User talk:Bellagio99

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello Bellagio99, :

/Archive 1


Lolo Soetoro[edit]

You did not gain consensus, please revert your good faith edits. Removal of reliable sources' material is against Wikipedia policies. (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear 84..., as I don't know you and you're unregistered, I don't know your editorial history. FWIW, I've done 2500. There are many Wikipedia principles as work. One of them is to avoid Undue Emphasis, which in the opinion of several editors, the article had. In this case, given the racism prevalent in US election discourse (see NY Times, Oct 15, 2008), it is best to adhere WP:BLP and not have an unreliable and bias-provoking statement in. Cheers,Bellagio99 (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bellagio99. I understand that you are concerned that the information might be misinterpreted, sorry but there is no place in Wikipedia for such concerns. We do not do the judgements. The material is sourced and there are many news articles on the subject. The subject is also notable to have a stand alone article. However, I might agree to revert my edit due to the sensitivity of the issue, on condition that the material will be re-added after election day, especially if Obama is the next U.S. president. Wolves can talk... and edit 01:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Wolf, Welcome to Wikipedia. You seem to be a new editor and so far, a single purpose editor. Wikipedia discourages placing undue emphasis on minor or questionable facts, especially in Biographies of Living People WP:BLP. There are a great many more significant aspects of Mr Soetoro's life, such as his education and his professional work that are scarcely discussed. By contrast, hardly any article about an American citizen, who is nominally a Christian, mentions his or her religion. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Bellagio. I have been editing Wikipedia since last year. Only yesterday I decided to make an account. If you have failed to notice, Lolo is not a living person. Him being a Muslim is not a minor nor a questionable fact. It has been and is still being mentioned numerous times to-date by very reliable sources. Barack Obama is a Christian American, this fact is mentioned several times in his article, and he is in the American Christian Category and the United Church of Christ members category. Moreover, Barack's half sister Maya Soetoro-Ng is a Buddhist and she is in the American Buddhist category, but there is no edit war in her article. I gave you a very good offer to end the edit dispute, but you don't seem to be impressed. If you like my offer, drop me a note at any time so I can revert my edit. Otherwise, we might be compelled to take a step further.Wolves can talk... and edit 03:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Ann Dunham--Bddienst (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[edit]

moved to more appropriate location: Talk:Ann Dunham. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing numbers[edit]

Hello. I must point out that in many of your recent edits long strings of numerals have been deleted, for some reason.

As a result, many web addresses have been broken and become useless. For instance, in this edit (diff), the original (valid) weblink became a broken link because the string of numerals in AR2008100103169.html was deleted.

Additionally, in that same edit, the string "accessdate=2008-10-09" was also changed to "accessdate=" (that is, the date was deleted). Access dates are essential information and should be preserved especially when websites are used as sources of reference, because the same website accessed in different dates may yield different information.

Here are some other of your recent edits that truncated strings of numerals: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] --many of which I have already fixed.

Since I don't think such changes were intentional (since they don't make sense), I'll leave it to you to figure out what kind of (software?) glitch have caused those problems. Until then, I'd suggest you double check your edits after they are done. Thanks for your attention on this matter. -- (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had thought the problem was fixed. I may have to get another username/account.Bellagio99 (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Yours is a very unusual bug, but I don't think that using another account would solve the problem if it originates in your browser setting or add-ons (or even malware?). It has just happened again in one of your latest edits today,[9] which I already fixed again.
I would suggest you to do some tests to identify where the problems come from by editing this paragraph and see if the following numbers would disappear: like id=1142862090121 or date 2008-11-01 and Pi=3.1415926 etc.
May I suggest you test with (1) different browsers (Firefox, Safari, Opera, or Google Chrome, to see whether the problem resides in your browser, or (2) logging in and out of your Wikipedia account, to eliminate the possibility that it is the setting of your account, or (3) use some other computer, to see if it is caused by your Operating system. Hope this may help you zero in your problem. -- (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and tips. It's strange because I checked the Giulani edit after I did it, and I didn't see any problem. I've used Firefox with XP for years, now at 3.0, but will try with another browser. It might be the computer. I have run Spybot and Zonealarm for Malwear, but didn't find anything. This has happened once before, and I assumed it was a OTO gremlin. Obviously not. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I am restoring the missing numbers caused by your last edit on this section. In any case, the test was "successful" in that it showed that your edit did truncate all the long numbers three paragraphs above (except for the number "3" before the dot). It also showed that the paragraph is an adequate model to duplicate and test your bug.
I also wonder if you can write and post long numbers such as those, to create similar tests for yourself. But if not, you can always restore your own edits as you did here -- in which the long numbers came back after you reverted yourself. A sandbox page could be of help if you don't want to clog your history with too many tests, though. Good luck. -- (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should put this question to developer User:Brion VIBBER. He knows all there is to know about the wiki code and he may have an idea what causes it. Be sure to mention the test above. - Mgm|(talk) 01:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
You could also try clearing User:Bellagio99/monobook.js and posting to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

