Archives

Archive 2 (October 2011 – February 2013). Archive 1 (July 2008 – September 2011).

Welcome to my talk page. to leave me a message. Please sign your post with four "tilde" characters ~~~~ so that I know who you are. There's more help on talk pages here. If I have left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I am watching it. If you leave a message here I will usually reply here but if my reply contains advice I hope you will find useful, I may place it on your talk page. Credit for (partially used and modified) talk-page template to JohnCD.

Hi Swliv! My concern with Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Philadelphia is primarily to do with naming someone who was not formally charged, and who was later cleared. Without knowing any more, we need to assume that the person was innocent, and thus including names seems to be a problem. I've rewritten the section to avoid names, but otherwise left the case in place. - Bilby (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Swliv; Friendly note to say I really don't understand your comment;

"Semantics:
"The summary on this edit of the Trent Franks article was "Reorg; no deletion or alteration of body text". Since a number of the headlines were changed, I find the Edit summary to be only technically correct and incomplete. I think the fact of substantively changed headlines would better also be noted in the summary, say, "some heds adjusted". While they're often not used well or at all, I know, good summaries can help assist editors and readers understand the course of editing. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)"

Looked at the article before the reorganization, and it was a jumbled mess. Few headings, odd sentences about one topic mixed in with unrelated sentences, and where there were a few very bad headings, they said, effectively, "x said y", and then in the text said the same thing. A bio is not supposed to be a jumble of quotes, per WP:QUOTEFARM, anyway. "Reorganization" IS the sorting into logical categories, and defining. I was quite specific that that is what I did. Good organization is essential if you are going to encourage editors to raise the standard of the article, and not just tag another random sentence to the pile of random sentences. If you have can improve the organization, feel free to do so; good copyediting and organization is one of the many gnomish functions I help with, and it is almost always cooperative.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that some of the hed changes changed the content of the article. I know "body text" doesn't include heds but changing heds seemed substantive. I still don't think hed wording in this case falls under "organization". I've restored the links above that were in my comment (two versions) when it appeared on your talk page. I didn't and don't yet feel moved to change the article itself. Hope that's helpful. Cheers again. Swliv (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I think we are OK. Just FYI, there isn't much in the bio article; in general it would be better if all such bio articles include what candidates generally think and do related to broad topics, especially if they have been outspoken. I did compose the heading with a view to what SHOULD be on the bio page, not necessarily just to what was on the page at the time.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am wary of "should"s. If there is clear policy, citing it is good. If there is change to heds, citing that is good. Respect for what's come before and I'll call it "regional flavor" helps build an integrated whole (article and encyclopedia). I've done my share of "clean up" but wholesale cleansing can undercut the depth and nuance of an article. To address (finally) your original question, "reorg." is what you call it (I don't think there's an "reorg." policy per se) but followed with the "no ..." yours led me to expect something and I found something else. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put a "+" at the end of an Edit summary when I have done stuff I haven't specified and which I consider innocuous and minor but which someone else maybe would want to check out. Swliv (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arthur Freed may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• New York Times |date= February 11, 2014}|last=Harmetz |first= Aljean|accessdate=February 11, 2014}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may suggest some new syntax to you: You as bot also made the correction you detected, I've determined. Which is good; your message here just didn't get the fact across to me so far. Meanwhile, thanks! Swliv (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Robin Pogrebin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails basic WP:Notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the notification -- I did start the article and seem to have been the only User so notified -- and think I have now reconstructed the course of this proposal since it was made 13 April. In short, a "PROD" (proposed deletion) was placed on the article and subsequently removed by another editor, with the latter saying "not clear subject fails WP:GNG" (general notability guidelines)" and "take to AfD if you wish". The same (latter) editor then also added "addoldprodfull" to the article talk page which I believe says that, for the moment, the move to delete is stopped.

I also reexamined, as asked above, the notability criteria relative to the article. The two sections which most caught my attention were on Creative professionals, which includes journalists (RPogrebin's profession), and on Family, since RPogrebin is notable in part certainly because of her mother and (maybe) her sister (who also has a Wiki article). I would agree readily that RPogrebin is not a black-and-white case for inclusion in Wikipedia. On the general notability for creative professionals side, I probably stretched early on with the line that was removed in '09 here where I'd tried not to promote "Daylife" (a news aggregator), as the editor thought it did in effect, but rather had just stretched to document the numerical extent of the writer's body of work. I don't bemoan the loss of the Daylife stats and in general feel alright with the modest but real account now given in the article of the writer's work. On the family side, I was certainly pleased to find the PBS documentary covering both mother and daughter (with the latter presumably not just because she was a daughter) and added that reference accordingly. I have found the "beat" covered by RPogrebin quite consistently interesting if not rather unique; but I also have worked to keep the article from becoming a "Christmas tree" (festooned with examples of stories) particularly when done without citation as one was here. Of course, in that particular case, arts education is not an exclusive subject for this writer but I expect it was an interesting take on an interesting subject; it didn't happen I was ready at that time to track down a citation or otherwise improve the inclusion and I guess the IP editor whom I ended up reverting wasn't either. In short, again, it's a "gray zone" article but I have felt over the years one that's well-earned its place in the encyclopedia.

