User talk:Location

Welcome!

Hello, Location, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On June 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adrienne Beames, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice qualifying table. I saw your note about the border in the edit summary. Have you seen Help:Table? That should give you the directions to do what you want. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping! Thank you, thank you, thank you, Location, location, location. Acme Plumbing (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the change that you just made. Maybe remove the plastic surgery part? It is referenced but may be an error by Fox News. Makes more sense if he wanted to do more pediatric surgery since he was a pediatric eye surgeon. Maybe have the other guy in the office prepare kids for surgery and he does it. Makes more sense than changing professions into plastic surgery.Acme Plumbing (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help. You deserve a barnstar. I need to find out how to make one. In the meantime, settle for a temporary one. Thank you. Acme Plumbing (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Barnstar (temporary) *****

You did not "take over". You help save the article from people who did not know how different (and notable) this murder was. The guy who planned the murder losing his eyesight makes the case even more weird. Eye for an eye? Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thank for helping the Murder of Brian Stidham article Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For outstanding editing Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the mug shot free use? Or stolen/fair use? If free, I will download it. I am asking someone else, too. Acme Plumbing (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC) May be difficult. The prison system alters their website making photo downloads impossible for the average person. Acme Plumbing (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On August 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murder of Brian Stidham, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

You don't talk to people much. However, your help with Brian Stidham was much appreciated.

Would you help to write a story of Steve Titus. Somebody else did and won the Pulitzer Prize. I think this makes it notable because people could be looking up Pulitzer Prize stories and find it here in Wikipedia. Acme Plumbing (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On August 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bobbi Gibb, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful notes and linking comments at those two AfDs. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd simply deleted the previous entries as being nothing more than a declaratory statement. By all means, feel free to make a real article out of it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no doubt.  :) The subject is sure notable, but "stating the obvious" like the originals did isn't a way to showcase it. Have fun! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand if you feel strongly about the murderer-related AfDs. However, I don't really think it's fair play, or at least good form, to be patrolling my edits and specifically voting in all of my nominations. Presumably, AfDs in which the participants are the people who show up by chance are more representative of the community than the ones where you follow a nominator to all of his nominations in order to oppose them. As well, I don't know if you mean it that way, but it does feel sort of hostile to have someone copy and paste the same vote to something like 6 AfDs yours in half an hour, and then even again the next day when you create another one. Can we agree that it would be better to patrol the daily AfD subpages or sorted debates, rather than my personal contributions list? :-) Dominic·t 05:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cannock Chase murders, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^{Avast, landlubber!} ¤ 22:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did a nice job piecing together the article on American football at the 1932 Olympics. It will make a nice DYK hook on a little-known piece of the sport's history. Cbl62 (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article American football at the 1932 Summer Olympics, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Regarding your argument below:

Weak delete per WP:SALAT: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future)." If being a supercentenarian in life is not inherently notable, then it should not be in death either. Location (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This list IS selected for notability: only about 1 in 1000 centenarians reaches "super" centenarian status...overall, only about 1 in 5 million persons in industrialized nations (and far fewer in developing nations) reach "super" centenarian status. Also, there are quite a few Wikipedia articles on supercentenarians. The problem is that some get news coverage, and others do not. The list, as rendered, is more demographically sound because it includes all validated 110+ deaths in year X, regardless of media bias.

To summarize, SOME supercentenarians are notable for age, and receive adequate coverage, but this coverage is often uneven and may be biased (for example, the oldest person in Scotland will get more coverage than the 5th-oldest person in Japan, even if the 5th-oldest person in Japan is older). Having a list balances out the imbalances.

