User talk:FloridaArmy/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Disruptive editing: After more than four warnings, failure to provide edit summaries on most edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —EncMstr (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hmmm. @EncMstr:, maybe I'm missing something here, but blocking a user seems like a somewhat excessive reaction to not using edit summaries. Sure, they're a good idea, recommended practice, etc, but not using them doesn't seem block-worthy to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi EncMstr, I completely agree with RoySmith here. I strongly encourage people to use edit summaries, but I do not think lack of their use merits a block. This is obviously an editor trying (and generally succeeding) to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Please reconsider. LadyofShalott 02:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have undone the block as no way is not doing edit summaries block worthy. Plus there last discussion has no warning of a potential block. Very poor form
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  06:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• If the community wants edit summaries to be mandatory please update the edit summary page to say that. And if it's something one can be blocked for then the policy page should say that as well. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

And for the record I always try to include an edit summary if I am reverting someone of making an edit that I think is likely to be controversial. Most of my edits have been writing entries and doing very straightforward fixes. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC) The editing policy says "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." Yet facts are deleted all the time despite being properly sourced and encyclopedic. Clearly editors are allowed to edit without adhering to policy. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Now that we've got you editing again, I'll also request that you make regular use of edit summaries. I know it can be a pain, but it makes it easier for other people to scan down an article's history page and see what's been changed. Many of my edit summaries are no more than "copyedit", which means, "I changed some text, but didn't add or subtract any substantial facts". Lots of people just use the abbreviation "ce" for that. Again, it's not something you should be blocked for not using, but in a collaborative project, it's good to strive for a quality level that's better than just, won't get me voted off the island. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • BTW, another reason to use edit summaries is that they're searchable with a standard tool, which you can get to via the Edit summary search link at the bottom of your contributions page. For example, here's all the times I used cite in an edit summary. Metadata is really important in a big project. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. The trith is I'm often juggling ideas and wording and trying not to mess up. If I'm building am article it's one more thing to deal with. And I'm often makong multiple different types of changes and trying to keep things straight. You'll see I'm being threatened now for including conflicting information from two different sources without organizing and clarifying the content and for messing up a date. So it's dicey out there. My cursor and be jumpy. I have fat fingers. I'm kist trying to stay alive. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Toombs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constitutional Union Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Once again, thanks for your contributions. I can tell you have an obvious interest in history and enthusiasm for bringing to wider awareness topics that are not well known. However, I have now reviewed three articles by you and every single one has contained an obvious, easy-to-spot mistake.

I know doing everything right isn't always easy, but please actually review what you write. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if you feel that a topic is one you care about but that you don't really have time to do a complete article, you are quite free to ask for one to be written. Blythwood (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

And yet another case where you haven't actually read or thought about what you are copying and pasting.

Wikipedia requires editors to display competence in their actions and I have not yet seen you do anything but misunderstand, copy-paste and skim-read sources you show no signs of understanding. This is your final warning: start taking accuracy seriously or my next action will be a block request. Blythwood (talk

) 21:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

And I find your Reverse-contrast typefaces article rather poorly written. But I am glad you've been able to catch some of my mistakes. I definitely make a lot. Especially on new articles. I find it takes time to iron them out and I'm always glad to have assistance. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I completely understand this, and goodness knows I've made mistakes on here and had the benefit of attentive readers, many with a long lifetime of topic knowledge, who can improve my phrasing and spot my slips. What you should do is put an article in draftspace, on your sandbox, and go through checks and improvements to it until it reaches the point that it's ready to be put on public view.
Publishing an article on here is a statement in itself that it's finished, done, complete, validated, checked, something you would be happy for people to read to assess your competence. This is important because Wikipedia is very often the first, only thing people read on a topic if there's an article present, since it floats to the top of search engines. A false, inaccurate, copy-pasted article is worse than no article at all since people will read it instead of looking at more accurate sources. If you 'definitely make a lot' of mistakes, that's a sign that you should be going back over articles in a week or two with fresh eyes before they are published. Wikipedia has done perfectly well without an article on State Senator Wallace for fifteen years, it can wait another couple of days. Blythwood (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

What alternative source do you think covers him better? Where would you have readers go to learn about him?

I reject the idea that articles should be put up finished. Early input on notability, titling, existing articles that may cover the subject better, and allowing the community to work up a subject in collaboration seems to me to be at core of what makes a Wiki so successful.

Finally, I would suggest if my writing and editing annoys or upsets you simply avoid working on articles I'm creating. One of the freat things about Wikipedia is that there are lots of subjects to work and new pages and old pages and yet yet to be written pages to work on. I think being in conflict is generally unpleasant for all involved. There are lots of bad articles so perhaps try to focus on the editors and articles you get enjoyment from working on. Take care. Have a great weekend. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just FYI, I'm working on William Gaines (minister and community leader) and a source says "Over the years immediately following the Civil War, Rev. William Gaines and Rev. Wesley John Gaines established AME Churches across the state of Georgia, including the counties of Muscogee and Chattahoochee." It also gives the year of William Gaines death as 1865. So how was he working establishing chuech for 3 years after the Civil War if he died in 1865? Is that the wrong year of death? And where is Wills County, Georgia? Is it a misspelling? Is it a former county? There are always lots of wording issues and clarifications needed and contradictions and stylistic choices. Mistakes get made. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding the above, nobody expects new articles in mainspace to be perfect. Many people find, however, that starting a new article as a Help:Userspace draft or in draftspace is useful. The rules for those spaces are much more relaxed. As long as what you put there isn't libel, or a copyright violation, nobody's going to complain. You can start with scattered notes, and (especially in your own userspace) proceed at your own pace. Then, once it's in some sort of decent shape (again, doesn't have to be perfect, or even complete), you can move it into mainspace. It can be useful (though not required) to go through the WP:Articles for creation to get some review first. I've got early drafts of articles that have been sitting around in my userspace for years. Most are no more than some rough ideas and sketches. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you have any objection if I converted this page to use