←It apparently affected my talk page too after you edited there - makes no sense. Thanks to the IP for fixing. Tvoz/talk 08:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Happened again on your last two edits to Ann Dunham, Bellagio - I reinstated the stripped dates from the references but can you figure out why this is happening? Something seems very wrong with your settings or software. Thanks Tvoz/talk 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Family of Barack Obama[edit]

As noted on Talk:Family of Barack Obama, that single purpose account has been slicing up any reference to any ethnicity throughout the site. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I noted your comments in Talk:Family of Barack Obama regarding ethnicity, and I support your argument. However, I think that certain editor keeps reverting it to African-American. Yes, we are not talking about Barack Obama, but we are talking about his family. Maybe you should use this source [10] as the argument that certain editor use is also mentioning certain reference (see the history). I won't do any edits though as I don't want to trigger three revert rule. Greetings from Indonesia/UK. w_tanoto (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I got to tell you. I am a pacifist and hate revert war. So I won't have anything to do with it. But I will give you a full support if you initiate a vote regarding the ethnicity by participating in that vote. I think that it should be solved by way of polls/voting. w_tanoto (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Technical Help Needed[edit]


I have an unusual bug that is messing up edits on wikipedia. Intermittantly, but recurrently, when I edit, there is an uwanted and unobservable (at the time) stripping away of dates and numbers thoughout a Wikipedia article. As an example is woth 1K words, see what happened on Nov 7 when I edited Ann Dunham (Barakc's mother, fwiw). Fortunately, User:Tvoz was also watching this article and re-inserted the deleted dates. This has happened several times before, over a month+. Please also see two sections above: ==Missing numbers==

You are welcome to go prowling on my Gadgets and Monobook page. I deleted HotCat today -- the only gadget that I have added in a long time. But I don't know if it will help. What else can I -- or you -- do? Bellagio99 (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Happened again, at Ann Dunham. Tvoz/talk 01:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Darn. I did a preview, and things looked good. I won't edit from my home again, until I sort this out. I did post on Village Pump:Technical, and no one answered. I also, on advice, asked, VIBBER, and didn't get a reply. I had hoped it would have gone away like magic.Bellagio99 (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the entire monobook and apparently that did the trick. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The legend of Harrison White[edit]

Bellagio99 - thanks for providing a citation for Harrison White's legendary status. Can you also provide a page number please? Social Structures: A Network Approach is a 528 page work. Without a page reference, this is practically unverifiable. Thanks - Crosbiesmith (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad to oblige. Pp. now in the citation, but the citation/reference was already to the specific article and not to the book. Adding another one.Bellagio99 (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Social networking service[edit]

Comment by IP user moved to the article, where it belongs. With my response.


See Talk: Ann Dunham - it's just wrong as it was written. Tvoz/talk 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the barnstar! It really made my morning. You are doing excellent work on the social networks page, too. DarwinPeacock (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

my edits to The Bronx[edit]

Hi - I was attempting to clean up the article so that it would be more concise and easier + clearer to read. Much of the content of the article is excessive and repetitive when taking into account the detailed sub-articles for the borough. Perhaps my vision was a little too bold <?> and for that I apologize. --MisterPitt (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

University of Toronto alumni listing[edit]

Hi, I'm glad that you're interested in editing the List of University of Toronto people. But I want to make sure you know that the people are listed in order of their graduating years. Wisdompower (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Bronx science[edit]