Of course, one could just turn to the GRG lists, but they do not have the added feature of WIKILINKS. So the Wiki articles serve a function that exists nowhere else. These lists are encyclopedic. This is not a list of tomato cans.76.17.118.157 (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although you do not post in Wikipedia frequently, you posted here 7 minutes after Longevitydude posted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians who died in 2009. Are you a sock puppet? If not, you should post your comments there. Location (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we about ready for wider comment, such as an RfC? Fences&Windows 17:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you marked this as depreciated without consulting Wikiproject Running. We have been working hard since 2006 and deserve a bit of respect and consultation. Contrary to the claims of some people who have established a spliter project, we do cover road races, track and field, cross country, mountain running and all aspect of the sport. In the United States, the term "athletics" includes all sports such as football, soccer, basketball, etc. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That infobox was deprecated nearly four months ago after discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics. You may want to bring up your objections in one of the relevant forums rather than here. Location (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infoxbox was created by WikiProject Running and you certainly did not consult with us about it. I understand that there are differences in terminology between the United States and Great Britain, but since last May, Sillyfolkboy has caused a lot of confusion and duplication by starting a second WikiProject with a very similar scope and then changing everything in site over from Running to Athletics. In the United States, athletics include baseball, football, boxing, basketball, etc. Racepacket (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you feel that you were not given an opportunity to voice your opinion. The applicable edit histories indicate that Wikipedia:WikiProject Running was essentially inactive when this issue was discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics. If you feel that a consensus was not reached by proper means, you should involve other editors in the relevant forums. Location (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the addition! --JanDeFietser (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Location, I really appreciate your positive critique on the AfD page. Such a relief to have an objective and positive User who is actually helping build Wikipedia, not splinter it. Cheers + Best Lotusleaves (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge also indicates redirect; I probably should always add that in the close (which I have done). Black Kite (t) (c) 05:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- I've improved the article at the AfD here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied your comments in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Animal_protection I look forward to seeing your reply on the issues--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On August 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leonard Hurst, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short note to respect your work to do the right thing. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Location, I'd like you to revisit this AfD. Several of the sources provided come from the past decade that show Scott to have been a notable businessman long before his political aspirations began.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Location, the original vote on Floyd C. Bayne was more keeps than deletes so the article should not have been deleted, but at least it should be redirected to va 7th district race if not undeleted. Libertyactivist (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple factors affect how an Afd is closed. The weight of the various arguments normally determines the final outcome rather than a strict tally of !votes. In that particular Afd, the presence of various IP without significant editing history points to the possibility of sockpuppetry. For example, your account is brand new and has an editing history that overlaps with other involved ISPs and registered accounts. You may want to talk to the closing admin for further clarification of his or her decision. As I mentioned in the Afd, redirect was my preference. Location (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting subject you have there! and some conflicting information to reconcile. I'm going to bring suggestions to you here, rather than add them myself, since I can see there is conflicting information out there and you have researched more thoroughly that I have.

For example, Lewis of Warner Hall (page 350) refers to him several times as "Colonel" Charles Lilburn Lewis, based on his service in the Revolutionary War as County Lieutenant of Albemarle County. I think that would be interesting to add if you consider it reliable, but his father is also referred to as "Colonel" so there might be some kind of mixup. Still, it clearly refers to them both as Colonel: "Col. Charles Lilburn Lewis, of Buck Island and Monteagle, was probably the oldest son of Col. Charles Lewis of Buck Island."

The Lucy article refers to him as "Dr." Charles Lilburn Lewis; is there any evidence that he was a doctor?

Was there some reason you didn't mention his Kentucky estate, Rocky Hill?

The flickr item implies that, like Lucy, he was buried at Rocky Hill. However, this may not be solid enough to include.

History, what fun! --MelanieN (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Melanie. I'm finding the history behind these article quite interesting. I put in just enough so that the article would pass the relevant notability guidelines, but there is certainly much more that can be added to Charles Lilburn Lewis including the Rocky Hill bit. From what I've come across, I agree that it appears as though Sr and Jr were both colonels. I haven't yet searched for any references to verify the doctor claim. Regarding Lucy Jefferson Lewis and Rocky Hill, there does seem to be conflicting information there. From what I gather, the monument and obelisk are one and the same, are not located at a cemetary, and do not mark Lucy's grave - despite what some sources may state. Using Google and GoogleMaps, I found the location of the monument (and bridge to the south) and am unable to verify the existance of a Rocky Hill cemetary in that area. There are many sources that state she was Pres. Jefferson's only sister; however, authoritative sources state otherwise.