Finally, resorting to one of my personal-favorite Wiki support functions, I've gone to two "traffic statistics" pages. First, the last ninety days: The biggest spike, 40+ hits, over this deletion proposal I expect mostly; but two "respectable" in my book high-20s also in the period. Second, pretty randomly, April 2013: Again, a 39 and a few high-mid-20s. The hits show no pattern and I expect them to be largely the flickers of interest generated by another article in the daily paper by the writer -- or secondary citations of same. For myself, I appreciate having Wikipedia available for exactly that function -- when I read an article that interests me, I'm interested in who wrote it. The publications often give little info and it's often promotional (latest book; or at least publication-specific). And when I say respectable I say so having watched articles go in the single digits of hits for months or even years I think; and still felt they were worthy. A few come to mind as maybe fitting that category: Barry Zorthian, Blythe McGarvie and Gregor Dorfmeister; and at risk of setting out a trap-line for deletion propositions, here's my whole list. Each can be argued. For now, I've argued this one. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George H. W. Bush may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• s grandson, to [[Lauren Bush Lauren]], who accepted on her grandfather's behalf.<ref>Edelman, Adam]], [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/george-h-w-bush-honored-kennedy-profile-courage-award-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just remove dead URLs as you did in this edit. When you do, it makes it harder for other editors to fix them by adding archived links later on. Instead, please just add {{dead link}}. Thanks —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and sorry. I have done my review of Wikipedia:Dead links aka link rot and seen the error of my way there. I'm checking to see if there are others I've done that are better reversed.

I've reversed the "fix" to Steve Scalise. I've used "deadurl=yes" at George H. W. Bush which is new to me but is used widely on that page; makes me wonder how they (v. dead link templates) are tracked (see below) and (hopefully) fixed. The one at Federal Reserve I did correctly.

I'm not likely to become an archive-specialist fixing dead links the right way though stranger things have happened. To that end or just to satisfy curiosity I'd appreciate knowing if there isn't a page for "All pages with dead link(s) on them". I discovered a page which may in fact have been exactly that some fair time ago; if it was that exactly, it added to my motivation to remove the template (by what turned out to be my obviously not unique counterproductive shortcut). Maybe the warning that's in the "Wikipedia:Dead links" page that I was ignoring in ignorance should be on the "All pages ..." page for others. Or maybe it's there. I'd like referral to the page in any event if one could help.

I wonder now if another set of actually more prevalent "quick housekeeping" efforts of mine recently has also been awry. When confronted with a naked url or six, I have been making the name of the web site (eg militarytimes.com) what the url links to, if that's clear. I did some here for example at Jeffrey Allen Sinclair with the Edit summary "couple naked urls minimally upgraded". I knew this was maybe counterproductive in a way I didn't appreciate -- small cosmetic improvement with maybe unintended negative consequences, as my Dead link housekeeping proved to be -- so have made my summaries more explicit for easy identification and reversal.

Thanks for attention to these follow-up thoughts if possible. Swliv (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I also see "deadurl=yes" used a lot, but I don't know how it's tracked, if at all.

There is indeed a category for pages with dead links, which you can see here.

As for the changes you've made to naked URLs on pages like Jeffrey Allen Sinclair, I don't see anything wrong with them. In fact, I think your edits are an improvement, because they give the reader a vague idea of what the reference links to before they click on it.

Cheers! —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The (new since 2014) red link relates to this case: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/21/us/general-in-sex-case-jeffrey-sinclair-to-retire-with-a-2-rank-demotion.html. It was an unprecedented rank reduction; the Wiki article was probably deleted because he wasn't convicted; but he was punished. I would say on the face of it that I'd favor reinstating the article. Swliv (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rengan Rajaratnam may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• "Authorities Charge Raj Rajaratnam's Brother With Insider Trading"], ''Forbes'', March 21, 2013]</ref> The [[Galleon Group]] insider trading investigation began with the investigation of Sedna

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I will continue to oppose the insertion of any information regarding the scandal that was recently removed. It is mainly a case of defending the wiki. In our litigious society, unless there is ample legal proof someone has done something of the level of impropriety we are talking about (and notice I am talking in riddles here, on purpose, for the same reason), it is not wise for a non-profit foundation to be exposing it's assets to potential lawsuit by bringing it up. Our job is to report on what other sources are saying. And yes, other sources are talking about it. however, as I stated on KylieTastic's page, sex scandals are unfortunately becoming a norm in our schools. we lack a historical perspective to understand what this means in the long term for the institution if anything. My guess is it is more of a societal issue than a school issue, but that really isn't important. We have in the article no other information good or bad about any other headmaster. This for a school that is pushing real hard on 100 years old. Just because we have some tawdry info about one does not mean we should include it. How does including it improve anyone's understanding of the school institution as a whole? I would bet that somewhere in the past there has been at least one other head of this school that has left under a cloud. so what? It is a business that has to have a leader. Leaders have power and power can corrupt. This is nothing unique to this institution. John from Idegon (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tim Wu may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Wu is running<ref>[http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacobfischler/zephyr-teachout-challenges-andrew-cuomo "zephyr-teachout-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ by policy makes its editorial & opinion columns freely available indefinitely. Thus the tag you re-added is unnecessary. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for attention to this but I've just logged in and been denied access to column in question, offered subscription, as before. All these headlines (across the top of the page) -- Nevada Gets Musked, The Dual Threats to Western Values, How an NFL Commissioner Needs to Think, and Merkel Confronts Anti-Semitism -- are I think opinion pieces and are marked with the gold-key subscriber-only symbol. I'd thought what you said was right but seems not. Swliv (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Matt Ridley may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | accessdate = 6 February 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | publisher=Parliamentary Business |date=2013]] | url = http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/ldallfiles/peers/lord_hansard_

