User talk:Notwally

Post a new message

Welcome

Hello, Wallyfromdilbert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

James Johnson

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page James Johnson. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
  • Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references

Thank you.

I reverted your edit because disambiguation pages are supposed to show the actual article title. However, since he is known as J.J., I added "or J.J." after the wikilink. Leschnei (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully I have not made that mistake elsewhere. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Wallyfromdilbert, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Wish

Hello. Help improve and copy edit for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Ngocxuanmai (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Ngocxuanmai. I made a few edits to the page. Hope it helps. Take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, thanks for your work on US politician articles. Please note that we don't normally link common terms such as "farmer" or "politician". Tony (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, can you please give examples so I can see where to improve? Thank you. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ACCESS#Text / MOS:FONTSIZE

Hi. Thank you for your copyediting help, specifically Kathy McGuiness. But, per MOS:ACCESS#Text / MOS:FONTSIZE, please don't put {{small}} around the degrees in the infobox. The infoboxes already use smaller than 100% font, and the combination of that and the small template makes the font go below 85% of normal size, which is beneath the minimum standards. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the information. If you see any other mistakes, please let me know. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Message by Mike Smith using IP 79.79.212.36

Message to"Wallyfromdilbert". Your contributions to Wikipedia are much appreciated, no doubt. I am a legitimate academic and practitioner in the field of medical computer science. The work that I do helps provide millions of child mental health assessments around the world at very low cost, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. It is important for this work that organisations using the SDQ and DAWBA are able to see that I am a legitimate and experienced practitioner; Wikipedia is a trusted means of providing confirmation. I would be most grateful if you might not reduce my entry so drastically. Many thanks. Mike Smith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_F_Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.212.36 (talk)

I have left a message to you on your talk page. Please do not edit Wikipedia articles about yourself or your businesses as per Wikipedia:Autobiography. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for this contention; Wikipedia policies have evolved or I have been ignorant of them. As an academic who came out of retirement to support the SDQ project unsalaried, I have fallen out of the public eye and much of the material of which you request is no longer available. I could, as others who are known to me do, commission apparently disinterested third parties to ghostwrite my biography and create PR to substantiate it. I chose to add the new material myself and feel it not to be commercially promotional. The SDQ and DAWBA project are important to child psychiatry (over 5000 peer reviewed papers reference them). As the lead developer and operator of these measures, it is important to the organisations using them that the developers and operators are legitimate. As I explained, I am an academic in this field who was prominent "in the day". I am unwilling to have money spent to re-establish my prominence when my work in child mental health is already prominent, but unadvertised. Given that I seem not to have much influence in this process, I will bow to your edits, which I hope might accommodate these particular circumstances. I hope you will not be offended if I observe that your "pen name" might be better chosen to give confidence in your position, as I initially assumed you were a self-appointed vigilante. Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor m f smith (talk • contribs) 11:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Professor m f smith, you need to follow the policies at Wikipedia:Autobiography. Regardless of your personal opinions, Wikipedia requires reliable, verifiable third-party sources. Wikipedia policy very clearly states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If you continue to revert edits to include your self-promotion without appropriate sources, then I will find an administrator to assist and also report you to WikiProject Spam for your edits.

Also, you need to stop making edits as an IP editor (79.79.212.36) as well as an account user without disclosing that or else that could be considered sock puppetry. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Repeated praise

Upon further reflection, I concur with your edit at Joe Biden. The "repeated praise" actually occurred during the course of the one visit and doesn't warrant prominence in the article. I found the VOA article to be consistent with the Reuters one and not propagandistic. I found the statement, "The Russian press has speculated that the Obama Administration would prefer to see Mr. Medvedev as the official candidate in next year’s presidential elections", to be reportorial and not editorial. I am comfortable with how the article stands, after your edit. Thanks for the thoughtful edit comment. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comment as well, HopsonRoad! I appreciate you looking into the issue and for clarifying the context of the "repeated praise" usage. I had missed that they were referring to statements all from the same visit. I am glad we could have a beneficial and productive resolution, and I really appreciate how respectful and non-confrontational you were. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Glad we were able to resolve our issues. Take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tim Kearney (disambiguation)

Hello Wallyfromdilbert,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Mgbo120 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Tim Kearney (disambiguation) for deletion, because it is unnecessary and disambiguates only a single page.

