User talk:64.4.93.100

April 2014

Hello, I'm Wikipelli. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Steven Salzberg, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wikipelli ^Talk 20:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Stu Barnes

Thanks, but please leave an edit summary. It's not that hard and might prevent your edit from being reverted. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I hereby award this barnstar for your work on BLPs. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

David O. McKay

Please explain why you think the David O. McKay article is a BLP, given hes been dead for ~44 years. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

He has; his relatives have not. BLP applies to all living people who might be harmed even if they're not the subject of the article. 64.4.93.100 (talk)

But you're taking out people that are also dead, and a building that by definition can't be alive. There is only one paragraph in that section that has anything to do with living people, and the facts are non-controversial (that they are related) and are substantiated on the wikilinked articles. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You're not listening. Unsourced material about living people or that is potentially harmful to living people is removed until sourced. Not to mention you're not supposed to restore stuff without sources anyways. 64.4.93.100 (talk)

You're not supposed to just slash & burn your way thru articles in an unreasonable manner. Also there is no potentially harmful in this particular instance: if so, please describe this potential harm that is specific to this instance in this particular article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope: anything unsourced can be removed, and must be sourced to be re-added. 64.4.93.100 (talk)

WP:PRESERVE - your slash & burn removals don't make any real attempt to fix the issue, and are objectionable. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:WONTWORK - your additions have been either unsourced or fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

They weren't my additions, but were already on the article and I objected to the way you removed them out of hand. If you look at the article in it's current state everything you objected to (except for one of the quotes) was quite easily fixed, and would have been if you had discussed your concerns on the talk page first, or had used an aproprate tag, instead of just deleting. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If I look at the article in its current state I still see swathes of unreferenced stuff restored by you against WP:V: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". If you want to fix it go ahead, but you should actually fix it rather than fighting to restore what's unfixed. What would be the point of tagging when one thing you restored has been tagged since 2008? 64.4.93.100 (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Section blanking

Notice you've been removing a lot of content. Can you reply here to show that you are a human editor? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Or you could look up...64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, being an anonymous number, it can be hard to attribute as multiple people could be on the same address. Thanks for the reply. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a wikiquote

I am confused about your edits and their summaries "Not a wikiquote". I am unaware of any policy or guideline that requires quotations to be "wikiquotes". I suspect that you may using shorthand to refer to an un-referenced quotation. If this is the case it remains difficult to understand your edit to Geoffrey Bolton. Some explanation would be most welcome . Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOT Not Wikiquote - no stand-alone quotation sections. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, can't see that. Can you provide a more specific link - "no stand alone quotations" doesn't appear as text in WP:NOT. What does appear are the words "you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.". In the Geoffrey Bolton case ( and I suspect many others) this is not a list of quotations but a single quotation. Do you agree ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Also "Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section" WP:QUOTE. Quotations sections are not encyclopedic content WP:NOT. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh.. Please do read WP:QUOTE again in full. Sentences such as "Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia". If you are concerned that these quotation are in sections called "Quotations" then by all means change the heading. The Geoffrey Bolton article, for instance, was written before these guidelines existed and just needs to be brought up to date in its structure and not by wholesale removal of quotations. Please stop this editing approach now and help us to improve Wikipedia and not de-nude it of useful and valuable quotations. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Please do read WP:NOT again in full. Content like quotations should be included only with encyclopedic context, not as a stand-alone section no matter what you choose to title it. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The correct way to fix these quotations is to make them correct, not simply delete them. Although they are not conformant to Wikipedia guidelines, they can convey valuable ideas. Timothy G. ^{from CA} (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:WONTWORK. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

List of ice hockey countries

Hey, you can't get rid of these countries that doesn't have ice rinks or ice hockey! AaronWikia (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, duh, course you can. It's a list of ice hockey countries and countries that don't have hockey aren't ice hockey countries. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the content you're debating above, please note that you cannot just add an AFD template to an article and then walk away without actually completing a nomination. You're certainly welcome to list it for deletion if you wish, but you have to actually follow the whole process properly. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Bearcat, I DIDN'T just add an AFD template - he did and blanked the page[1] so I readded the content because you're not supposed to blank it. He's the one who isn't following process properly. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 64.4.93.100. You have new messages at Ashbeckjonathan's talk page.
Message added 19:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Though many patrollers are careless at least some apologize. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)