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make defamatory edits to the Raymond Leo Burke page. You have a history of adding negative comments on Catholic related articles and, if you continue, you will be put up for a topic ban. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to attack members of a religion that you disagree with, especially when you misstate what sources say and use unreliable sources in violation of BLP guidelines. 72.58.103.180 (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll start to respond to this stunning broadside by reviewing my three edits to the article:

(a) My last edit before the above 'warning': Somehow a NYTimes article which buttressed one paragraph and an ncronline article with an uncontested statement by Burke (there's been some talk of 'context' being wrong but that didn't seem a basis for unexplained removal) seem to have generated the above ire. Hence:

(a.1) The removal of my last edit by the same IP# editor as above. As of today, the only two edits from that IP# are the removal and the above 'warning'.

(b) Earlier, on the 9th, I'd done a bit of housekeeping on citations (naked urls and the like) and I'd added the NYTimes article for the first time, here. The Times article was removed by an editor from a different IP# here with the cryptic-to-nonsensical, to me, explanation 'missing period'; that's why I restored it on the 10th with an explanatory rebuttal something to that effect.

(c) Another edit of mine as of 17:37, 10 November 2014, so far deemed I guess not an attack, ie it's still in the article.

I don't think the broader assertion of my 'attacks', any more than my edits to Burke, would be borne out by even cursory examination of actual edits and explanations I've made. I'm not going to try to cover the waterfront. One area I've worked recently is Latin mottoes propagating widely and untranslated in our English encyclopedia addressed here and here (bilingual best effort; unanswered), for example. The mottoes (a) do also focus on the church, as it happens, and (b) have been a bit frustrating, mechanically as much as anything. I hope I haven't written something to offend in that context and process. Further back, I have certainly been quite deeply involved in the subject of child sexual abuse which by current definition has afforded considerable contact with the church amongst other institutions of our world. For example, an article I started is here; and I worked at Jerry Sandusky and related articles. I don't claim any great brilliance or deep insight on the subject and I've made missteps in it as in others as I've gone along but I have hoped such efforts have on balance helped in a difficult arena. All my 5000+ edits are of course easily accessible here. Obviously I have done something to offend, somehow, somewhere -- all so far unspecified. I'm sorry for that though, for now, I can't be more specific.

More dialogue is always welcome though stunning broadsides without citations don't seem the best approach amongst colleagues, eh? Defamatory??! Is one kidding? Do please tell, if not. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For further example of my work in this arena -- this and the immediate predecessor edit from last month also by me, both on Monsignor or ex-Monsignor Lynn (back in prison) in Philadelphia. Swliv (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for message. My main concern about the link is that it's likely to be the forerunner of a recreation of the gallery article, which, if it's similar to the previous version, will lead to a block for sockpuppetry. Otherwise, if the claim is true, it's not a big deal. However, I followed the ref at the end of the sentence, and it doesn't appear to support any of the claimed facts regarding either gallery. You have more expertise than me on this, so I'm happy to be guided on whether the whole sentence should go.

I'm now watching the Ota page to see what is afoot, cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You edited this article in the past. I invite you to a move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a lot of the 69th NY article and served in it when it was the 165th US. The 69th (NY) and the the 69th (US) are completely separate units and have NOTHING in common. A case might be made for linking the 69th NY article to the 165th US, but not to the 69th US. Read some of the footnoted histories on the 69th NY page folks, instead of just being Wikipedia wonks.  !!!! GCW50 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)~

Been quite a ride since noticing this a couple of hours after it was posted here. One can follow the ride here, here and in the "PLEASE DON'T MERGE THIS ARTICLE WITH THE "(New York)" ARTICLE" section here; in no particular order, sorry. Thanks, GCW50. :.) Swliv (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good idea to add comments to an archived discussion (and the top matter of the archive page explicitly says "Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.") No-one will have an archive on their watchlist. I suggest you revert yourself and start a new thread at WP:VPP, linking to the archived earlier discussion. That way the people who hang around at the village pump are much more likely to see your comments and join in the discussion. PamD 17:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Didn't read far enough. Have done reversal. Will do new post later. Swliv (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may note that I just edited your userpage. Please see also Template:Userboxside for placement alternatives. I'm not an expert – I just happened to find the Template:Userboxtop on someone else's user page. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof: Looks good. Thanks! I just moved it but that was all. OK on Henry Nicholas? Hope so but open to Talk. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be able to help. As for Dr. Nicholas, I'm still thinking about that, and I might just wait to see whether anyone else reacts (or look around to see what has been done in similar cases for other articles). I'm not too comfortable with "Dismissed" being the first word of the section heading, but not fully satisfied that I have a better suggestion. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof: Made a new try at the focus hed; along with, then, some other minor clean-up. Swliv (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bare URLs Minimal upgrades and Wikipedia:Minupg seem more like journals of your work implementing WP:BARE than like policies as such. It's good work, but might the pages be better situated in your namespace than in project space? I.e., User:Swliv/Bare URLs Minimal upgrades and User:Swliv/Minupg. Lagrange613 18:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)~[reply]

Thanks. I'd been thinking that way since dropping further expansion of the proto-policy, as I have called it. For now, working backwards to do further upgrades on the Minupgs done to date has seemed first priority. There are lots of active links in Edit summaries to the WP:Minupg page I'd like to clean up/supersede. I don't know the timetable on that effort: I'm on Wiki today not for that but because I found another page a-bristle with bares: For that my next stop was to be and likely will be the list section of the Minupg page.