If you feel that the page shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mgbo120}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

~~Cheers~~Mgbo120 18:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Mgbo120, I'm working on the Tim Kearney (politician) page right now. I'll be making it live soon. Please leave the disambiguation page. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Mgbo120: the page is live now. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding content of Anand Teltumbde

The content is verified and true. The unsourced/un-cited data is also verified. Please do not revise. Already provided 21 references to the data. The source and information has been verified by the concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.242.22 (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Lorena Gonzalez

Hey you made an edit on Lorena González in which you said "(not accurate. also not a notable event for gonzalez)". Excuse me, where was I inaccurate? Also this is the first time a City Councilmember has removed a public comment bully from chambers for a year in the City of Seattle's history.

Nothing personal except I care for doing this right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

JosefAbraham, the article only had a trivial mention of Gonzalez for requesting the removal of an individual from a meeting. The one-year ban was from a city department ("The city sent a written notice to him excluding him from city property last week."). Additional reliable third-party sources (not primary sources or original research) would be needed to state that Gonzalez was responsible for the ban or that it was a notable event for her. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

In all honesty Wallyfromdilbert, the additional research I have is very much original research and I cannot use that on WikiPedia. I was going to add some stuff to the page about her other accomplishments when I'm not so busy with non-WikiPedia tasks. JosefAbraham 06:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs)

Please be sure to include reliable sources when you add information, especially on biographies. Also, you should sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). Take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert - A slightly different matter, but I noticed your edits removed some of the ballot return statistics from my electionboxes as well as the name of Lorena's spouse from the infobox. Cameron has been named on the dias several times so I wouldn't think it to be private. Those additional ballot return lines were something I was trying to include on all the seated councilmembers as I've been adding infoboxes. For councilmemembers who have made the switch to districts from at-large elections, it's interesting to see how the numbers compare between the years. For consistency, I'd like to also keep them in Lorena's article. Jwfowble (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Jwfowble, I couldn't find any reliable sources talking about her husband, and so it did not seem notable. I try to avoid information in the infobox that is not sourced and not mentioned in the main article, especially for BLPs. If you have a source, maybe you could also add a "personal life" section? That would seem to fit the infobox policies. I do think the article should have a reliable source before reinserting the spouse's name.

For the ballot return lines, I didn't think they added anything to the article other than clutter, but I don't really have a strong opinion. The "turnout" didn't seem all that important, and the "registered electors" was just additional information about that and doesn't seem relevant to the elected politician. For the "majority" lines, I didn't know what that even meant, and so that should probably have some sort of explanation. I wouldn't be opposed if you really wanted to add those lines back in, especially if you have been doing a lot of work on the Seattle politicians articles. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If there's no objection, I'd like to include those turnout numbers again but will add an editor's notation about why. The majority is just the difference between the top two votes (basic math from what has been reported) and it's really only helpful in cases when the races are close, but we have had a few very close races in Seattle in the past few years. I've only added that column for the general election because the primaries are so divided the majority row is kind of noise. The final elections where 39 votes differentiate the win tend to show where it's helpful - Lisa_Herbold