You disagree about peacock/advert? Really? So you think there is nothing wrong with sentences like "They entered a school equipped with the most modern facilities and state-of-the-art laboratories", "received tremendous reviews and only add to the excellent educational experience.". There is no need for a consensus, and I would appreciate it if you would actually reply to the talk page comments. -Regancy42 (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Reg, Sorry, I didn't respond sooner. I had work to do today. I think there is some peacocking, but the school IS world-famous, etc. I think the edits have gone too far. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I've replied on the article talk page. Also just realised that you may have a conflict of interest with the article. -Regancy42 (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
What conflict of interest? Reg, I graduated 50+ years ago. I have only visited once since that time. To say this is WP:COI is to say that Aussies like you shouldn't edit Aussie articles. Good night, and please calm down.Bellagio99 (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
COI is not simply defined as "editing an article which you may be involved with". It is, "Where advancing outside interests are more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". In this case, it is insisting on including promotional detail to Bx Science when the content is evidently not suitable. -Regancy42 (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I ask you yet again to calm down, don't assume you know me and remember WP:Civil. I have been advancing the aims of Wikipedia for many years and edits, and I have edited the Bronx Science article when I felt it was out of line. Your comments verge on insults, and so I will wait for others to have a look at the article, and won't respond anymore to your personal remarks. I am so puzzled by your inability to accept that there may be different points of view. Good nite. Bellagio99 (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologize if any of my comments were out of line, I certainly don't mean to attack you personally. With that said, I think that raising COI and POV is a genuine concern. Anyways, hope we can compromise on the issue on the talk page. Thanks. -Regancy42 (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Bronx Hub[edit]

Hi, Bellagio, and happy new year! This section of The Bronx#Shopping districts is just a copy and paste from the stub article The Hub, Bronx, as one can see from the glaringly-obvious dead footnotes. If you look at the poster's contribution history, he seems to have a few newcomer's problems that have caused most of his edits to the latter article to be reverted. However, he claims to be a local kid who made a documentary about the Bronx, which is in fact the kind of editor we non-resident old-timers ought to encourage, once he's understood about WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Original research, WP:Verifiability, copy-and-paste, and similar policies that are little-understood by new editors. I certainly don't want to drive away fresh blood by slipping into WP:Ownership. (You're already on my watchlist, so I'll see any comments you make here.) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Shakes -- I suggest we either let the section with my lite edits stand, or else politely point out to the editor that its redundant with The Hub's own section. Third way: for you to tone down the claims a bit. Don't feel strongly either way, so I was a bit conservative. G'nite. Bellagio99 (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't do my own (possibly more-drastic) edits when I first saw this because I wanted to wait either to think it over or for another editor to act on it. (For one thing, as an outsider, I was unsure about the centrality of the Hub compared to other shopping areas, although apparently it was one of the Bronx's earliest.) So I have no objections to your conservatism. The only thing that I know I'd change right now would be to replace the dummy footnotes ("[1]", etc.) with the real <refs> from the original article. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Shakes, I agree with dummy note changes (of course). Hub was always an important locale, but not THE important locale. On 2nd thought, I'd delete almost all, and just leave the xlink back to the main Hub article. Put the rationale on the edit and on the Bronx talk page. Gotta catch a plane, so I am leaving this up to you. Sorry to bail out. 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to UOJComm: studying Wikipedia[edit]

Dear UOJComm, Thanks for your email. I would much prefer that we chat on my talk page -- even better, on yours, but I cannot find you as a User in my Wikipedia search. I am so overwhelmed by my own work, that I do not have time to mentor people from other universities. However, you should look at the work of Andrea Foote, Piotr Konieczny, and Phoebe Ayers (book: How Wikipedia Works). Zack Hayat has also studied Israel's Wikipedia, but I think he wrote in Hebrew. Of course, Google Scholar and Web of Science would be great resources. Good luck. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bellagio99, Thank you very much for the response. I've just set up my account, so I will set up my Talk page. I'm not quite looking for a mentor, but rather some people to interview about their experiences on Wikipedia. It would be brief. Please let me know if you would have time to answer a few questions. Thanks again.