Looked at another way: (A) It's hard to change/reverse direction of this 'large rowboat' of a practice, a year+ in the building. And (B) I haven't given up completely on the 'wider goal' of improving encyclopedia-wide coverage of Bares. Your link to WP:BARE, Lagrange, was my first to that policy page I think. MORE to look into.

To effect the two pages you suggest, Lagrange: I guess if I transferred the text from the WP pages to the new ones; and converted the WPs then to simple 'redirect' pages; that would work. OK by you? (I'd probably re-direct both to one new one.) If it is OK with you, maybe I'll try that sooner rather than later.

I had wondered about the end-game of the Reversal. If I did the conversion/redirects I'd still probably aim to eliminate the WP/redirects eventually (once the active links were at least superseded).

We'll see. Still a work in progress. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could also do a WP:MOVE. That would create the redirect and preserve the history at the destination page. Lagrange613 02:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrange I should have asked the question i had re: WP:MOVE. Not having asked I've just mistakenly created User:Minupg. I see now how to put my user name into the new Name but would rather not leave the new 'user' AND would prefer to do the correct, one-step move from my old WP:Minupg page for redirect operation. Don't want to mess things further. Can you or I reverse the first move i've made? Thanks. Swliv (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved them to the user pages I suggested originally. After the bot comes through and redirects WP:Minupg to User:Swliv/Minupg, you might think about tagging User:Minupg for speedy deletion with rationales U1 and/or U2. No sweat if you don't get around to it; in that case I'll take care of it sometime when I get a chance. Lagrange613 01:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
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) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate you pointing out that I'd missed some detailed coverage on Rose Gruening. I remember doing a search and looking through several articles. Maybe I went off course when I saw that she had died 82 years ago. In any case I've put the red link back. I'll try to slow down and be more thorough. Gab4gab (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(a bit more) I think I've discovered how I missed the detailed articles on Rose in the Google search. After scrolling down my mouse failed to scroll up making me think I was at the top of the list. One more thing to watch for. I did visit your Swliv/Minupg page - interesting stuff. Another reminder that nothing is simple. Gab4gab (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the followup, Gab4gab. Intriguing spike at Grand Street to 27 on 5/18; gratifying one at SWIFT to 2324 on 5/13, in the ‘trainwreck’ sense -- horrible; hope we can/are learn(ing) from it; also in the proud sense -- I’m glad I did the work early in the month; I’m glad (an)other editor(s) has/-ve followed on; it’s a process. Swliv (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swliv!

The legend responds! Thanks for your message. I appreciate you taking the time to send me a note. I was working on a project last night and needed to track down the chronological order of several events in Japanese history... i started my rabbit trail at the Japan-American Relations wiki page.

The page is well-constructed, with a general overview of the major events leading to a more thorough treatment of the major topics. The history was understandably brief, but the way you tie the events together was commendable, well-nigh remarkable, especially for wikipedia.

I have used wikipedia for years, but never edited a page. My (flawed) perception of wikipedia was that it was a crowd-sourced encyclopedia. I mentioned to a friend that i had edited a wiki page for the first time, and he asked me how long it took to cite everything. :) that's when i realized i had completely overlooked an important step.

That is silly, of course, because i have used the sources on other wiki pages before - i just generally ignore the works cited when i read about a topic. As do many casual information-hunters i would assume.

Wikipedia is not an academic source, but that is the beauty of its utility - it is a great place to get an arial view of a topic before digging into it. We were trained never to cite wikipedia as a source, but we often used it as a staging area into academically viable information.

So i was editing in a bit of a hurry, adding some of the historical context that wasn't there. I did not even think of the duty to provide my sources. Certainly my mistake.

I haven't read my edit since last night, but most of it is readily available information in historical works or in the press.

Unless you were educated in Japan, you have probably read many accounts of POWs being used as katana practice by the Japanese officers in charge of the prison camps. The death marches are notorious and well-documented by primary sources from both Japanese and American soldiers... probably most famously in The Bataan Death march and the associated seige.

Trying to think what else may have been a red flag for you - Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the final chapter in the book penned by the leaders of the Japanese government and military. Not sure how that could be otherwise construed, since Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both significant events in history that have been extensively studied.

I did say "preciously" when describing the Japanese officers' reverence towards Bushido and their simultaneous perversion of that ethos by their criminal and murderous treatment of prisoners in their charge. That was an unnecessary adverb and i'm glad you caught it.

I did add commentary to the favorability statistics. Forgot about that. That could definitely be removed.

What else -- i did mention Abenomics very briefly. But that could be sourced from any major financial or news publication... the high employment rate, the shrinking Japanese economy and Shinzo's misguided attempts to stimulate the economy by printing bales of yen notes has been widely analyzed by the media of the free and civilized West - especially in light of Japan's historic economic strength. Not sure how else a 10,000 yen note is understood.

And speaking of the Japanese economy, it was a smoldering spectre by the time Japan finally agreed to peace at the end of the World War they triggered.

As the victor, America could have left Japan to rebuild their husk of a nation. Instead, the US not only allowed and encouraged the revitalization of the Japanese economy... they aggressively lent their experts to train the leading engineers in Japan.