I had been doing some off-line drafting of some bio info for Lorena's page yesterday and then noticed the editor disagreement as well as some additional editors contributing. I decided to work on other stuff for a day and so my edits aren't in the middle of other folks working. I'll include a source for Cameron's name, although I will admit to not having seen a source for the middle initial yet. Jwfowble (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If you add a note about what the "majority" category means (although I still don't really understand its importance), then I have no objection to including the information you suggest for the election results. I just added a "personal life" section, which can be expanded with the information about her husband. I think JosefAbraham is talking a break based on the comments above, and so I don't think others will be making any significant changes anytime soon. Best of luck with your editing, and let me know if I can help. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work on that article a bit more this afternoon. I would just suggest you break up your edits into segments that have detailed notes about what is removed, particularly with articles in stub status. I had several sources prepared to mark who the husband is, but had yet to find a source that has a middle initial as was in the infobox. However, without an editnote about the spouse name being removed, someone other than me would have a lot less info to go on to try to find a proper source for the name, at least without crawling through history and visually checking changes. Maybe use of Citation_needed or (hidden comments - view source) would be safer with developing/stub articles. I agree with trying to give some privacy, like I've only been including a number of children as I'd rather not put their names in just by being born to a local wiki-entry. Jwfowble (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and information, and for your work on the article. I do understand your point, but I treat BLPs differently than other articles, and I remove unverified information from BLPs when I cannot find verification (which I almost always try to do before removing anything), especially for insignificant information such as the name of a politician's spouse. Breaking down and identifying all those removals in edit summaries would defeat the point of the policies for BLPs. If information is notable, then it will be added with appropriate sources eventually. However, with that being said, if I see that you have been working on an article, I will certainly try to let you know if I remove anything you have added. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm really gunshy about posting anything on WikiPedia these days. I did make some suggestions Wallyfromdilbert on the Lorena González talk page. Considering the sheer amount of controversy anything I post seems to invite on here, rather have some folks not too connected to the Seattle political scene take a look first. JosefAbraham 23:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs)

@JosefAbraham: That is a shame you feel hesitant about helping to improve Wikipedia. A core principle of Wikipedia is to be bold: "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia." However, another fundamental aspect of Wikipedia is the dispute resolution process, especially WP:BRD, which stands for "Bold, revert, discuss." Basically, you should be bold about making changes, but if someone reverts your edit, then you are required to go and discuss your side on the article's talk page (rather than simply reverting back, which is called edit warring, and has lead to your issues with other editors). All information should also be properly sourced with reliable, independent third-party sources, which will make other editors far less likely to revert your additions. If you read through the policies I have link to here, in addition to the policies recommended by other editors elsewhere, I think you will be able to make very helpful improvements to the encyclopedia.

Also, please sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) before you click "publish changes". Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

WallyfromdilbertThe source for proper names for Seattle elected officials can be pretty invasive. That's why I didn't link to Robert M Johnson's name citation. It's a public record around here and this is a source that has been covering the council for years and is interviewed frequently, but these are not documents I'd want to put on the councilmember's wikipage. https://sccinsight.com/2018/04/19/council-members-file-2018-financial-disclosures/

Is the objection to Lorena's spouse's name just about the inclusion of the name (which you have removed even from the editor's comments) or the citation? While BLB has restrictions, there is some leeway about selfsource for their own info. Jwfowble (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Jwfowble, given that she is a local politician, I think we should be a little more sensitive to the privacy issues, and I don't see how her husband's name (much less full name) is relevant to her page, especially if having to rely on a primary source (WP:BLPPRIMARY says, "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources."). She may mention him sometimes in public, but her website doesn't mention her husband at all, and the other newspaper articles you had there previously didn't either. I think a reliable, secondary source would be better before including based on what WP:BLPNAME says: "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." Do you have a reason you think his full name should be included? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs)I'm just seeking a clear reason for the removal, since you've repeatedly suggested it was based on citation quality. Then I spend time to provide citations and you still removed it, including their wedding announcement/registry at theknot.com, which should be an acceptable and not full-of-personal-info-like-court-records source. Now you're suggesting it's your interpretation of the a different policy. If you don't provide edit summaries stating that or open a talk page discussing that, I (and other editors) don't know exactly what your conflict is here. There's a lot of BLP policies that really rely on multiple editors to interpret what's acceptable, not just you or me. I'm not sure what's objectionable to the last name of a spouse of a public figure. Jwfowble (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