UOJComm (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bishop up to his old tricks[edit]

Thought you might like to know... (ColonelBuendia99 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

List of U of T people[edit]

Information.svg Thanks for contributing new article List of University of Toronto people. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable, by being clearly attributed to reliable sources. Please help by adding more sources to the article you created, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the material (see here for how to do inline referencing). Many thanks! PS If you need any help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Me-124345's irrational actions[edit]

Bellagio99, What should we do about Me-12334's incomprehensible actions? I think I've given enough reasons why the list should be kept as it is. I've said several times. But he/she keeps on vandalizing. It's an article that many people including me put time and effort into. Me-12343 cannot do this without any justification. (which doesn't seem to be any.) --Wisdompower (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


And perhaps he should stop making personal attacks. He needs to show those he is added are notable. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Me-1234, do you even read what I write in the "Discussion" room? The fact that YOU don't know them or have never heard of them does not establish that they are not notable. If you're thinking and arguing in that way, you're committing ad ignorantiam (fallacy of appealing to ignorance). The organizations that people like Patrick Fung, John Cassaday lead as Presidents and CEOs are famous, and this makes those Presidents and CEOs notable as well. They are even mentioned in their firms' wikipedia articles. Plus, business sections of university alumni lists do tend to include some redlinks, because of the fact that the companies that those redlinks represent as CEOs and Presidents, Chairmen are notable and have wikipedia pages. Most often, the redlinks of other university lists don't have special inline citations attached to them, but in the U of T's list, I added citation to every redlink. I understood Abductive's claim. If there were no citations added to the redlinks, there would be no way of checking that alumnus' notability and affiliation with the university other than by typing up his name on Google. So I included citations for all the redlinks. (So one possible problem solved.) --Wisdompower (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting for protection[edit]

Bellagio99, Is it possible to request for article protection until mid-April? (Admittedly, I don't know much about wikipedia rules.) If that's possible, I think it would be nice to have the university list protected until mid-April, so that I can spend time on the article with much less opportunity cost. Wikipedia articles are so vulnerable. Just anyone can edit it. And by using (or taking them to one's advantage) wikipedia rules, one can do harm to an article then 'justify' one's action. Since not many wikipedia users are well aware of some esoteric wikipedia rules, their 'justification' often seems right on the surface, when in fact, they're wrong. Wikipedia is not yet, the place where all knowledge in the world is stored. Nor is the website in itself complete in terms of its rules and structure. Anyway, that's how I feel.--Wisdompower (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Bellagio99's Day![edit]

Featured article star.svg

User:Bellagio99 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Bellagio99's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Bellagio99!

00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.


I've raised your complaint I saw at BLPN there. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ann Dunham[edit]

I just reverted your addition. I will present my reasons on your Talk page. Yours in WPedia, Bellagio99 (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No. If you want to discuss my edit to the Ann Dunham article then you need to place your comments on the Ann Dunham Talk Page, that is the only appropriate place for your comments.--InaMaka (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yup, that's where I put it and what I meant to say. I was just giving you a Heads-Up about this. Sorry to be confusing. 12:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


Thanks so much for the Barnstar. It's much appreciated, and I'll wear it proudly. mnewmanqc (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy. It's hard for me to get too invested in it. However, I think if I was forced to decide I'd go for the Bronx. Prefer da Boogiedown, though!! mnewmanqc (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Froid on "da" Bronx[edit]

Hi Bellagio99. Thanks for the heads-up about the/The Bronx dispute. I agree with Mnewmanqc's comments (above) but am grateful I'm not forced to make the decision. Rather, I'll heed your counsel and adhere to whatever resolution Wikipedia's "powers that be" arrive at. Ciao! Froid 21:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froid (talkcontribs)

20 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology membership[edit]

You are listed in the Category:Wikipedians interested in sociology, probably due to the use of "This user is interested in sociology" userbox, but you have not added yourself to our official member list for WikiProject Sociology. This prevent you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Signpost revert[edit]

So what's with this revert? Ravensfire (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it has something to do with this revert, which occured immediately before the revert at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Issue. I'm thinking that the user looked at the date of the Signpost issue ("December 27") and thought it was an error, since today is December 28. Guoguo12--Talk--  16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Twas quickly fixed, so no problem. When I saw it, I didn't know if there was a purpose or a goof, so figured it was easier to ask. Thanks for the explanation. Ravensfire (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Blood libel[edit]