The Americans sourced many of their products from Japan immediately following the war in order to jumpstart the Japanese economy.

Deming trained a handful of Japanese engineers in quality control. He not only taught them, but immersed himself in the culture in order to bestow his philosophies on the relationship between statistics and quality control in manufacturing. He made deep and lasting friendships with Japanese men, and mamy other Americans took up the cause of helping Japan transition from an oil-starved fishing island to a productive, creative, highly entrepreneurial contributor to global prosperity.

America gets a lot of (well-deserved) grief for bungled nation-building, but the success story of Japan is a great example of what can happen when countries sharpen themselves against each other in symbiosis.

Imagine if, following 9/11/2001, America had reached peace with the Saudis and the nation of Afghanistan and worked to bolster their respective one-dimensional economies?

Saudi Arabia exports oil and militarized Wahhabism and imports captive women and Asian laborers, but their economy could be revolutionized with an injection of instruction. In the current energy market, the US could have forged a long-term partnership with Saudi Arabia that was based on something other than oil.

Afghanistan has a booming poppy-based economy - the US could have easily taught the Afghans how to transition their illicit revenue flow into legitimacy via the healthcare applications for opiates. The resulting propserity would have empowered the Afghan people to wrest power from the heroin-fixed Taliban oppressors and usher in the blossoming of a new day in Afghanistan.

Instead they botched both attempts, compounded the error exponentially with Iraq, and the Obama administration tried to help at the end of a thirty-foot pole but ended up toppling Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and fumbling Syria with the "Red Line" incident in which they were mastered like a child on the world stage by Vladimir Putin.

Japan is a strong and vital nation today because of America, in spite of Japan's unprovoked opening of hostilities in 1941.

The historical context I provided demonstrates the beauty of the genesis and continuance of Japan-American Relations.

I may have reverted to a jocular and borderline bilious tone in my edit. I certainly did not provide any sources. Both of these were errors, and i appreciate you taking the time to address them and especially send me a message.

But all of the facts I contributed are indisputable, well-documented items (perhaps new to readers educated in Japan) that help illustrate the unlikely flourishing phoenix that has been the Japanese economy in the latter half of the twentieth century, and the historical and economic marvel that is Japan-American Relations throughout history through the current day.

Rather than present Japan in a negative light, my edit was intended to portray the utter impossibility that Japan and America would be crucial partners, allies and friends on the world stage within a few short years. And yet history surprises us.

Perhaps readers who consume the gritty truths about history will consider today's news in a more contemplative and optimistic light.

71.91.29.30 (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've included a couple of links and books below - these should aid you in your search for a more holistic view of Japan-American Relations.

I left out the cannibalism bit in my edit because, well, to quote one of my favorite Mickey Rourke characters... "I know it's pretty damn weird to eat people."

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Japanese-ate-Indian-PoWs-used-them-as-live-targets-in-WWII/articleshow/40017577.cms

Not sure if I can submit a wikipedia page as a source, but it should be a starting point for you to investigate some of Japan's pre-Deming innovations ... also, if you work for the Japanese government, do forgive the top picture on this page - it depicts a Chinese person being buried alive, and it may not be a good career move for you to include this link since I am not sure if Japan officially recognizes Chinese citizens as human beings yet.

After the interesting treatment of the Chinese at Nanking, it would appear Japan considers Chinese people to be fireants. People-shaped fireants, don't you know - easier to rape the female worker ants and bayonet the larvae if your government does not recognize them as fellow human beings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Here's a starting point for Deming's work in Japan.

http://www.qfdi.org/newsletters/deming_in_japan.html

Hope this helps! 

Good luck in your continued search for truth.

Your friend,

History Hyena

71.91.29.30 (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryHyena: Legend? Not sure of your reference. Overall: You way overestimate my personal contribution to or even stake in this particular article; but you show good responsiveness (as far as I got in your long piece here) to my really basic action/tutorial. First conclusion: I hope you're moving toward reviewing what you first contributed and what I deleted wholesale and finding a way to re-edit with solid sources and without your opinions. We're all bound by time limits. I can't begin to take this on more now. Maybe later. Final guidance: You haven't established a home page for your HH pseudonym. I recommend it. And you made this comment on my Talk page without logging in so the piece was 'signed' with your IP# not your pseudonym. Four tildes (~s) accomplish a signature. I would understand if you wanted to edit OUT the above contribution (so your IP# disappears on the page; it will always be in the history); I'd encourage you to re-contribute here, then, the above with your HH signature. To set up the home page there are tutorials on 'How to get started'+-; basically click on the red link and follow the path. Go to View history on the article for the 'red link' of your pseudonym. p.s. I made a small edit myself to the article (which you can see via View history) then noticed you had followed me with a big-addition edit. I checked it out out of curiosity, found what I found, did what I did. (Now I'm a little curious about what User:Rjensen is paring away ... but doing nothing more here for now.) This link will give you one more glimpse of what I did in Round 1. Good luck. Be in touch more if you'd like. Good start! Swliv (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I used my Wikipedia Gale Group access to read the article here (yep, subscription still required). The citation is Morrison, Richard (19 December 2008): "The composer who lived a monstrous lie: Carl Orff, creator of Carmina Burana, hid an ugly secret about his betrayal of a friend under the Third Reich, says Richard Morrison"; The Times, p14. The text is available free here. I've checked it and their copy is correct. Keri (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Keri. As it turned out the bare url was also cited correctly and fully elsewhere in the article, I discovered. Sorry for the trouble but thanks again: A new corner of Wikipedia for me and another great one. I also removed my request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange as soon as I realized my error. Hope that's OK. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is that if you watch the movie Titanic again you will find the Ida & Isidor Straus story there too. Probably not an unimpeachable source, but these folks, along with Molly Brown (aka The Unsinkable Molly Brown) make up a reoccurring chunk of the Titanics folk lore. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carptrash, thanks. Swliv (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Prior" means, among other things, "coming before", so even if Trump should continue to head his business organization after the inauguration, it is still true that he held this position "prior" to becoming President. So there is no need to change the wording. If you disagree, and still believe that your Bold edit should remain after it has been Reverted, then please follow the WP:BRD cycle and Discuss it on the article's talk page in order to gain a consensus that it should be something different from the status quo ante. Thank you for your efforts to improve this online encyclopedia. YBG (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The 'Heartfelt Thank You' Award
	Thank you SO MUCH for reading my userpage and finding the typo. How embarrassing! MaynardClark (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi if you can please put the United States Postal Service logo on top of Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service on the Political appointments of Donald Trump page and try to lock it there so nobody trys to delate it?

Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can. Better to put note on Talk:Political appointments of Donald Trump page. Swliv (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I just can't take on the WP:NFC policy issues the other editor is citing. You can ask on the article talk page or the editor's talk page; maybe USPS is sufficiently 'public' to argue it; just not my area. Good luck! Swliv (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't open two overlapping conversations without cross-referencing. I now find this, with the other editor. And you should put four tildes ~~~~ after you put an entry on a talk page: It does a 'signature'. Maybe I'll figure out a way to join the conversation 'over there' at the other editor's place. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While my non-researched opinion was to agree with yours at the other editor's talk page, I was slowed by finding nothing at Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources#US_Government_resources or at the USPS web site. I leave it here, for now, with nothing at the other editor's page. A query at the USPS WP talk page would maybe yield a way forward. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Swliv,

When you last edited List of rallies for the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, the page was partly trashed, following from "Monday, October 31, 2016 |Warren" up to Sunday, November 6, 2016||Moon Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, it was overlayed by some repeating characters. This sure looks like an accident of some sort. Can you fix it? I don't want to just undo as you were adding useful references at the time, and hopefully you can add them back correctly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, no kidding, Graeme Bartlett, thanks, good catch! I'm ready to start reconstructing from scratch. I don't even think it was anything I consciously did, not near where I'd reached off the top of my head. But if you know a way to access 'old code' you could save me a lot of raw work. Swliv (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there's nothing easy, I'm into the first round and it's manageable I think. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just blocked -- Wikimedia computer problems; while no problems over here; even on a Preview just now -- on a Preview over there a minute ago; for update. Didn't lose what I'd done. Swliv (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting  Done. The block disappeared. I've saved the first round, going back now to do a second, concluding round, in the primary restoration project addressed in this 'trashing', whatever it was. Swliv (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. In answer to your question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_rallies_for_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016&oldid=780262983 from the history link had the previous version before it went wrong. Was the block an edit conflict with sporkBot? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly wondering why you insist placing a retrieval date in the article where this date has no relation to the link. The link that showed to be not working anymore can be seen on the left here: [1]. I replaced it with a working link that clearly has a different string of text after the name of the website. Logically that the retrieval date is also different, referring to the latest working version. What use is mentioning the previous date to a link that is not there anymore, as you do here [2]? I am trying to understand. --VanBuren (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The death went un-noted in much of the national media for several years, as I understand it; at least in the NYTimes. The fact that Wikipedia had it early, correct and well-sourced is a proud one for Wiki and the source, as I noted in passing when I first added a form of the historical reference you note, here. I think it's worthwhile as a minor if unusual part of the article via the citation. Swliv (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. Without your explanation: it not having been published in the NYT (or any other publication? You are not even sure about that), the mentioning of that date is meaningless. Furthermore, if the absence of a notice of his death had been newsworthy then it could be argued that it should be mentioned in the article. If the role of wikipedia in this had been mentioned in independent news media as significant than it could be in the article. However, as it stands now I understand that you only want it mentioned in this circumspect way because it make you feel proud personally? I do not think that wikipedia is suitable for supporting that. Mentioning it on your personal user page is more appropriate. --VanBuren (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Toon died 2009-02-12. That fact was sourced in the article 2009-03-26 ([3]). That link was declared dead 2016-12-29 ([4]). A working link was established 2017-05-02 ([5]) to which you added on te same day the old retrieval date [6] with the comment "a little proud Wiki history honoured". I removed that information on 2017-05-07 [7] as being without relevance with the comment "The March 26, 2009 link was not working anymore, the May 2, 2017 retrieval was a renewed link". You replaced it on 2017-05-10 with the comment "removed without explanation". Your last comment was clearly beside the truth since I left a comment. As I explained above, the retrieval date you put back is useless for future wikipedia readers without a sourced explanation and I question its encyclopedic relevance. Therefore I will remove it again, I hope with your understanding. --VanBuren (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) When I restored a version of my original note with the summary "removed without explanation" I was referring to the removal here. At that point I was not touching your restoration of the 2017 '"retrieved" date. (2) Since making my comment "at least in the NYTimes" above here I've seen that the Times headline finishes with "...Went Largely Unreported". It was that that led me to assume that it was not just the Times. (3) As to the usability of my comment, it's usable on its face. It completes the retrieval record. That record is embedded in the history of the page but I'd certainly be glad, nay proud, to link to that earlier edit in the citation note as follows: Originally retrieved March 26, 2009 with a different, now-dead link to The Pilot.</ref> (4) As my reference to "proud" in my summary quoted above I think makes clear, it is not pride for myself but pride that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia was up-to-date for eight or so years before the NYTimes and others. To make it look like Wikipedia is following the Times when in fact Wiki led by those years is worth the small and, yes, unusual extra line in the note, I think. (5) As to your clear concern with my editing values, VanBuren, I have just to make a note of WP:GF as to relationship to the truth and such. I appreciate your good work on this. I believe I've been straight, if not abundantly transparent for reasons of perhaps excessive facility, in all of my small bit here too. (6) You may not have done your promised reversion yet. That would be nice. I have to assume you too are working under your own time pressures but it's usual to wait, for a reasonable amount of time, for consensus or if necessary a ruling rather than making unilateral resolution. (7) I have to also say, as a personal matter, that your 'truly' and 'insist' and such in your opening to this conversation did put me off a truly collaborative frame of mind in my first reply. I'm sorry for that. Finally (8) I'd propose linking this conversation over to the article Talk page, its other appropriate home, if you're OK with that. And I'll be glad to add the link to the 'originally retrieved' note if we go that way. Thanks and cheers. Swliv (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to move this discussion to the Talk:Malcolm Toon - page, that is up to you. I do not understand this: "And I'll be glad to add the link to the 'originally retrieved' note". If it is that you link your note in the text to the talk page to support your POV: that is not done. Wikipedia does not link to itself for such purpose. I repeat what I wrote above: the date that you insist should be in the article is meaningless to the readers, and is not supported by sources as being meaningful. If you do not agree with me, please consult other wikipedians about this issue. --VanBuren (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you see the end of the sentence "I'd certainly be glad, nay proud, ..." in the body of my last post above, I showed that I would link to the earlier page-edit. I think that fits Wiki fine and in fact improves the earlier form of the note I've added to the citation. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now linked to this discussion on the Toon Talk page. Further discussion is probably better had there. Swliv (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swliv, I noticed that you have contributed more edits to the Sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia article than anyone else, although none of your edits are recent. I am hoping you might comment on the question of whether this article should be expanded to include the abuse scandal in other dioceses of Pennsylvania, or whether they should be given their own article, or something else. I've started a discussion at Talk:Sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia#Should the article be renamed, or the new section moved?. Thanks! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page thanks Rsarlls (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Garth Ancier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SVOD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your useless comments on my talk page. I find it interesting that you think a racial slur is more worthy of being on this website than a humanitarian award.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N!gger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.255.122 (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

