User talk:Display name 99

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:1ravensnflfan)
Jump to: navigation, search


Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Non-English sources[edit]

Hi, DN99, I have the Pope Pius IX page on my watchlist, and so saw the edit summary of your most recent edit there (Non-English sources shouldn't be used on English Wikipedia.). That actually isn't true; while English-language sources are naturally preferred over others--if they're of equal quality--non-English sources are far from frowned upon, as evidenced by this section of the verifiability policy. I'm not going to revert your edit or anything; if the source wasn't actually cited in the article, it was probably fine to be removed anyway. This is just for future reference. Thanks! Writ Keeper  13:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Writ_Keeper, thank you. I'll keep that in mind. Display name 99 (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William H. Keeler[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William H. Keeler you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyBallioni -- TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William H. Keeler[edit]

The article William H. Keeler you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:William H. Keeler for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyBallioni -- TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edits[edit]

Hi. Your recent edits on Fake news were (correctly) reverted. There might be room for them in CNN Controversies though if you believe they are a good fit for that article (I checked only the text you added, not the refs, so I'm not sure). Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox article has categories[edit]

Hey I came across your article: User:Display_name_99/sandbox that looks like a draft for an article later added to the mainspace of wikipedia. This sandbox page has categories in it and is showing up in mainspace list. Perhaps you are unaware that is prohibited per WP:USERNOCAT and additionally you aren't supposed to use your User page to hold old drafts of articles per WP:STALE. Just wanted to bring it to your attention in case you were unaware. Happy editing. Klaun (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. I just got rid of it. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Display name 99 (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Hi - any chance you could add more useful edit summaries explaining why you made your edit? Right now they seem to be more about your feelings about the text or whatever. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summaries at Enlil[edit]

Hello! I noticed you recently made some minor corrections to the article Enlil, amending several typographic errors I must have made while writing that article. I am glad you corrected the errors, but I noticed that, in one of your edit summaries, you commented, "This is stupidly easy. Anybody nominating for GAN should have caught this." In your next edit summary, you scoffed, "Wow," in apparent amazement at the poor quality of the article. I am the one who nominated the article, so I am mildly offended by your implication that I am "stupid" simply because I missed a few typos in the citations. In the spirit of fairness, however, I thought I would ask you if there were any more issues with the article that you might have noticed, aside from the ones you have already corrected, that might have contributed to your apparent disdain for my work. I intend to correct any problems you point out so that the prospective GA review may continue as planned. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Citations in Ledes[edit]

You should probably review Wikipedia:LEADCITE. There is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads and removing existing citations is not at all helpful. Toddst1 (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Toddst1, I've read that before. I suppose some of the citations can stay, but, when considering the second paragraph of that policy, I don't think they're all necessary. If you want to get rid of some, that would be good. But if not, I won't protest. It's not worth getting into a lengthy dispute about. Display name 99 (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Albigensian Crusade, without a valid reason for the removal. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Arbitrary removal of sources is not OK. Toddst1 (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Toddst1, please provide me with one good reason for why that piece of information should be cited while the rest of the lead is not cited. As it stands now, it just looks stupid. We should at least be consistent. Display name 99 (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Simple: WP:V. We don't arbitrarily remove sources for aesthetics. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Toddst1, I'm not seeing anything about that there. Can you give me a section? Display name 99 (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
From the second paragraph of WP:V:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.

