A5 (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I just did. I didn't need to, though, for me to revert your edit. Twitter is not a reliable source in this instance and you shouldn't post emails to articles. Don't add the section again without 1) providing a reliable source confirming the statements, and 2) without the email excerpt (and maybe reword it a little to make it a bit more neutral). JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If the fact in question is that the company is accused of spam (and they are), aren't the accusations themselves a reliable source that such accusations exist? What's more, two tweets in particular cite direct evidence of spam practices. Is there a better way to refer to that evidence?

While we're on the subject, what about Reddit topics like this one? 2620:0:1000:1601:75FD:81A5:AB3A:DEF7 (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)