  • I took it out and started a new subsection on the talk page so we can discern if consensus really does merit its inclusion (I do not think it does). cheers.--Milowenttalkblp-r 19:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides, despite what you stated, the consensus as I understand it is clearly against you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phearson (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My username[edit]

Thanks for asking about it. Yeah, it is the tiny little bugs. It was just an alliteration that came to me one day and I've used it ever since, although I'm a bit ambivalent about it since it's sort of like I'm calling myself a pest... Oh well. Ran off for the weekend but was nice seeing your agreement about the blood libel usage notability question. Cheers yourself, monsieur. Agnosticaphid (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Lafayette College people - Ori Kalmus[edit]

As a neutral observer to your edit, I understand your concern that Kalmus may not be notable enough for Wikipedia, but even that is disputable and should be up for discussion. I did a Google search for Ori Kalmus, and the results were beyond the level for which one can claim "Mr Kalmus is not yet notable to Wikipedia or Google." I'd suggest leaving the text in for now, and bringing up a discussion between you and Screammaskinskillman. --Deryck C. 00:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Bellagio99: Willing to help with some Wikipedia-related research?[edit]

Hi! I'm a first-year PhD student working on a system to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on scientific topics by providing easier access to relevant scientific publications. I was hoping to speak with some editors who work on scientific articles in order to solicit requirements for my system in order to better satisfy the needs of the Wikipedia community. I noticed that you have been a caretaker for a number of pages on topics concerning social network science and online communities, and I would really appreciate your input. If you are interested, please let me know on my talk page (talk). Thanks! —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC).


Hi there, I just saw this edit (which was quickly undone) where it appears you accidentally hit the rollback button from your watchlist. Anyway, I just thought I'd let you know that, if you want, you can hide the rollback link from your watchlist by adding to .page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none;} to Special:Mypage/skin.css, which will hopefully stop this from happening. Your call if you want to use it, but I thought you might like to know. Jenks24 (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok then. My new suggestion would be to go to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Issue and take it off your watchlist. That should solve your problem. Jenks24 (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No worries, glad I could help. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring other's talk comments[edit]

Please do not refactor other editors' talk comments on articles. If you disagree with them, simply say so. But deleting their comments, as you did [11] and just placing your response to the comment in edit remarks, is not appropriate and reduces the collaboration of editors as other editors will never see the original comment. I would like to assume that was not your intention and it was simply an oversight, but please do think about this a bit more carefully in the future. Thank you. Academic Avenger (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, strange coincidence[edit]

Hi, I was updating my userboxen and having trouble getting the "forgotten hebrew" to display the way I wanted to (figured out it was because I wasn't using free-standing userboxes, but within a Babel template), and I clicked on a random user of the box to see how it was displayed on their page, and that random user was obviously you (otherwise, c'mon, this story wouldn't interest you) and I saw that we had the same "wikipedian for" user box as well, and we've been wikipedians for the exact same amount of time! Bizarre! That is all. You have many userboxes, as you know, so all the other things we have in common (which are many) are somewhat diluted in their effect. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

List of people from the Bronx[edit]


i see your threatening edit summary on your latest reversal. no, i won't be reverting again; i have better things to do than edit war.

for the record, however, you must note that i had already responded on the article's talk page and my last edit (reversal) indicated "see talk page".

regards.-- (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

    • Dear 96. This wasn't a threat. We had an impasse, and I figured we should kick to an Admin for resolution. Good luck in your editing, even if we have disagreed about List of People from the Bronx. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ann Dunham agnostic[edit]

There are multiple sources in the article. Why take it out? --Javaweb (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Re: LDS and Dunham[edit]

Regarding this edit, I agree with your reversion. What has me puzzled is that I thought we had discussed this in the past. Is this the second time it's been added? Viriditas (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Virid, I don't recall it having been discussed since I started watching the page circa 2007. Bellagio99 (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I found it. It was previously discussed in Talk:Ann_Dunham/Archive_2#posthumous_Mormon_baptism and it appears to be the same user adding the same content once again. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael Schwartz reference[edit]

Hi - You suggested on my talk page that I should add a reference for some information I added to the page on Michael Schwartz. The information came from his book Radical Protest and Social Structure: The Southern Farmers' Alliance and Cotton Tenancy, 1880-1890 which is listed as one of his books. Is that sufficient, or should I try to find the particular page numbers where he discusses structural ignorance? (Please respond on my talk page...thank you) Mike Restivo (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