128.114.255.122, I'm sorry you didn't find my comments useful. Sometimes editors who haven't established a Wiki user name aren't as versed in reasons for some of the edits and appreciate or at least tolerate an outreach. I can't follow your racial slur comment; the page -- related, I guess -- that you cite has been removed; I don't think I had anything to do with the page or its removal, or supporting any slur. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edgar Bear Runner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; thnx Swliv (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Swliv! Just a little notification that I've changed Paul Gosar's share of the vote in the 2020 election from 63.1% to 69.7%, as that's what the certified results say. Would you be able to share with me from where you'd gotten this 63.1% number?

Sdrqaz (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Sdrqaz. I had left you a clue as to my source by citing the Republican-primary opponent also instead of the general election one. The 63.1% number was from the primary, too. I've now fixed that 2nd original mistake of mine and] cleaned up the little paragraph in Paul Gosar, linking to my Dist. 4 source in the process. Thanks and cheers. Swliv (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Happens to the best of us. Have a nice day! Sdrqaz (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Swliv! I just saw that you reverted one of AlsoWukai's edits at Paul Gosar: this one. I'm not sure that the edit was vandalism. When you look at the diff, it seems like they *were* reverting vandalism regarding the addition of unsourced information.

Sdrqaz (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdrqaz, follow it through if you'd like. The edit (a) added material to the body of the Wiki article that wasn't in the underlying source, (b) changed the headline of the source, and (c) called the edit a reversion ('rv') and gave 'vandalism' as a reason. There was no vandalism being corrected in the article and the only reversion was of the corrected fact now supported by a link; Also- removed the link and reverted to the earlier, mistaken version of the article. Maybe Also- thought the correction was vandalism but it was clearly labeled and checkable as a correction.

I was preparing a post toward this end for Also-'s Talk page but am glad to go the round with you first; sometimes hard to tell all that's happening in such situations. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swliv, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Closer inspection of that diff would reveal that AlsoWukai changed "correctly" to "falsely" (in line with the information from The Arizona Republic); removed The firstsample [sic] of 100 votes in Arizona found that three percent of the votes for Trump were either not counted or switched to Biden; added "baseless" to the headline (as it is at the source); removed that are gaining more credibility as new evidence is being uncovered daily (which was not in the source).

AlsoWukai did not add "material to the body of the Wiki article that wasn't in the underlying source" (because words to that effect was in the source). AlsoWukai did change the headline of the reference, but only back to what the headline in The Arizona Republic said. AlsoWukai was reverting the edits made by IP user 24.45.245.243 here, which were the actual vandalism. Please read the diffs more carefully before accusing users of vandalism and using misleading edit summaries.

