Hi @MarnetteD:. I'm asking for help to get Murder of Heather Rich to a GA. For a start , at the time of this message it doesn't have an infobox or a picture of Ms. Rich. It's in a really poor state for a case that got national attention. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Murder" articles have infoxboxes and pictures of the victims - Murder of James Bulger Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Paul Benjamin Austin I will give it a read through when I have a chance. As to pictures I wont be of any help. I have never gotten an understanding the labyrinthine rules regarding them. You might try Wikipedia:Requested pictures. Enjoy the last few hours of 2017. MarnetteD|Talk 22:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello MarnetteD, just to let you know that the changes you reverted on the Richard Farnsworth article were made by a long-term abuse vandal (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal) and 81.136.38.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), resident in the Leeds/Bradford area of Yorkshire, UK. I have reported them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and await developments. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

They have now been blocked. David J Johnson (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info David. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

But do we know what the cause of a death vandal is yet? LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful will rollback; you just nuked a bunch of stuff at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (I restored it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Many apologies SMcCandlish. I had one of thoses annoying screen jumps while I was dealing with sock vandals on two different pages. Thanks for fixing my error. MarnetteD|Talk 03:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I get a finger twitch once in a while and hit that. I've actually rollbacked myself twice in the last couple of months, ha ha.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Protection templates -- this might be a bug. I restored pp-sock with no expiry and didn't bother trying to put back the pp-move-indef. Hope the error has gone away. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much EdJohnston. The article is still out of the category. Now that I look at it I think it was the "move-indef" template that was causing the problem. In the log I saw four different changes to the protection all with the same expiration and I just couldn't figure out what-was-what :-) Thanks again and have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 04:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I know what happened here, and will explain later when I have time. It's possible that Ymblanter removed full move prot in error and unsuccessfully tried to restore it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The protection log has several relevant entries. It's best to consider the edit protection changes separately from the move protection. First, the edit protection: a prior series of full- and semi-prots ultimately expired at 00:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC), leaving the article unprotected for edits. At 20:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC), RegentsPark (talk · contribs) set indef semi-protection, which was increased to 30/500 at 16:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC) by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) with an expiry of 16:51, 11 November 2018. At 09:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC), Ymblanter (talk · contribs) increased this further, to full-prot (with the same expiry), which they reduced to semi-prot at 06:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC) and raised again to 30/500 at 11:42, 5 January 2018, so the edit protection is now back to how EdJohnston set it at 16:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC).

Now consider move protection. This had been indef full move prot since 17:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC), when Philg88 (talk · contribs) set this prot level. This persisted until 06:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC) when Ymblanter reduced it to semi - which is pointless since unconfirmed users cannot move pages, it might as well have been unprotected for moves. A little over five hours later, at 11:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC), Ymblanter increased it again but only as high as 30/500. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I am travelling now and can not react; no problem amending my protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Prot levels should now be back to the levels they had prior to 09:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Belated thanks to everyone involved for posting here. Especially to Redrose64 for the thorough explanation into what went on. Cheers to all. MarnetteD|Talk 05:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you check out the edits of User:Dpm12? Their initial edits looked fine, but then they started deleting stuff with no explanation. You know this subject better than I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello BMK. I thought it was odd too. The small ones seem to be merely cosmetic - though I might have missed something. The big one was the removal of uncredited roles with no sources and one item sourced to IMDb. Those could be removed again or have "cn" tags added - whatever you think best. Of course it would help if Dpm12 used edit summaries. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 05:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

On my talk page he says that he was removing edits that he himself had made earlier. [1]. I advised him that putting some explanation in the edit summary would be a good idea. Sorry for the false alarm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries Beyond My Ken. I'm always glad to take a look at things. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 06:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

There's really nothing wrong with that Times ref MarnetteD. That's absolutely the correct formatting of the ref and we don't need two tags saying it needs more refs, one will do. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