NYC Dialect edit war[edit]

Hi, pls comment on the talk page. I started a discussion of the edit war. Otherwise things could get downright silly. I wish the other person(s) would come out from behind their IP address, but we come to an edit war with the opponents we have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnewmanqc (talkcontribs) 11:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Blast from the past[edit]

Hello, old friend. I just thought I would nip in here and leave greetings. I do notice and appreciate the odd posting by you on my talkpage, though sometimes they are months old by the time I see them. I fear that the 'good old days' for me, as a committed WP editor, seem long over. There is so much to do on this internet of ours, so many distractions, interests, etc., that it is hard to devote my time and indeed my mind to pure editing for its own sake. What tends to happen is that, while I am creating and adapting other media on other interactive cybersites, I will have need of Wikipedia to find out background info on some subject or other. I will invariably see that someone, somewhere, has (sacrilegious editor comment spoiler!) "got it completely wrong" in some way, and then the old urge to get in there and put it to rights kicks in. For which purpose I have popped up today! So, just a word to say, I remember the old times, and I am glad you seem to have kept burning the fire which went out (or, at least, flickered very very low) for me. Best wishes from Lee. Ref (chew)(do) 18:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

requested move to NY dialect[edit]

I wasn't able to do the move because it was blocked. I requested the move using the requested move template. mnewmanqc (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing happened in response to my request to move. Do you know how to follow up? I'm thinking I can see if I can just move it to NYC English, which would be, from my perspective, the idea solution. mnewmanqc (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard Alba[edit]

The first reference in your first sentence is a dead link. Would you like to look for an alternative? Deb (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks for heads-up. I will find another link. May take a while as miles to go today. Bellagio99 (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to David Gilmour (writer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * ''Extraordinary'', Patrick Crean Editions (2013

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Steve Mann[edit]

Thanks - Actually I wasn't sure of good faith but using the tool I was using it was that or vandalism and that charge didn't seem right either...-- 🍺 Antiqueight confer 20:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Social network analysis[edit]

I don't have time to do a talk page write up at the moment, I think we're almost 12 hours out of synch with each other and I'm about to log for the night. I'll write up the reasoning on the external links and propose some other stuff that I haven't changed yet in the morning for you to consider. --GraemeL (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Social graph synonym[edit]

In regards to this edit:

Just so you know, the term "social graph" was coined because graph theory emerged as its own field of study long before anybody thought to use graphs to describe social networks. The term "graph" is often used to refer to these sorts of data structures in computer engineering. -- myncknm (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I completely believe that the term "social network" has been the original term in the social sciences. But redundant jargon is what happens when interdisciplinary work happens, I suppose. -- myncknm (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Felice Picano[edit]

I'm not sure why you reverted the Felice Picano material. As I wrote on the Talk page the material was added by Felice himself and is in clear violation of WP:AB. Would you please explain? Am I missing something here? Thanks. Pjefts (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You are missing WP:IGNORE. I know Picano for many years and I know these things are all true. So why go to all the fuss for a guy who doesn't know WP practices. In the meantime, I will ask him to supply documentation of the obvious. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the references and general cleanup. I would like to do something with the section "References and critical works including Felice Picano"...clearly these should be used as citations and not just a bibliographic listing. I would delete the entire section but if you think you can make it useful, go for it. Your close association may be a problem though. Pjefts (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm also returning the banner in regards to additional sources needed especially since there are no secondary sources from peer reviewed materials...newspapers and literary reviews are not peer reviewed and are considered primary sources..I would also point out that there are no tertiary sources for Felice Picano listed. Pjefts (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Pjefts, Thank you for your work. You're right, the material belongs in citations, and I will put them there. Your own page says you are a new user, so I do want to point out to you that newspapers and literary reviews are widely and legitimately used throughout Wikipedia. We can always discuss the issue with WP:ANI, if there is any doubt. But I do appreciate all of your work. PS: I do not have a close relationship with Felice Picano. We have only met in person once. But my wife has a longstanding relationship with him, dating back to undergraduate days, so I have read a lot of his works and know a good deal about him. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking for Wiki editor to create an entry for UofT academic journal[edit]

