User talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com

Words of wisdom from a cherished source

Robert - feel free to blank this again, as is your right, but can I just ask you to slow down for a minute and step back from this? You're fast approaching old territory again. I know you mean well here, and I've supported you in the past. Just ... chill, take it easy, and careful with the comments about others - Alison ^❤ 22:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

DELETION OF INFOBOXES

I occasionally delete infoboxes from articles I have edited if the infobox in question is almost empty or otherwise of little or no utility, based on the following from WP:MOS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)): “The most important group to consider are the casual readers of Wikipedia, who will never do any significant editing. Infobox templates that contain many blank fields, question marks” and “Unknowns present an unprofessional appearance, diminishing Wikipedia’s reputation as a high-quality encyclopedia.” Quis separabit? 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jeremy Doyle

The DYK project (nominate) 23:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Happy New Year - just fyi.  7  04:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Celia, Viscountess Whitelaw of Penrith for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Celia, Viscountess Whitelaw of Penrith is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celia, Viscountess Whitelaw of Penrith until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WWGB (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Doyle

Hi Rms, this is just to let you know that I've nominated the OTRS image of Jeremy Doyle for Featured Picture at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jeremy Doyle. As you worked on the article, you may be interested. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Florin Krasniqi

Hello. Please be aware that your edit here was erroneous and the claim of vandalism in the summary was also inaccurate. I appreciate that your contribution was made in good faith and mine may have even appeared unconstructive to a number of recent change patrollers though I assure you that my edit was wholly appropriate. If you require elucidation, I am happy to provide this though I should point out that had you tracked my history, you'll have noticed that I have six unbroken years as an editor here and no single edit of mine constitutes vandalism, just as yours don't. Mistakes are easily made which is why I explain this on your talk. Any queries, please leave me a message. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see. I found them a bit strange too (the capitals) and I still cannot work out where they came from. You reintroduced them here but looking at your summary which mentions "rv", it appears that even you were working on an older revision. Not to worry, it's very easy to miss these things. The publication is real, hence the article/sources but you did the right thing by replacing the text with small letters. Cheers Rms. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Unseen character edits

Rms125a@hotmail.com, you should check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unseen character (3rd nomination). Note also that there were two previous discussions about deleting the article and also was a list article that was deleted after discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unseen characters. The edits you added turn the article back in the direction of a list. As the issue has been discussed several times before and consensus has been to purge the page from lists, my reversion was just a restoration of that consensus. 99.192.83.238 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

See additional comment on my talk page. 99.192.83.238 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to go offline for a while now, but when I return I will check for your reply to my most recent comment on my talk page. I see you have fixed the list/paragraph problem, but there still is the matter of the "absolute minimum". In short, since the examples are only meant to illustrate the concept, I do not see how someone could have read the page as it was before your additions and not understood what the concept was. If that's right, then no more examples were necessary and thus would be more than the "absolute minimum". See you later! 99.192.83.238 (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since my ISP has assigned me a new IP address and the issue of the editing of the article might be of interest to other editors, have moved the discussion to the talk page for "Unseen character". 99.192.86.244 (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.83.238)

Please do not use to request research. go to Talk

The editors of Costa Concordia Disaster have a long and detailed Talk history regarding the current, and evolving, status of published "facts". If you wish to see that discussion about causes, or what has been published, and what we are looking for that has not yet been published, you ought have gone to Talk. Placing your in the article (regarding the captain having turned of the alarm system) may express you curiosity but it is not appropriate in the Article.SteveO1951 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Joan Shawlee

Could you include your source for this edit? You have changed the date and added [sic] to the New York Times obituary, but I don't see an alternative reliable source provided. Thanks, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You have new messages

Hello. You have new messages at Ponyo's talk page.

Template:Z21

--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Szymborska

Several sources confirm she signed (not called for...) a petition condemning (not demanding an execution) the falsely accused priests. This should be clarified in the text now, with sources. Read more in the Stalinist show trial of the Kraków Curia and the petition has an article on pl wiki: pl:Rezolucja Związku Literatów Polskich w Krakowie w sprawie procesu krakowskiego, with a full text on wikisource (or in the sources cited). If you'd like a translation, and Google Translate is not enough, ask at WT:POLAND. I have to take a break from editing now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Frederick William Danker

Hey, noticed you tinkering at Joseph W. Estabrook, and thought I'd ask someone with more experience - What steps are recommended when the Obit gets the year of death wrong (if any)? Dru of Id (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

They got the year of birth and age correct, but (2nd line): " died February 2, 2011, in St. Louis, Mo. He was 91 years old". is incorrect (last year). I'll look for a reference that gets it right, Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Peter Blum

Thanks for pointing out the image of Blum was unfit for use. However, it did display correctly in my browser. I will now re-publish the photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klipfontein (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mladen Lorković

What sort of clarification I need to make in the article. After a word "coup" you put [clarification needed] sign.

And thanks alot for fixing my spelling mistakes, I really appreciate that. --Wustenfuchs 14:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Robert Fico

Hey, not sure if you're meaning to but you keep reverting my edit to the lede of the Fico article. There's no POV or unsourced text in my edit, I was just linking the SMER article, adding commas in that sentence about SNS and stating Mečiar's political stance too if we have to state Slota's. [1] - filelakeshoe 10:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning out the article of all the BLP stuff and the formatting, I think I misunderstood rv in your edit summary to mean you were reverting my edits for being POV, all I was doing was fixing links/commas/repetition in the lede. - filelakeshoe 10:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Doris Day

I understand that you are a senior editor here at Wikipedia, but with all due respect, I do not appreciate my comments being called "naive" and "facile". I was attempting to put to rest a contentious issue to which I was reasonable confident I had finally found a definitive answer. Frankly, if there is anything preposterous about this situation, I think it is the fact that we have the word of Doris Day herself stating this month that her birthdate is April 3, 1924, and anyone has the temerity to contest her because her word conflicts with various other second-hand reports, all of which seem to contradict each other as it is. As you mention yourself, Day's biographer lists 1922 as her birthdate, yet census records allegedly place her birthdate as 1923. There is no way to account for this discrepancy, and obviously only one of these dates (or neither) must be the correct one.

Therefore, based on what little evidence exists to confirm any one date as Day's definitive date of birth, I think it only makes sense to take Day at her word when she says she was born in 1924. To suggest that she is so elderly that she can no longer remember her own birthdate, a date which she has no doubt had to write down countless times over the years on legal and medical documents, or to suggest that she is simply lying, is to me far more absurd than simply taking her at her word. R.h.c.afounder1 (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)