And it doesn't need a cite works or any other template. Those are entirely optional. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It did need a bare URL fixing template though. Bare URLs lead to linkrot and it takes no time at all for someone to come along and fix them. As I mentioned in my edit summary I was using the wrong template in my cut and paste - my apologies for that. Again thank you for starting the article. MarnetteD|Talk 01:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Well I had never tried using refill before - I had no idea how slick it works. Everything looks to be set for the article as it stands at the moment. I did remove the refimprove tag but you are free to restore it if you wish. Cheers and enjoy your Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 01:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you M for the thanks ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 18:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You are most welcome G and than you for the lovely pic! MarnetteD|Talk 18:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether atheism is a religion is subject to much debate. Overall it is generally referred to as a religion in most countries. For example, the USA court considered it to be a religion. Most censuses have a ‘no religion/atheist’ tick-box under the religious affiliation section. While an atheist may not believe in God, in many ways it is still a belief, in the same way Buddhism is considered a religion because it is still a belief despite not believing in God. Many scholars also say that it is a religion because it fulfils the 'seven dimensions' of religion. Ultimately, whether it is a religion or not, stating the president's religious beliefs (albeit none) makes editorial sense (in the same way her father's is stated in his info box), especially given the interest that surrounds her controversial connections with a cult leader. I’m keen to hear more of your thoughts on this? Cbowsie (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter what my thoughts are. As I mentioned in this edit summary the situation has had several detailed discussions on various policy pages and the current consensus is that neither "atheism" nor "none" is used in that field. Any further discussion belongs at the Template talk:Infobox person page. MarnetteD|Talk 16:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

RIP Ursula K. Le Guin. I spent so many wonderful hours reading your works. Always Coming Home is a particular favorite. MarnetteD|Talk 18:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear. For me, it is probably The Tombs of Atuan. I've had Words are my Matter on my to-read shelf for a while - I should really get around to it now. --bonadea contributions talk 17:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by Bonadea. TToA is great. I hope you get a chance to read WamM - it would be a nice tribute to your memories of her. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I first read A Wizard of Earthsea round about 1984, but didn't get hold of the next two until about 1988/9. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64. I know I read them somewhere in the 70s but I was too young to understand everything that she was writing about. They get better as I've gotten older :-) Thanks for your post. MarnetteD|Talk 00:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen the RfC at Talk:A Wizard of Earthsea#Request for comment about synopsis contents? I'll need to reread the books in order to judge that one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hadn't seen it Redrose64. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. BTW Our NBC network as purchased the rights to the Six Nations matches. For the first time I'll be getting to see all the matches live! A fun weekend ahead. MarnetteD|Talk 02:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I was about to add "| education = Wofford College | occupation = journalist" to the infobox for Ellison Barber, but you removed the box before I could update.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You could have added that info when you restored the empty box. For that matter you still can. MarnetteD|Talk 04:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marnette, hope you had a nice Christmas and are keeping well. I was wondering if you would review your most recent edit at Rambo III because it looks like we got our wires crossed. This is the sequence of edits:

1. You remove the reference to IMDB: [2] (I fully agree with this)
2. Rja13ww33 restores it in the next edit: [3]
3. I subsequently remove it again: [4]
4. I then add a "citation" tag: [5]
5. You remove the tag with the request that a reliable source is found: [6]

Did you intend to remove my tag in your last edit? It appears to me we are in agreement with each other in that IMDB cannot be used as a source and an alternative must be found, in which case it seems appropriate to tag it. It's not a big deal really, I just wanted to make sure that removing the tag was your intention. If we are going to lose the tag we probably should lose the spurious claim along with it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan. I did that thing of clicking on the ping edit rather than looking at the full edit history. I have restored your CN tag. Apologies for the snafu. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 11:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello DoctorWho42. My edit was just housekeeping. I haven't seen any episodes but I do have Netflix so I will check it out when I get a chance. I hope you have a peasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey MarnetteD, I noticed that you reversed a few of my edits regarding the phrase "committed suicide" and I just wanted to discuss them. Sorry if this is not the proper place for that, I'm not too savvy with the back-end social part of Wikipedia.