Sdrqaz (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdrqaz, no question I got thoroughly confused by AlsoWukai's reversion of my earlier edit (an edit which you also helped improve). As to helpful advice going forward, I'd focus it to: When reverting, be doubly careful when venturing beyond the individual editor's work being reverted. That's where AlsoWukai got off track initially by mis-correcting mine under the single explanation of 'rv vandalism'. Having been notified that I'd been reverted for vandalism, I went way off track trying to understand the inexplicable and seemingly sort of gratuitous action re: my work; then to understand that one action in context of the group of actions AlsoWukai had undertaken in the one edit; then to correct 'all of it'. Calling 'vandalism' is a powerful and harsh motivator; it got me going, for sure, and I'm sorry I passed it on. At least my edit, though, was sound; I'm still working on how all my explanation of my edit came about. I've made some progress understanding how/why, hope I've explained it some, here; some good part of it seems to be that venturing beyond; got me in good trouble too.

You're clearly doing good work in a tough zone. I will work also to make things right with AlsoWukai. One more thought, though: Third-party defenses always add some complication. For instance, since my edit was fine (and in fact important), letting the potentially aggrieved editor plead the editor's own case would maybe have been better. That's where I was heading when you jumped 'into the middle'. Totally it's your right; it just added another 'round' to do with the inevitable imprecisions and I still have no idea about where the editor in question was coming from; why the bad reversion that started all this? That'll come next. If I get to it. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swliv, I think when AlsoWukai was reverting, they reverted one edit too many. It's understandable to get worked up by accusations of vandalism, but I think they were referring to the IP user's edits rather than yours. I intervened because I was surprised by the forcefulness of the edit summary (usage of capital letters, false accusations etc). I felt that letting AlsoWukai to confront you would've probably led to regrettable things being said. It might be worth making a dummy edit to set the record straight and clarify that you were mistaken in your edit summary. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made no false accusations, Sdrqaz, sorry. The AlsoWukai edit to my portion of the total AlsoWukai reversion edit revived a falsehood and was vandalism, not reversion of vandalism, if that's the term AlsoWukai wanted to use (maybe (you speculate) by mistake re: my portion; still, their problem not mine). As to the extended 'both fixed' part of my explanation, both were fixed -- fixed by AlsoWukai, well described by me, a bit of implicit mis-attribution maybe by me though I didn't actually say I did the fixing; as noted above, I was some confused, being careful, trying to sort it out while feeling in the cross-hairs of a puzzling false accusation. (Compared with 'rv vandalism' my explanation described fully the errant edits, that's nice sometimes. And I’m not asking for it all the time. I don’t do it all the time. I was groping, to an extent, within my own time restraints and other best capacities.) Good to remove the IP-user stuff for sure; but, yes, also, as noted above, more care needed when venturing beyond those initial targets. May we leave it now? If AlsoWukai or other(s) wish to do further forensic disentangling for the record and are reasonably nice about it I'd say maybe that would be the best next step, here. Mostly I think I've pretty well done the disentangling, above; no one much seems to want to engage with it but it's here for reference. With kind regards and continued appreciation for your good work, Swliv (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC) The 'FULL ARTICLE NOT CHECKED; WARNING' in my edit summary stands; though my confidence in the general integrity of the article is higher now than it was two days ago, another benefit of forensic disentangling and constructive collaboration. Swliv (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary in full was: Undid revision 992998864 by AlsoWukai (talk) unexplained removal of link and change of facts shown via link, fixed; existing ('baseless') cite's title amended out of any connection to original reality; info added to article ('sample') not included in same cite; both fixed; FULL ARTICLE NOT CHECKED; WARNING. False label of 'rv vandalism' on now-reverted edit; it WAS a vandalizing edit.

Yes, by reverting your edit AlsoWukai "revived a falsehood", as you put it. But to call an edit vandalism, it needs to be deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. In other words, it needs to be made in bad faith. One of the core tenets of editing on Wikipedia is to assume good faith unless otherwise proven. You did not do that, unfortunately. You called AlsoWukai's edit summary a false label and said their edit WAS a vandalizing edit.

An edit summary is a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page. When you revert someone's change, your edit summary is supposed to reflect the purpose behind your edit. I have never heard of an edit summary where an editor takes credit for another's edit, or one where an editor well described another's edit. By saying existing ('baseless') cite's title amended out of any connection to original reality; info added to article ('sample') not included in same cite, any editor looking at the history would view that as you accusing AlsoWukai of doing those things, which they did not do. That needs to be clarified.

With all due respect, this has not been disentangled. Disentangling would involve making a dummy edit to admit that your previous edit summary was mistaken. While I understand the desire to leave it for now, I believe that doing so would be wrong. Wikipedia depends on editors being willing to admit their mistakes. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swliv, I saw your dummy edit on Paul Gosar and it was much appreciated. I apologise for my forceful language here and hope we can move on from this too. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Right Livelihood Award laureates has been nominated for listification. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in that CFD. I did see the earlier exchange at User_talk:Swliv#Thank_you and I was also puzzled. Even though it was a year and a half ago, sorry that happened. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Edmund Wilson

added a link pointing to Noonday

Galahad

added a link pointing to Noonday

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; thanks, bot. Swliv (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amplify Energy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Panola County.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Value at risk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Einhorn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Triton Digital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nonpartisan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Harder to fix than usual but all for the better. Swliv (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]