This is basic stuff. WP:V is not sacrificed for aesthetics. From WP:LEDECITE

The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

Removing existing citations from ledes is not at all helpful. Toddst1 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
None of that addresses my point. All of this is applicable only to lead information that is challenged or likely to be challenged, as it says. The sourced material in the lead is not likely to be challenged, or at least not more so than the rest of the items in the lead which are not sourced.
Per WP:Lead, citations are not required in the lead for simple facts not likely to be challenged, especially for non-BLPS such as the Albigensian Crusade article. The claim that is sourced is nothing more than a basic fact. I won't go about anymore removing information from leads verifying basic facts so long as citing such material is the consistent policy for the entire lead. But in this article, it isn't. There is also nothing about aesthetics in either quote, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. Display name 99 (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Let's try this a different way. How is removing reliable sources helpful? Toddst1 (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
A source may be reliable, but that doesn't guarantee that it always belongs where it is in an article or in the article at all. There are several reasons. (1) There is such a thing as "citation padding," as I've heard it called, where a claim in the article that needs no more than 1 or at most 2 sources for verification is given 3 or more. This is not at all helpful.
(2) Per MOS: Lead: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." If the material is not challengeable, than redundant citations do become an issue, so presumably, you wouldn't need one. That's part of the problem here. (3) Having only one non-challengeable piece of information cited in the lead just looks dumb, because all the other non-challengeable stuff isn't cited. I chose not to fight your reverts of my edits at other page leads where information was consistently cited, even though the degree to which your actions were in agreement with the policy I quoted is a bit questionable. But when only one bit of non-challengeable information is cited, that raises the additional issue of inconsistency. Consistency between articles isn't always required, but consistency within the same article is highly encouraged if not required. Display name 99 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Toddst1, hello? Display name 99 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun[edit]

For a variety of reasons I've decided not to run this as a TFA this month. However, Dank and I both feel that it would be appropriate for you to nominate it again at TFAR on his birthday on 18 March. Apologies for keeping you in limbo for the time being Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. People never seem to mind when we run biographies on a birthday. Thanks for shepherding this one through FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. Sounds good. Display name 99 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento and Tawana Brawley rape allegations[edit]

@Display name 99: Hi Display name 99, I'm MagicatthemovieS. You might remember me - you passed my nomination of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife as a good article. Since we work well together, I was wondering f you might like to check out two articles which I recently nominated to reach good article status - Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento and Tawana Brawley rape allegations. Let me know if you are interested in either article or both of them.

Thanks, ~ MagicatthemovieS

Peer review[edit]

Hi, Display 99. I see you dabble in History and Religion as indicated in your user page. I was wondering if you could take a look and make comments at my current peer review, particularly in regard to the sources and the prose's broadness. It's a very familiar subject matter, and it would be interesting to bring it to the much-coveted Good Article status. Hoping for your acceptance, SLIGHTLYmad 04:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for all your help with the William M. Branham article. I know your review took a lot of time and effort. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Moorefield[edit]

Hello Display 99. Thank you for reviewing the Battle of Moorefield. Sorry about my pushbacks, I do that with every article. I appreciate your patience! TwoScars (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm happy to help. Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi Display name 99! How close do you think the New York Public Library is to GA status? I know this is out of your area of expertise, and that it needs a lot of work, but I wanted to avoid my last submission, and thought you might have some thoughts. Thanks! Eddie891 Talk Work 00:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eddie. I'm in my first semester of college right now, so I'm definitely a little busy. If you check my editing history, you'll notice that my contributions are fewer in the last few days than before. But I was able to take a cursory look at this, no problem at all. Here are some observations.
  • The lead might be able to use another paragraph, and should definitely included the exact year in which the library is founded. I also feel like the information in the second paragraph should come first, because it describes roughly when the library was founded and its general purpose. It's more crucial than most of the stuff in the other paragraph.
  • The last paragraph under "Founding" is a little bit long. Consider splitting it.
  • There are definitely a lot of things in the article that are unsourced. Before submitting this as a GAN, make sure all maintenance tags ("citation needed," "verification needed," etc.) are cleaned up and that there is no claim or sentence that is not verified.
  • The information in the "In popular culture" section should, in my opinion, be transferred to a separate article. Generally, presenting information in list format is discouraged in any article that is not a list itself. But in this article, there are too many items to not present in a list. So when the list of things becomes too long, it becomes appropriate to transfer the information into a separate article, which in this case could be called "Lists of references to the New York Public Library in popular culture." You can keep some of the more notable references or provide a summary of everything (making sure it's sourced, of course), but the list is so extensive now that I think we're at the point where a separate article is needed.
  • I suggest an overhaul of the referencing format, sort of like what you did for the Washington Presidency article. "Lydenberg, Harry Miller (1916). "History of the New York Public Library". Bulletin of the New York Public Library. 20: 556–563." should become "Lydenberg 1916, pp. 556-563" in the inline citations, for example.
That's all I'm able to offer right now. If you want a more in depth review of the article before submitting it as a GAN, I suggest WP:Peer review. I hope this helps. Display name 99 (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)