While I absolutely agree that Wikipedia should not be censored, and should avoid being overly politically correct, I think this is one of the areas in which that rule interferes with NPOV.

The phrase “committed suicide” has been declared by many, including many experts, to be outdated and stigmatizing because of its association with criminality (suicide has been decriminalized in many places). (Sources: 1 2 ) Phrases like “died by suicide” focus more on what is objectively and technically correct. While it is not Wikipedia’s job to play judge and jury on disputes over language, more neutral phrasing doesn’t change or dampen the meaning, and therefore I believe that it is better to use that then to go with language that is in being contested by many in relevant fields of study.

I would be interested in making this a larger discussion and seeing what kind of consensus could be reached, but once again, I’m not too familiar with that process since I am mostly a gnome.TylerRDavis (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the best place to start would be the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page. There are one or two other places but this one would have a lot of editors input. If that winds up not being the correct place others would soon direct you to the correct one. I would note that if a given source uses the term "committed suicide" then that is the term that should be used in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 18:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll check that out, thanks. I agree that if a source is quoted, the quote should be unedited. But I can think of plenty of other examples of legitimate sources containing outdated language that wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia. For example, there may be plenty of older scholarly resources regarding learning disabilities that use the r-word, and those sources may have quite a bit to offer articles on related subjects, but that wouldn't mean that such outdated and potentially offensive language should be used outside direct quotes, right? Anyways, Thank you for pointing me in the right direction!TylerRDavis (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 19:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@TylerRDavis: The most relevant guideline that I know of is WP:EUPHEMISM. The talk page for that is WT:W2W. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC from 2013, which may not be the most recent consensus but I believe still reflects it here. In short, the consensus has been that "committed suicide" is acceptable phrasing. DonIago (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a more recent discussion at Talk:Suicide, which I don't think ended with any clear consensus. DonIago (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your posts Redrose64 and Doniago. Tyler did start a thread here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Stigmatizing language regarding suicide and lots of the input there is in line with what you have mentioned here. MarnetteD|Talk 22:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Just saw that. Pretty much going the way I would have expected. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

In this[7] contribution, you removed a template message for link rot with the message 'there aren't any refs in the article'

The template message in question was this one, which was still correct as this article uses a bare URL link as a citation in the infobox.

If it's alright with you, I want to revert this contribution.

Thanks, Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Upsidedown Keyboard. Thanks for your post. First the item was missing "refs" tags so it did not show up in the references section. That lead to my edit summary. I have fixed that. Next the item in the is a "dead link". Those cannot be formatted by refill or anything else. If you can find a new reference that would be most helpful. MarnetteD|Talk 15:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the IP, as it seemed like whoever it was was only interested in making trouble. See Category:St. Thomas School, Leipzig and the related article. I think everything's OK for now, but as I'm up against WP:3RR with it I don't want to take any more chances, if you don't mind keeping an eye on things for a bit. Thanks again! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

You are most welcome Ser. It looked like a WP:NOTHERE situation. I've added the pages to my watchlist. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems about the size of it. Thanks very much for your help...and happy editing! (And vandal-fighting, of course. :-) ) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello all. I saw Dawson City: Frozen Time last night. It is a fascinating film. The balance between straight documentary and art film is like nothing I've seen. While I don't expect anyone to like it as much as I do it is worth seeing for anyone with an interest in film history - and several other histories for that matter :-) Cheers to everyone. MarnetteD|Talk 20:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Marnette! This actually played at my local theatre, but I believe very briefly so it slipped me by. I'll add it to the "to watch list"! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that you will regret it A MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello MarnetteD, Thank you for the "thanks" regarding the NI Rape addict's re-appearance. Just to let you know that I have reported the latest contributions on the Admins/Incident page, as Ponyo does not seem to be about at the moment. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi DJJ. I added the sock that popped up to your ANI report. You might want to post on Ponyo's page anyway. I saw her editing yesterday so she may be back later today. Not a demand just a suggestion. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, but I see that Ponyo's has already blocked them. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Good deal :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