Also, as I alluded to in Talk:Meriwether Lewis, there are a lot of people named Lucy or Charles in the Lewis, Jefferson, and Randolph families, and this certainly doesn't help resolve issues of contradictory information. Given their relationships to one antoher, there are a lot of mildly notable people in these families. I understand the objection to geneaology articles and linking non-notable people, but it sure would be helpful if these families had articles like Kennedy family to keep straight who is who. Thanks for the note! Location (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you're interested in the history of the Lewis family, have you read Jefferson's Nephews: A Frontier Tragedy by Boynton Merrill, Jr.? If not, I highly recommend. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you chime in here? Bearian (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{#tag:ref|Lorem ipsum<ref>dolor sit amet</ref>|name="example"|group="nb"}} and then <ref name="example" group="nb"/> in the second instance.

• consectetur adipisicing elit^{[nb 1]}
• sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua^{[nb 1]}

Notes

^ ^{a b} Lorem ipsum^[1]

References

^ dolor sit amet

You seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. M. M. Naoshad?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it it won't be safe until somebody does the right thing and withdraws the nomination.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Benjamin Harrison IV, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the ancestral home of U.S. Presidents William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, believed to be the oldest three-story brick mansion in Virginia, was built by Benjamin Harrison IV in 1726? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I commend you on your good work in improving this article. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! There seems to be no definitive biography on him, so piecing together all the information about him feels a bit like conducting "original research". Thanks again! Location (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with bd2412. Nice work on the Bland pieces. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Location (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you redirected that page to itself ... but I got confused. If I deleted the wrong page, please tell me. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I redirected it to Category:Byrd family of Virginia, but there really isn't any problem bypassing that page for now anyway. Location (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• SPeaking of which, will you be renominating the Category:Taliaferro family category and the others in a regular CfD nomination? I'll be removing them from speedy very soon, otherwise.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a previous edit on this article or its discussion, so FYI: Talk:Independent Greens of Virginia#Material by editor "PonchoChet". Let's try to make the article better. -Colfer2 (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! I find the whole battle of women getting into road running in the 1960s/70s really interesting. It shows how much the world has moved on, for the good, in a relatively short space of time. I think stories like those of Wilton and Switzer are also great examples of feminism in action, with both men and women working together to rightly upset the prevailing mindset. Good work! SFB 16:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sy Mah, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sy Mah, who held a Guinness World Record for the most lifetime marathons, completed his first marathon in the same race in which he coached 13-year-old Maureen Wilton to a women's world record? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I updated the reference at the beginning of the lead of the Cornelius Dupree article to address your comment on the DYK nomination page. The article has also since been expanded. Cheers. KimChee (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being bold and making changes to the page. I've swapped the opening paragraph for the version in my proposal, though, since it's been up a while and seems to have consensus. I've modified it so that its also about victims, per the talkpage discussion. I think the opening of your version ("For notable criminal acts...") is problematic because the guideline is about determining notability in the first place. Do you get what I mean? In any event, I think the two versions have pretty much the same effect, so hope you'll be okay with that.