Hi Bellagio99. We are an UofT-affiliated academic journal looking for a wiki editor to create an entry for us. Can provide all references for content (in English and French). Is this something that you'd be willing to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry, no. Overloaded. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request[edit]

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

JFK in the Bronx[edit]

Please see this link JFK in the Bronx, comment here if necessary, thanks:[12]...Modernist (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. Thanks for the link to the fascinating artcle. Also commented on your talk page.Bellagio99 (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Bronx reverted edits 5 Aug 2014[edit]

The key to the edits, which I admit were grammatically clunky, is they took out incorrect information about the division between the East and West Bronx and the size of the West Bronx. The West Bronx includes everything west of the Bronx River (the entire Annexed District), not just the area west of Jerome Avenue. Jerome Avenue just divides the street addresses, not the sections. It's confusing, but it is true. This debate was resolved on the West Bronx page years ago. So saying that the West Bronx is 1/8th the size of the East Bronx is incorrect. (5 Aug 2014).

    • You're right on that. It would be great, if you could rewrite it smoothly. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a shot. Maybe I'll just lift some of the text from the East and West Bronx pages which is pretty clear (5 Aug 2014).

    • Sounds good. Recycle, reuse. Bellagio99 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Technique revert[edit]

Hello, Mr. Bellagio99! Thanks for your comment on the Alexander Technique talk page. I'm a bit reluctant to revert the edits myself because I'm already in Alexbrn's crosshairs due to some mildly contentious points on several other alt-med topics. I am a proponent of critical thinking, science, and neutral encyclopedic coverage, and I find his extreme Skeptic POV to be a bit off the mark from the moderate Skepticism that pervades (and generally benefits) Wikipedia. Would you be willing to perform the edits? I would back you up. Thanks!--Karinpower (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

    • Sorry, deadlined on important other stuff the next 2 days. Hopefully, someone else will do it, but if not then I will take a harder look by end of week. Bellagio99 (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 04 March 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 March 2015[edit]


We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoa There[edit]

"We at Wikipedia" is awfully hubristic. I've been editing about as long as you, and have a large number of tweets. Your lecture shows you haven't checked me out, and it is condescending. By contrast to you, I know there are many paths and voices to Wikipedia. Please help to improve this article, rather than to destroy it. I hope you will, or else we'll have to refer to Mediation. Go in peace. PS: I'm a Doc too, but I don't trumpet it.Bellagio99 (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If you read WP:MEDRS it makes it clear that the consensus here on WIkipedia is that we do not use primary sources. I will ask for further opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015[edit]


The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit]

The Signpost, 1 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion[edit]


This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

Quixotic plea[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 04:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 10 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 08 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 22 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 29 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 05 August 2015[edit]

Donald Freed[edit]

Thanks for that - I didn't even know about the Peoples Temple category, else I'd have excluded it from my considerations. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

    • And that was not a suicide in U.S., but South America. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 19 August 2015[edit]


You should have received an email from me a couple of weeks ago regarding your request for access to ScienceDirect. Could you please either fill out the form linked from that email or let me know if you did not receive it? We are hoping to get these processed as soon as possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 02 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 09 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 16 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 23 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 30 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 07 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 14 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 21 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 28 October 2015[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for November 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Assassin (2015 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weibo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015[edit]


In this revert I wrongly assumed I had been reverted by the original inserter of the content. FYI, Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine is not published by OUP (not that it matters, OUP published plenty of poor material) but by Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Alexbrn (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2015

  • I understand. Apology accepted. It took me 4 Google screens before I found any criticism of the journal. in here [13]. OTOH, I haven't read the article. As to OUP, I know enough about journal publishers not to worship, but to assume some meta-quality control. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, read Ernst. But even if we just do things by the book, the journal isn't even MEDLINE-indexed so would fall afoul of WP:MEDRS that way. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Andmy regards to Edzard, whom I have met Over and out. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 November 2015[edit]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 02 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 09 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 16 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 30 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 06 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 20 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 27 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016[edit]

February 2016[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Elihu Katz has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016[edit]

April 2016[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alexander technique. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  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; 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. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


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 Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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 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.