IP users very rarely have a user page, so User:IP 31.49.30.126 is malformed and should be User:31.49.30.126. Their signatures are constructed differently, to avoid the redlink, and this one signs as 31.49.30.126. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, there is currently number of very disruptive editing happeneing here [8] by and IP address without any sourced material, the user from this IP address keeps on reverting my contribution, can you add a semi-protected template on the article, thanks in advance CabuuwaaqWanaag (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello CabuuwaaqWanaag. I am not an admin so I cannot protect the article. I know that this can be frustrating. The first thing to do is start a thread on Talk:Abdulqawi Yusuf stating what is wrong with the IPs edits. If they do not respond there you can then request page protection at WP:RFPP. You can also ask for help at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard as that will get more editors looking at the situation. I hope that this is of help. MarnetteD|Talk 18:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You just said References: no longer needed as this is now done automatically. Pardon my ignorance, but just what is done automatically? --Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Dthomsen8. The summary is referring to the formatting of the refs from one column into two. There were several different ways to do this in the past including "|2" or "colwidth=30" or "|30em" - the developers made it so that none of those are needed anymore. Now the formatting into two columns occurs when there are 11 or more references. 10 or fewer refs stay in one column. I am not well versed in all that goes into creating that kind of programming so if you have more questions you could try the WP:VPT. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 03:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: Template talk:Reflist is the place, there are discussions there and in its archives. More at Template:Reflist#Parameters. In brief: setting a fixed number of columns is deprecated for several reasons; but setting a fixed column width may be desirable in some circumstances, such as when all the refs are short (see for example NBR 224 and 420 Classes#Notes which uses {{reflist|20em}} - the default being |30em), to reduce the gaps between the columns. On many setups, this allows for an extra column or two, so reducing the height of the section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for the information. A good change in the software allows me to just use <references/> or {{Reflist}} and columns take care of themselves.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fuller explanation Redrose64. Your summary of things is correct Dthomsen8. I hope you both enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 15:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