I think there are other issues still, so the job is not necessarily done and dusted, but we can continue to discuss that. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...for the copy editing of Mainstream (Lloyd Cole album) and kind words at DYK. J04n(talk page) 06:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, here are the lyrics, cocaine yes, masturbation? I'm not seeing it. Would be an interesting hook though.J04n(talk page) 06:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! There are only two tracks now without sourced information. J04n(talk page) 19:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to the library later, I wonder if they have back issues of Musician? J04n(talk page) 19:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your edits at DYK and clicked over to your user page and was impressed. Have you considering applying to become a Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors? It is a great way to help college students become more familiar with Wikipedia, and make them good long term contributers! Sadads (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gary Fanelli, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Gary Fanelli, who represented American Samoa in the marathon at the 1988 Summer Olympics, has competed in various costumes including Elwood Blues, a Ghostbusters ghost, and Michael Jackson? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I had 1992 written as a year of Ikenaka's death is because I got this "information" from the Japanese Wikipedia. However, since that foreign article is still a Wikipedia article, it may not be sourced (which it was not). But I will happily look up a valid source to see if 1992 is really the year of Ikenka's death. Oxana879 (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will make sure to continue to do my best. Oxana879 (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 11:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, W. H. Dague, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Baseball-Reference lists Loughlin as having attended Manhattan College, but with no first name. I wonder if Retrosheet is aware of those documents. -Dewelar (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is not good. This is not an extremely difficult article to tackle as sources are not readily available. Also, I would think this article needs to be built up from the foundation - 1933, when the racial barrier went up (of course that's not necessarily true :) ) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your well-researched, deft clarification of this topic. Nice job. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Location (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment! It's become a bit of an ongoing project of mine to give a decent treatment of both the top marathoners and the contemporary big names. I've submitted a DYK if you want to review/add any suggestions. Cheers! SFB 17:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have given me some good advice on the George Jackson article and I would appreciate you having a look at this: Talk:Bobby Seale, if you dont mind. Thank you, ZHurlihee (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. Sometimes I come across an interesting story by chance when doing the research work on athletes! Pretty much the same thing happened with Ser-Od Bat-Ochir. One man's obscure Asian runner is another man's window into the increasingly global nature of everyday life. Good job on 2011 Boston Marathon by the way. I think it is a really positive thing to make note of both these important happenings at the elite level and the interesting little asides that are part and parcel of the biggest mass races. SFB 22:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm the Online Communications Director for Newt Gingrich's campaign. I noticed the section on the Meet the Press interview you posted to the N.G. Presidential campaign page. I thought it was balanced. I am hoping you could provide a similar balance to the entitlement reform section of the Newt Gingrich Political Positions page. If you check the Talk:Political_positions_of_Newt_Gingrich page, you will notice that I posted a note requesting an edit of the entitlement reform section to also reflect Gingrich's explanation. Also, the language used currently ("however") seems inappropriate. Unfortunately there has been no response. Would you mind providing some balance to that section? Thanks. --Joedesantis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

[1] - bots usually take care of the messed up bots tag. I usually give'em a few hours then if they miss something go back and fix it manually. Is it okay if i remove all that junk again?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on the article's talk page. Thanks! Location (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to bring some balance to this article. Unfortunately your material got deleted by an editor who's been adding highly critical material, some of which has been directly contradicted by its supposed sources. If you can find a decent reference for what you wrote I'll support you. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to address someone else. All I did in that article was de-capitalize a sub-heading per the MOS. Location (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry --Simon Speed (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You gave some good advice as to where I might look for coverage, and based upon your guidence I have expanded and better sourced the article in question. I ask that you might revisit Kwon Hyi-ro and and consider moving from "week keep" to just "keep" per the improvements. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad to have helped. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the hatnote. Much better. Underdoor (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Location! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Hi Location, I am Joe DeSantis with Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign. I've just posted a few questions about some material I consider to be unbalanced on the article about about Mr. Gingrich's campaign. I've asked another editor who usually watches the Newt Gingrich article to review them, and thought to ask you, too. Please let me know if you agree with the suggestions, or share any feedback. Thank you, Joedesantis (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look into the matter. I see that an editor you requested look at the matter has agreed with you, but there has been no further comment and no action has been taken on the article itself. Would you be willing to make these updates at your next available opportunity? Thank you, Joedesantis (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited James H. Horne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job expanding James H. Horne. Happy new year and all the best. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James H. Horne, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that James H. Horne (pictured), the first head coach of the men's basketball team at Indiana University, accidentally killed a man with a twelve-pound hammer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James H. Horne.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment re. Chris Cole (politician). Would you say that the article's moved beyond stubhood and merits a "Start" rating? I'm not sure just where the boundary is, and in any case I'm not sure if it's quite proper to rate one's own work. Ammodramus (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Just saw your note. Yes, I would say at least "start". Location (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to alert you of an ongoing situation I am having with another user on the Adolph Rupp page. The situation has been ongoing for a few weeks now. A few weeks ago I went on the Adolph Rupp page to read the history of the coach. I was curious about his past and I did what I usually do to learn about something quickly, I checked his wikipedia page. When I read the page, I found it loaded with points that were not cited, extremely subjective, not in a neutral point of view and just generally slanted towards making the individual looks as good as possible. Many of the points that were cited were cited from a popular UK basketball blog.

I began to make some smaller edits and removing content that was not acceptable to an encyclopedia. Every edit that I made was reverted immediately by the same user. I also attempted to add in a section about some serious violations of NCAA rules that happened when Adolph Rupp was the coach at UK. Essentially, UK basketball was the first school to receive any penalty from the NCAA for rules violations. I added what I thought was a fair and objective section on the event that I cited to a few unbiased sources on the web. My edits were again reverted by the user. He claimed that my edits were not factual and completely inaccurate.