My objection has always been that the information is not notable and primary sources (like a wedding registry or public filings) are not appropriate for that information (see my first reply: "I couldn't find any reliable sources talking about her husband, and so it did not seem notable."). If you think his last name should be included, then I suggest starting a discussion on the talk page of the article and trying to gain a consensus. I would have no objection if you included a reliable, third-party source with the information (the previous two news articles did not mention his name, or even that she had a husband, merely that she was married, which makes them entirely inadequate). Discussion on the article's talk page a better place than here since other editors will be able to see and comment.Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Lorena Gonzalez removal of edit notes and details

Wallyfromdilbert, you're deleting edit notes on Lorena's page that help others to find what needs verified, removed cited information about which branch from a system of several community colleges she attended before transferring, and the cited sources talked about a few years between law school and the undergrad degree, which you erased. You're being reckless in what you're removing. Jwfowble (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The full college campus information is in the main article. There is no need for it in the infobox, where it just adds clutter to the small box. Your edit notes are unnecessary. If you think the year she stated law school is that important (it is usually 3 years, so I see no need to include it if we have the year she graduated), then make that edit. This is why you need to stop reverting edits and actually use the talk page. Please do not accuse me of being reckless for careful copyediting to improve the article when you are doing blanket reverts that include removing her website and the actual name of the law school she attended. Discuss on the article talk page instead of here if you want to have a further discussion. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Notwally. You have new messages at Talk:Psycho (1960 film).
Message added 18:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AldezD (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you!

		The Special Barnstar
		Your edits to James Barry (surgeon) and your rewrite of E. J. Levy are much appreciated! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding . Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta#Redirect classification".The discussion is about the topic Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Page of Anand Teltumbde

Can please say, why did you remove so much information from the page including his published books, articles, information on career etc.? Ganesh2019 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ganesh2019, as my edit summary stated, the content was entirely unsourced. This is not allowed for WP:BLP. In addition, much of it was WP:SPAM and also violated WP:NPOV. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, is the information regarding the list of published books and articles be considered as WP:SPAM? How to cite the fact that he is a management professional by career, was MD and CEO of some companies and currently a professor in a management college, please help. These pieces of information are important because otherwise the page becomes misleading and gives an impression that he is only a political figure, thus violating WP:NPOV.

Ganesh2019, yes, the list of books and articles was WP:SPAM. If he is only notable for being a political figure, then other non-notable aspects of his life may not be covered in his Wikipedia page. It all depends on what the sources say. As stated in the first sentence of WP:NPOV: Neutral point of view "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If you can find reliable third-party sources that state the information you want to include, then it would be appropriate to add it to the article. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, thanks will do the future edits accordingly. However, I wonder, he is a notable author known worldwide for his works on various socio-political issues, then why can't his works be included in the page? There is a Bibliography section for Indian authors like Arundhati Roy. If I provide mention of this works proper reference such as Amazon book purchase link, is it allowed?

Ganesh2019, Arundhati Roy's notability as an author is supported by numerous reliable sources. Her bibliography is relevant to her notability and is limited to major publications. The main body of the article for Anand Teltumbde needs be expanded based on reliable sources before a comparison can be made. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop deleting criticisms of Seattle City Council members

Stop deleting criticisms of Debora Juarez and other Seattle City Council members. Do you work for them? 73.239.192.63 (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

As per WP:BLP and WP:BRD, please use the talk page on the article to discussion contentious additions to a biography of a living person that have been removed by another editor (especially when removed by multiple editors). I would be more than willing to further explain the reason for removing your content there. In addition, please make sure you assume good faith and not make accusations against other editors without evidence. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.192.63 (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI, from the top of that noticeboard, "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page". Given your recent comment [1], you should probably learn a little more about Wikipedia and its policies, especially WP:CIVILITY. --Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You should learn about the three-revert rule. Wikipedia:Edit warring 73.239.192.63 (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)