With this edit you introduced errors into the page - specifically the automated/script-assisted edit (reFill) used the page titles of a domain reselling page rather than the titles of the actual sources. In this case fixed it by finding archived copies of the sources at the Internet Archive, but you should have done this (if archived copies are not available, remove the incorrect title and mark them as a permanent dead link). Remember that you are responsible for automated and script-assisted edits you make and other editors should not have to clean up after you. I have not looked at any other edits you've made to see if they need cleaning up as well. Thryduulf (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Thryduulf. I am still learning about how reFill works so I appreciate you making me aware of this. I will keep an eye out for this in the future. I am wondering if the editors(s) who operate reFill should be made aware of this problem. Might it be possible for the program to watch for this and reject the reselling page. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have left a message at User_talk:Zhaofeng Li/reFill#Phrase blacklist (a section Primefac created in December, but which has not been responded to), which is the place bug reports are requested - if you know of elsewhere then please let me know or make a post yourself. I've got no idea though how complicated it would be to implement this or indeed whether anyone can do it or just the original author (I'm not a programmer!). Thryduulf (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just saw the AN/I thread related to this Thryduulf. I am wondering if this is recent. In my few weeks of working with these this is the first time I've seen this happen. I've checked back through the last week and this is the only one that went to a reselling page. These usually get rejected by reFill and then as I check them individually I apply the "cn" tag. Well, I will keep an eye out. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 02:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a programmer either :-) Thanks for your efforts in this. MarnetteD|Talk 02:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello one more time Thryduulf. A check of Special:Contributions/Zhaofeng_Li shows only a sporadic time at the 'pedia for the last year and none since Decewmber. I wonder if WP:VPT or the help desk might be places to go if this remains a problem. Enjoy your Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 02:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just about to go to bed (it's 3am here!) so I'll look into this more when I'm awake tomorrow! Thryduulf (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah so it already is Sunday for you. Sleep well! MarnetteD|Talk 03:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marnette, Regarding this edit, it says citations, not inline citations only. That's the splitting hairs part. Now for a serious question: why should that template not be used for ELs (wording aside)? Having full information for ELs is surely useful, just as it is for inline citations. LadyofShalott 01:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi LadyofShalott. Thanks for your question and I understand the confusion. First please see Wikipedia:Citing sources where it points out that "A citation, also called a reference uniquely identifies a source of information" - the footnote right after the word reference also contains a lot of info but I won't repeat all of it here. The next place to go for info is User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill. Now as I noted in a thread above this one I am not a programmer so I can't tell you all of the ins and outs of how it works but I can tell you that reFill only works on inline citations. Or to put it another way it only works on an entry inside of <ref></ref> tags. It uses the templates seen here Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Examples adding them to Wikipedia:Bare URLs. I'm not sure what you mean by "full information" for ELs and I hope you will forgive me for that. The only thing that I am used to seeing is some kind of description of where the EL is going as seen here Ikiru#External links or here Sweden#External links. Those descriptions can be different depending on the whims of the editor adding them so I would leave that up to the person who has that article on their watchlist. I suppose you could ask at the WP:VPT to see if there is some way to adapt a program/bot to work on EL's. I hope that some of this helps to explain what is going on. I also hope that you have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 02:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marnette, are you any good with filing temporary semi-protection status on articles, WP:RFP, WP:SILVERLOCK ? Have you done it before? I tried but it didn't seem to go through. This only because a few unregistered accounts vandalized the article throughout January (2018). I believe only because Reed did a movie called The Black Panther's Cub and it's similar sounding to the new movie out Black Panther (film) is bringing in vandals. Maybe when the newness of the current movie dies off the vandals will go away. I don't think it's a major major vandal issue. I since reverted the article back to it's fullest version from December 2017. Koplimek (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Koplimek. Thanks for your message. It looks like the vandalism was performed by this editor (who has stopped editing) and it occurred back in January. Because of that I don't think a RFPP report would be successful. I have added her article to my watchlist and, should the vandalism resume, I will both revert it and file a protection request. Thanks for your vigilance and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Much oblige. ThanksKoplimek (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful stuff G! Thanks for adding this to my talk page! Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You are very welcome. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 16:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a shame not to mark the famous artists of the city like the one I marked SANFOURCHE --88.138.207.170 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

As I did not change your edit I do not know why you posted here. I suggest you start a thread on the talk page for the article about this. MarnetteD|Talk 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I was editing further when you worked your magic and hit an edit conflict. I couldn't redo the whole thing piecemeal. Sorry. Yours. Quis separabit? 21:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this message Rms125a@hotmail.com - and for all the pings of thanks. I have the refs sorted out - for now anyway :-) The article is a mess of POV and external links in the body of the article so your work trying to get things sorted out is appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 23:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please look into this article [9] which has more than 20 citations including reliable ones such as BBC, Dawn, Tribune which are leading newspaper dailys. If there are one or two unrealiable sources or there is OR as mentioned in the tags by a user who hasnt replied to on the page's talk page ever since applyinh these tags, the tags should be specifically placed at specific places where the problem lies. To generalise the whole article by placing tags on top of the article affects the credibility of the whole article itself which is unfair. (45.116.232.23 (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC))

My only involvement with that article was in cleaning up the references that were there. Please post your concerns on the talk page for the article. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I hope that the sources I put to support the use of the term 'comedienne' are enough to put an end to this minor dispute. I find that sources are better than edit wars, I hope you agree. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) These out-of-date references do nothing to support your supposition. I have restored the Lead. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 08:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources using that term within the last few weeks. How can it be outdated, when it's currently in use? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

