Hi Fdssdf, Thanks for the edits you've done recently changing "passed away" to "died". I agree that euphemisms are normally inappropriate but on at least two occasions there are other arguments to consider

• In the Cadena Cafes edit, the term "passed away" was used in the source document, but I accept it wasn't in quotation marks. Obviously it would always be inappropriate to change a quotation, but with a sentence like "It was announced at the January 1947 AGM that he had passed away" it seems to be a grey area. It's reporting what the source said.
• The Calogero Vizzini edit changed from "However, with the death of Vizzini his old-fashioned traditional rural Mafia slowly passed away to be replaced with..." to "However, with the death [the] ... rural Mafia slowly died...". In this case, the term "passed away" is more literal. "Died" is not a good replascement. I suppose you could say "diminished" but IMHO the original was fine as it was.

Overall, my point is that I normally agree with replacing "passed away" with "died" but it is not always appropriate. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Northernhenge. I try to be cautious about these edits because of the points you raise. The former concern is out of my control because I can't tell what should be in quotations marks. The latter concern is what I am most cautious about, and the specific edit you referenced was my error because I did not read the context well enough. I thank you for bringing these things to my attention so that I may continue to be on my toes while doing this pet project. Cheers! fds^Talk 06:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is reference to your edit, tagging the Plot Summary as {{Template: very long}} at Marthandavarma (novel). Kindly go through the talk page discussions Talk:Marthandavarma_(novel)#Tagging of Plot summary as Very long and revise the tagging as applicable. Thanks
(harith (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You added a POV tag to Jerome Myers. While I'd say the tone is rather flowery, I'm not sure I see a POV issue. Could you please explain your concerns at the article talk page? Thanks, Huon (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Huon. Flowery language is biased language and, therefore, beyond neutrality for the subject, especially a biography. Examples: "a major event had taken place in Jerome Myers' life"; instead, editors should describe the event itself, not whether it's "major"; "For Jerome Myers, summer in Manhattan was rich in opportunity", a "rich" opportunity is in the eye of the beholder; "His strong interest and feelings for the new immigrants"; this has a cn at the end, and rightly so; and there are more, but there also are more just prose problems. The inclusion of a photographic gallery section is highly unusual, and its inclusion may go against neutrality, as well. Additionally, the number of reviews presented after the gallery might be too many to be impartial to the subject. These latter two issues concern article balance and structure. Have a good day! fds^Talk 16:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fdssdf,

It's Barry,

You will find my response to your arguments regarding the neutrality, or lack of same, of the Jerome Myers article on the page you set up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jerome_Myers#Neutrality

I also had drafted a note to you the other day, so I'll post it here to fill things out a bit.

Hi, it's Barry Downes who did the work on the Jerome Myers page over a period of months. I very much appreciate the comments of anyone trying to help Wikipedia. Actually when I've been at work preparing a vast number of documents over the last 25 years in dozen of major trials, what I very much need to do is nail the specific "facts" to help the judge and jury to come to an educated conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the artist on trial. My primary field is as an expert music researcher and investigator working with talents such as Michael Jackson, Lionel Richie, Quincy Jones, Gloria Estefan, Julio Iglesias, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Garth Brooks, Mariah Carey, Kid Rock, Rolling Stones and many others. Forgive the "name dropping," I only mentioned them because the adversarial nature of a major trial is not helped by flowery words, or undocumented assertions. Giving examples of how terrific Michael Jackson may be in performance, adds nothing to the legal issue of whether he infringed on the intellectual property of another artist ("the son-of-a-bitch stole my song"). I'm also a life member of the Writers Guild of America, East which suggests I should have a lot of experience in the use of words.

Do try to catch up with how Wikipedia editors view the use of tagging an article such as the one I created. Also the article did have a good deal of review by others at Wikipedia before it was approved to be published. It has been around for 5 years at this point.

Oh, yes, and here is an issue of some importance to Wikipedia that reflects quite badly about what you did so carelessly in relation to the careful work I did. Hopefully, you'll never make that mistake again.

From Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page

"Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Also avoid over-tagging, using multiple redundant templates (e.g. ^{[citation needed]} and ^{[dubious – discuss]}) for the same problem."

Oh, yes, that page also contains this item you should be aware of before you start counting off all the missing references in another person's research, especially from someone has been doing expert research at the most professional levels.

"On Wikipedia, an inline citation refers to a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it.

Regardless of what types of sources are used, they should be reliable; that is, credible published materials with a reliable publication process whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Verifiable source citations render the information in an article credible to researchers.that is, credible published materials with a reliable publication process whose authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

Cheers,

    Barry

--BEDownes (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not treat you with hostility, and I did not treat the Jerome Myers article with hostility. That you engage with me with hostility is baffling. I'm completely disconnected from the subject. If you wish to remove the neutrality tag, do it. I will not re-tag it, but I stand by the tagging, and it has been documented. fds^Talk 01:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]