The Signpost: 14 April 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 05 June 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 04 July 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 06 September 2016[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Abacus Federal Savings Bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Steve James
Cyrus Vance Jr. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Steve James

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]

Request for opinion[edit]

Hi Bellagio99: Sorry to trouble you, but I could not help but notice your expression of affection for TOS on the Wikipedians who like Star Trek: The Original Series page, and so I would be curious of your thoughts on the notability of a Star Trek author for whom I just created a Wikipedia article -- which may be promptly destined for the trash pile. As a newcomer here at Wikipedia, my first article attempt was indeed recommended for deletion within hours of its creation by a senior user named JzG who seems to me to be overly hostile and dismissive of Star Trek, calling it fancruft (= trivial, obscure, of importance to just a tiny group of fanatics) . Since you are a Trek fan, if it is also your good faith opinion that my subject is in no way deserving of an article on this site; and you could let me know, I would feel much more comfortable with the justice of the pending deletion action. My proposed article may be seen here, assuming you visit the page soon enough ... Kind Regards. Tosresearcher (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    • Sorry, I have no opinion on this subject. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Bellagio99. You have new messages at AntiCompositeNumber's talk page.
Message added 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Bellagio99. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

The Bronx[edit]

I'm assuming your reverts on The Bronx were a mistake? meamemg (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I must have been confused by the IP editor. Thanks. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 17 January 2017[edit]

Do you know Stacey Spiegel[edit]

Your edits over the years show a desire to remove the advert tags (e.g. here) from the Stacey Spiegel article, and also to add material that might indicate a connection. So, do you know Stacey Spiegel? I have restored the BLP sources tag ars the article still needs source, so please do not remove it again. Thank you. (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I have met him once. I thought your spate of 43 edits was unbalanced, c'est tout! And as you are an IP-user, I have no idea about what your own track record is. I wondered if you had a personal animus against Spiegel Bellagio99 (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

‪Harrison White et al[edit]

Hello, I removed those links because they were added by Albertbenschop, who has a clear conflict of interest as the site creator. Wikiain seems to like the links too, so ... hmmm. Graham87 06:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017[edit]

Wikipedia:NOT a newspaper does not always exclude news[edit]

Hi! this edit summary I need to make something clear. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper is not meant to always exclude current events! It states "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage[...]"

In terms of internal article content that means considering whether the event will have commentary/lasting coverage. The New York Times article about the disease states that Grand Concourse has had recurring problems with rats, so the disease is a consequence of a longstanding problem, not just a one-off freak occurrence. It also has the unusual factor since that disease does not frequently occur in the West.

Another thing: IMO to always remove news events from articles is detrimental to articles, because what starts as a single news story can snowball into a whole controversy/permanent change for a community. Removing such things can prevent readers from knowing that it happened and doing further research, which means they add additional content to the the original content. Think of an article like a plant: you need to let it grow from an incomplete state. If you chop the sapling it won't grow.

By the way, if you wish to consider Wikipedia:Notability (events) remember that is meant to be a test of whether a topic gets its own article, not a guideline for internal article content. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Whisper, I am in L.A. now. There is a lot of rain, and some flooding. There has been much rain for several months. Yet, this transient event should not be in the L.A. Wikipedia article.
Similarly, because there are some rat infestations in a limited area of the Bronx should not be notable. I am inclined to let my AGF revision stand. If you disagree, please take this discussion (in full) to the article's Talk page. And thanks for your care in editing Wikipedia

Bellagio99 (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome! As I strongly disagree I have started a talk page section and put a notice on WikiProject New York to get further feedback on the issue. Please see the article talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017[edit]

Mark Granovetter[edit]

Hello Bellagio99, I partially agree with your revert at this article regarding the included content. However, the used self-published blog has been exclusively spammed by single-usage IPs in the last months and years, with the clear intent to increase the visibility of the author's website and articles. It would be great if we could keep the content, but use another more reliable (and less self-promotional) source. I just wanted to give you some additional background information about the underlying issue, maybe it is possible to replace this reference? GermanJoe (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017[edit]

"Mr. Kayak"?[edit]

Can you do me one favor? Don't call me Mr. Kayak again. As Kayak is not my last name, it just sounds too awkward.LakeKayak (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure. iwas being respectful. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 15 July 2017[edit]