By "out of date" are you referring to this source [10] from about two weeks ago? or this one [11] from two days ago? or was it this one [12] also from two days ago? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Use of comedienne is archaic. All these sources indicate is a) their individual stylebooks allow for use of comedienne and; b) they need to join the 21st century. Frankly, far more troubling is the minimal mention of female comics in the article, and the complete absence of early groundbreaking comics, such as Phyllis Diller, Joan Rivers and others. You'd think that before Ellen and Whoopi came along, there had never been a female comedian. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 08:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's archaic, then why is it being used in numerous sources? Surely the fact that it is still being used, shows that it's not archaic. This is not the place for pushing political agendas. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Nor is this. Discussions about article content belong on the talk page for the article itself, i.e. Talk:Comedian, where I see that this matter already has some threads, in particular this RfC from four years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Crying PC is the last stance of someone with no argument to be made. Believe it or not, it is possible to reconcile issues stemming from the transition away from gender specific terminology without it being PC. Like the term comedienne, that simply trivializes women. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, another RFC might be a good idea. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

My thanks to everyone for trying to explain things. Along with the link that Redrose64 provided there is also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 146#Gender-neutral language - use of .22comedienne.22 where WP:CONSENSUS was reached to no longer use the archaic term. MarnetteD|Talk 14:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I skimmed that discussion, and what jumped out at me was the use of gender-specific terms (i.e. poetess) are far more a British than an American phenomenon (no sense of Canada, A/NZ and other English-speaking Europeans). We use gender-neutral terms for pretty much everything aside from a couple show-biz related terms: actress (which has largely died out aside from awards that go back to the early days of the business) and comedienne (which is all but gone since the 1970s or so) that are antiques from an era when female actors were addressed as Miss and actors Mr. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Spacecowboy is back pushing the edit to Comedian again. He doesn't seem to care that what other publications do has no bearing on what we do, and that he can't use a few selective sources to over-ride consensus. I'm not sure what the next move may be; he's got a discussion open, but more to tell others what to do than actually to discuss. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 09:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Jeez. He started the discussion at 1:16 am; by 2:48 he'd run off to start an RfC. He's determined to force this in. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 10:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD, thanks for fixing links in Canopy walkway. I added three new links after you did your change (but before I noticed the change). Can you fix my new links (in section Canopy walkway#Singapore or tell me how to ? --Honymand (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am working my way through them. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Honymand I messed that ping up but good :-) MarnetteD|Talk 20:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No prob. Looks good now. Thanks. --Honymand (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Noticed the formatting change you're making on film articles regarding the categories and production vs. distribution companies. I haven't been checking these because, well... it's you. But today, I couldn't remember the policy you were quoting, so clicked on it. But the film stub was about a film I knew had been produced by RKO. After checking AFI, sure enough it was. Apparently, there are film stubs being created which simply use the "distributed by" label, and don't even have the "studio" label in the template. I reverted you, so you would know about it, but then thought I should drop you a specific line. Could you do me a favor, and on articles where there is only the distribution company listed, could you check to see if the template simply isn't correct? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969 I hope you'll permit me to give you this link User talk:MarnetteD/archive50#Categorizing films by distributor. to avoid retyping things. The one thing I would add is that per WP:CATVER "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories" and I check the article to see if there is sourced info before making any of my removals. Please know that I'm perfectly happy if you find the necessary refs and add them and the cats to any article that I have edited. I'm writing this after two days of intermitant sleep so if any of it seems rude I can only apologize. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 04:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely it should be sourced! I go by AFI forAmerican films. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Heya, thanks for patrolling the Holding Cell. One small request - if something is ready for deletion, would you mind tagging it as well as moving it to the "to delete" list? It saves whichever admin (usually me) from having to track down the TFD date/location instead of just deleting out outright. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

I'd be happy to Primefac. I'm not sure what tag you mean though and where do I leave it? I probably missed the instructions somewhere so if you can clue me in I won't make this mistake in the future. Apologies for any extra work I have created. MarnetteD|Talk 23:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, "tag for deletion", i.e. {{db-xfd}}. It's not so much as a "mistake" so much as a "there aren't that many admins patrolling the Holding Cell so this means it won't sit around for ages". Primefac (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Got it Primefac. Just to be sure - I put it on the template page? Also, does it replace the TFD tag? Thanks for the followup. MarnetteD|Talk 00:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Just make sure it's inside <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags (just to be safe). Primefac (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely Primefac. I've been working with this Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates for a couple years and the "noinclude" is a necessary template to keep pages out of it ;-) Thanks for all this info. MarnetteD|Talk 02:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Primefac. Would you please check this edit to see if I did as you requested. Now I did leave the TFD template as it links directly to the delete discussion and I thought that would save on hunting for it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 12:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I also learned about adding the "delete=1" when I move items on the holding cell page. Always feel free to leave me any message to help me learn how to assist you in your tasks. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 13:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