At this point I became frustrated and alerted another editor of this situation. This editor went through and made some changes to the page based on the same issues that I wrote about above, the article was not meeting academic standards at all. He was very helpful and neutral in his edits. However, the user who was reverting all these edits became angry and combative to the changes being made to the page. Eventually, we were able to reach consensus on a few points. However, this user kept changing the page even after we agreed on the edits to be made. He also added all the other sections back in that were not written in a neutral point of view. A few days ago, he made over 45 edits to the page.

This user has a long history of making biased edits to UK basketball pages. He also has a long history of reverting any other edits to the pages that he personally disagrees with. He literally owns the Adolph Rupp page. I have since given up on trying to make the page historically accurate or meet Wikipedia's standards for content. No matter what changes I make or anyone else makes, he will revert them or rewrite them later to suit his own point of view. Why is a user like this still able to make edits to pages on wikipedia?

Leochews (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are those rhetorical questions or is there something you would like me to do? Location (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, those questions were not meant to be rhetorical. I am seriously curious as to why someone like that could keep editing wikipedia. If you are interested, you can find the discussions we had on someone else's talk page. It starts on the bottom of this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moe_Epsilon/Archive_31 and picks back up here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moe_Epsilon/Archive_32. Leochews (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. Q: "Why is a user like this still able to make edits to pages on wikipedia?" A: Editors are not banned without some sort of "due process" that hears both sides of a dispute. Q: "Why is a user who has a long history of making biased edits (and other violations that have brought him temporary bans) still able to freely edit wikipedia?" A: Editors are not banned without some sort of "due process" that hears both sides of a dispute. Location (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Jesse Curry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Traffic police (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gingrich campaign. When and where did I alter your post? If I did it was a mistake, but I don't think I did. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to it in the summary: diff. I've already fixed it: diff. Location (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Location, this is just to let you know that I moved the article you recently created to User:Location/John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. As it was, it was showing up in Special:NewPages and it would show up in any searches that readers do. These things won't happen if you keep it in your userspace, so it's probably better to keep it there before you put it back in the main article. Just make sure that you attribute the text properly if you copy and paste it back in. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Arthur Roth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hoboken (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Location: I hope you will provide an email address at which I can directly communicate with you concerning the writeup of David Lifton, author of BEST EVIDENCE. I am closely associated with Lifton, who is now 72 years old, and rushing to complete his life's work on the Kennedy assassination with his new book, FINAL CHARADE, which focuses on Lee Oswald. He has been very concerned that the constant editing an re-editing of his entry in Wikipedia has been so severe that the result was a writeup that did not even contain a reasonable or accurate summary of the basic thesis of the book. Please communicate with me via my talk page. Thank you. MardinEden5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinEden5 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Location: Could you please explain to me why it is that your editing keeps removing from the Wikipedia writeup of David Lifton the central thesis of his work? Do you not think it appropriate that readers of the entry describing him, and his work, should contain a proper--if brief--summary of his work? The central thesis of Lifton's work is that the President's body was altered, prior to autopsy. (By "altered" is meant the removal of bullets from the body, and the changing of the character of the wounds, prior to autopsy). The result (per the central thesis): President Kennedy's body was tantamount to a medical forgery at the time of autopsy--i.e., the autopsy conducted at Bethesda Naval Hospital, outside Washington, D.C., some six hours after the Dallas murder. The result: the written autopsy report relied upon by the Warren Commission was not a reflection of the medical facts at the time of President Kennedy's assassination (at 12:30 PM CST in Dallas) but rather the way the President's body appeared at 8 PM that night, at the Bethesda autopsy. As I assume you are probably aware, the treating physicians in Dallas said that President Kennedy was shot from the front; the Bethesda autopsy said he was shot from behind. Communicating this thesis is central to a proper understanding of Lifton's life work, which was a major national best seller (in 1981) and was published three more times by three different publishers (1982, Dell; 1988, Carroll and Graf; and 1993, New American Library). Please explain what has to be done so as to state the thesis of BEST EVIDENCE, without that material being constantly removed, as if it were somehow in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Surely there is a way of communicating to Wikipedia's readers the central thesis of Lifton's life's work, without having you, or anyone else, constantly editing out the key sentences. Please explain and clarify, so that this problem can be addressed. If you were editing Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species," would you remove the sections explaining "natural selection"?? This is the sort of problem that seems to be faced here. The word "conspiracy" does not adequately explain what David Lifton's book is about; terminology like "wound alteration" or "body alteration" is necessary. The evidence for these concepts is in the book itself. Please clarify your objections. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinEden5 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have not checked your talk page since your last message here. I have indicated on your talk page twice already that the proper place to discuss this issue is Talk:David Lifton. Thank you. Location (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Athletics for a Signpost article scheduled to coincide with this summer's European Athletics Championships. The article about WikiProject Athletics would serve as the beginning of a special "Summer Sports Series", giving you an excellent opportunity to draw attention to the project's efforts and attract new members. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have consensus for your proposed changes to J. D. Tippit & J D Tippit. Senator2029 ❝talk❞ 14:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reliable sourcing query has received at least one answer. Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize for anything. Thanks for the feedback! Location (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! If you're willing to send me your email address, I can send transcripts of the Fetzer segments. I am not willing to post the full transcripts online, as they are copyrighted by Fox. You can email me via this page, and (if you're willing - NO obligation) send your email address so I can send PDFs. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on that, please. I'll comment on the article's talk page. Location (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. When I commented on this discussion page that the CHP policy for stranded female motorists was changed because of this disappearance you asked if I had a source for this statement. The LA Times reference for this on the Wiki page is behind a Paywall (as are the other Times references.) I went to the Los Angeles Library and purchased a copy of this article. It is now on my website: http://www.TheZodiacMansonConnection.com/victim_graham.html. It states the changes that were implemented and gives the reason for the change as being the Graham disappearance. I also put up an article from the San Mateo, California The Times of the same date that also states that CHP change and the similarities of other murders in the same area in a two year window around the Graham disappearance. (These are also related to on my website.) This article was obtained from NewspaperArchive.com. By the time I had gotten these articles on my site and was going to answer your question on the discussion page it had been archived. So I am telling you about it here. TZMC (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I actually saw your comments on the talk page earlier. Cheers! Location (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be alright if I changed the referral link for the CHP change to my webpage? (That is if the page doesn't get deleted.) There is already a link to a newspaper article on my site from the Wiki page on Laurence Merrick, who ran an Academy of Dramatic Arts that Sharon Tate, murdered by the Manson Family, attended. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Merrick. (I get many hits on my site every month from this link.) My webpage is http://www.TheZodiacMansonConnection.com/crockett_merrick.html. He made a movie about the Manson Family and a few years later he was shot to death at his school. And there are links to four different pages on my site from Wikipedia, Finland. TZMC (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I like to see the actual text myself, placing the article on your website and linking to it - instead of linking to an authorized source for archiving - may violate various copyright policies. For example, my understanding is that the Merrick information should link to http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ka1VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KuADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6700%2C6458333. I would ask for clarification from an admin or one of the relevant copyright pages. It's still valid to cite the paper even though not all readers may be able to directly or quickly access it. Location (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"where the Dallas City Code does not permit merchandise to be sold within areas under the control of the its [sic] Park and Recreation Department"? Maybe it should be, "...as the Dallas City Code does not permit merchandise to be sold in that area, which is under the control of its Park and Recreation Department".--andreasegde (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that. Cheers! Location (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Location - thanks for starting to sort this out. I had noticed but I'm spending most of my time watching rather than editing! SFB 20:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy! The U.S. coverage is quite awful. Location (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You added information from a source, and provided inline citations: [2] but not the actual source itself. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mosedale (page 1) is currently citation #3 in the article.[3] The article is eight pages long, so I employed shortened footnotes (WP:SFN) for pages two and three to make it easier for people to find the exact page. I would prefer to have a diversity of sources for the subject's background information, however, I thought this would be preferable to the primary source of a CV. Location (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is from 2006, but the citations say 2007. Usaully the blue is also meant to redirect to the citation, see Template:Sfn for more details. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even see that the date was off. I've corrected it, now the redirect works. Thanks! Location (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you would consider reviewing your !Vote on the Chavis Carter article. obviously the article is in a poor state and needs improvement, but I am loath to take the time if it is all just going to be deleted shortly. In the time since your !vote, there has been a lot of further coverage, across the country, and in several international locataions as well (Canada, 2xUK, Australia, etc) Thanks for your time. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://reftag.appspot.com/