For Alderney Society Museum, you said References: no longer needed as this is now done automatically). What exactly is being done automatically? Incidentally, Thank you for doing a lot of fixes of bare URL references.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Dthomsen8. Please see this thread User talk:MarnetteD#Automatically? above. Basically the columns are now created automatically. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Lovely rural greeting with an Irish overtone. Ironically, it is snowing here while I type this and we are being given stern warnings for the days ahead yet again this spring.
On this final day of Six Nations, lots ahead to keep me warm. Wishing you all the best Michael! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 08:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much G. For some odd reason the NBC honchos are not airing the Ireland v Rngland match. I do get to see the other two but Wales is tape delayed until this afternoon so I am avoiding looking at any updates online to avoid spoilers. Cheers and stay warm and dry. MarnetteD|Talk 14:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

May not be delayed—kick-off is five o'clock. I'm on "on tenterhooks" ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 14:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It starts at 11 am my time G so - if you haven't switched to daylight savings yet - it is live. Happy days. On the plus side I did find the station where they are airing the Ireland match. A grand slam on St Patrick's day would (no doubt) keep the Guinness flowing :-) MarnetteD|Talk 15:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Six Nations is on NBC this morning. Coverage just began!! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep DM. The Wales v France match starts in an hour on CNBC. Funny my last analog TV had picture-in-picture so I could watch both. Now I gotta DVR things. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Satisfactory result for Wales, finishing at a clear second place, and well done Ireland; worthy winners. As for England ... not in the same league.
Now we have 46 weeks to the opening match next year: France versus Wales in Paris on Friday evening.
Wishing both of you a lovely Sunday! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 11:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping you be pleased G. After match three things were looking a bit dire. The improvement from there was well done. Italy came within a whisker of getting that elusive win. Enjoy the week ahead. MarnetteD|Talk 14:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

What authority do you have to decide what gets added/amended to the encyclopedia and what doesn't? You do not own the articles for Beethoven's symphonies! And if one cannot produce a source for the contrary, that the symphonies are classical in style, then no mention of the works being classical in style should be called at all. What is the reasoning behind your reverts of my edits? Classicalfan626 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to be aware that reliable sources are required when you make additions or changes to articles. You did not provide any with your edits. MarnetteD|Talk 18:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's OK, but I believe many additions/changes to articles on Wikipedia, including those describing the symphonies as being classical in style, were arbitrarily made without use of reliable sources. Encyclopedias are meant to publish facts, not personal opinions or fiction. As I recall, it is common knowledge that many of Beethoven's works are Romantic in style. I believe it's also common knowledge that Beethoven's 3rd symphony was one of the first compositions to be written in a Romantic style, and that it is considered the first Romantic symphony. And besides, whether or not certain sources are reliable is a matter of opinion, not fact. For instance, I consider conservative talk radio to be more reliable than CNN, since conservative talk radio objectively analyzes all facts, while CNN omits many facts from the research for the purpose of backing their agenda, which I find extremely biased to the left. In addition, I think a lot of the statements that the mainstream media touts as "fact" are outright lies. I'm sorry, but that's the kind of world we live in right now. A lot of people in the media are deceptive, and are biased toward their own agenda. You may not agree with me, even about what reliable sources are, but one shouldn't force his opinion on others. I'm not saying you are, but I'm just saying. Would you be happier if we omit the style/period from the tables completely, as it may technically be a matter of dispute, particularly with Beethoven. Classicalfan626 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not operate on what you believe. It works on WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. I would suggest that you take your concerns to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music MarnetteD|Talk 20:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)