Tgeairn (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uirauna (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ian Martin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Advisor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chauncey Marvin Holt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Secret Service

ChiRunning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Posture

Virgilio Paz Romero (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Militant

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mark Lane (author) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ► Belchfire-TALK 01:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here for clarification. Libro0 (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work combating fringe theories on Wikipedia! Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Location (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your eye could be useful here as well: Veterans Today. Cheers. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Salami - another Veterans Today contributor that doesn't seem to fulfill notability criteria. Plot Spoiler (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Habilian Association. Plot Spoiler (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to delete organizations and individuals who are "not notable" primarily because they are promoted primarily by media outlets controlled by governments such as Iran which some believe promote offensive conspiracy theories. Wikipedia does not delete notable individuals simply because the promote the views of governments such as National Socialist Germany, communist Russia's TASS, or even the GW Bush adminstration which some believe to be offensive propoganda, indeed they are even more notable if they are promoting propoganda as long as the article does not itself promote such views. The Habilian Association is mentioned in thousands of internet articles by many different organizations, but most of them are aligned with Iran or allied movements, which should make it notable. Any individual or group sanctioned or mentioned by a government or government approved news agency should be notable. Wikipedia routinely tries to delete every terrorist or mass murder suspect or victim with global mainstream media coverage on the basis of notability, but this is not constructive. Redhanker (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are attempting to talk to Plot Spoiler since I have not edited in that article. You may want to bring this up on his/her talk page and not mine. Location (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhidevananda (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhidevananda (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started gathering sources for those articles, see here. See if it anyhow helps! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you want any article from JSTOR, I can send it to you! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though I'm not authorized to access that. Are you able to list a couple sources that you think are most relevant? My hope is to get an acceptable start-class article up and let the interested editors work by consensus to add on to it with other secondary and even acceptable primary sources. Location (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have changed privacy. here. If you want any article from JSTOR, I can add it here! --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added a bit from David Skrbina's review to the draft. I'll have to take a closer look at Crovetto. Similarly titled, it appears to be a slightly different version of the article already cited. Location (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it looks good! Right now I was reading this article. Too good! See the see also recommendations too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL! Location (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.. here too! Sohail Inayatullah is a notable writer! --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've about done all I am going to do on this. This subject doesn't interest me, it's not a nice environment to work in, and it's taking time from other things that I am interested in. I will soon propose that the draft take the place of the current article as I believe it serves as a good foundation. If others wish to add sources that are more closely linked with the subject, I'll let them make their proposals on the Talk page to achieve consensus. Location (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for fixing my careless error at James H. Fetzer. I really should have looked at the references before copying the material over from 9/11 Truth movement. Do you happen to know if there a reason why it is found in that article but not this one? If there hasn't been a compelling reason or community discussion confirming its existence in that article, I don't see any reason to keep it there either. Some guy (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! In James H. Fetzer, there has been a lot activity on the part of pro- and anti-Fetzer editors (and Fetzer himself) to insert primary source material to lead the article in one direction or the other. This is particularly problematic in the case of Fetzer in that he has opinions on everything. There is an unofficial consensus there that it is best to discuss his views that have been discussed in reliable secondary sources. If you see something in 9/11 Truth movement that is problematic (e.g. undue sourcing of a section to primary or biased sources), I would bring it up on the talk page or take it to WP:RSN. You could try to remove material and/or sources, but you might face some opposition on this if the material is long-standing. Location (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Per your previous involvement in the discussion, I thought you might be interested in commenting in Talk:Progressive utilization theory#Proposal to replace current content. Thanks! Location (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Location, I didn't have time until now. But today, I'm going to get involved with it. Thanks for the reminder. --Universal Life (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that proposal! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your neutrality is to be commended, but I was wondering if you intend to make any specific recommendations on how to address the gridlock in PROUT? If the idea is to simply request temporary protection again, please note that the previous edit war involved two editors whose behavior, if repeated, should be addressed through blocks. 19:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)