Nope. None at all. I would be happy to leave all the formatting of references to others, but I've gotten a several requests / complaints so I'm trying to learn how to do them. Thanks for your help!!! FloridaArmy (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. There's plusses and minuses to this format, but my (current) opinion is that it makes it easier to edit the article because you've got the text in one place without the references cluttering it up so much that you can't read anything. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

RoySmith what do you think the most appropriate title for the article would be? Are you happy with

George Wallace (Georgia)? George Wallace (disambiguation) will need to be disambiguated. FloridaArmy (talk

)

How about George Wallace (19th century politician)? I think that would be better than the current name. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That would definitely work. I'd love a title that better distinguished the subject from the other George Wallace. I dunno. I understand one was 19th century the other 2pth and one in Goergia the other in Alabama, but still. :) FloridaArmy (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I'm just showing my lack of depth in American history, but I didn't even realize that George Wallace was from Alabama, not Georgia. I think most people will realize that George Wallace was not from the 19th century, so that's a better disambiguator. You should be able to move the page yourself; the instructions are at Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#How_to_move_a_page. If you have any problems, ping me. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating William Guilford, FloridaArmy!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed, though additional citations would be welcome

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about

SamHolt6 (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Samholt6. I agree. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I see you've been making a lot of articles, and some other users have pointed out some issues I won't bring up again, but I have something that might help! The Wikipedia Library Card might assist you in your page creation by adding solid sources from newspapers dating back to the eras your topics are about. I use it for almost every article I create and it helps greatly with finding some hard-to-find bits of information. The link is here: Wikipedia Library Card, and given your New page creation history you'll probably be approved to use newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com if you request them. Just thought I'd let you know about this in case you didn't already know! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Semmendinger! Yes, I've been meaning to look into it. Smmurphy told me about it but just haven't gotten around to it yet.

The article Montgomery Male Academy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Former school. No sources that discuss it in detail

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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 page 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. John from Idegon (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The White Company (retailer) 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/The White Company (retailer) (2nd nomination) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, FloridaArmy,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Amandine Ohayon should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amandine Ohayon .

If you're new to the process,

Thanks,

SamHolt6 (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Piss poor AfD, nobody thought of mentioning "Redirect to Pronovias" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frank A. Flower 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/Frank A. Flower 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Chetsford (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

	The Resilient Barnstar
	I see you getting jumped on and yelled at, and your talk page is full of deletion nominations for articles that end up being kept. Frankly, in your shoes I would have said "stuff this for a game of soldiers" and left. So I take my hat off to your resilience and determination to keep on writing the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional - your talk page is getting a bit long (although you can't view it from space like EEng's) - do you want to set up archiving (or get somebody else to set it up)? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ritchie. Very kind of you. I dp what I can. Keep up the great work. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi I've moved the nickname, hopefully that's a decent compromise? GiantSnowman 16:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I wasn't clear on your objection to includong it? You cited a policy page but it seems to support noting names people went by. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I see now you explained in a followup edit. Clarification looks fine to me. Was it not evident hat "Pink" was a nickname? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't clear at first, but I found it (sourced) elsewhere in the article. Glad we got there in the end! GiantSnowman 16:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Laudo Hayes Firm Day, FloridaArmy!

Wikipedia editor Eddie891 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please take care to look for spelling mistakes and continue to expand this article. It could use information on the actual celebration rather than just the reason for it. Creating unsourced articles is also a bad habit, consider using your sandbox to work on articles before you 'publish' them. Keep up the good work!

To reply, leave a comment on Eddie891's talk page.

Learn more about

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Whoisjohngalt. FloridaArmy, thanks for creating Edgar Allan Forbes!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for creating this article on this 20th century journalist. Here is a good tool that helps me to make better references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

Whoisjohngalt (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The link to the references tool doesn't seem to have come through. I agree the tool I've been using is pretty bad in a lot of cases. Honestly, I would leave raw links and let someone with the proper tools fix them but peeps complained so I have been aiming to please. Customer satisfaction is my #1 priority. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James M.Cox, Jr.. Since you had some involvement with the James M.Cox, Jr. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

On 22 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monroe Morton, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1910, Monroe Morton built the Morton Building and Theatre in the "Hot Corner", a center of African-American business and culture in Athens, Georgia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monroe Morton. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Monroe Morton), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, worked nicely in the right month! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious

center of African-American business and culture

Thank you for quality articles such as Monroe Morton, Emmett Jay Scott and Frank Cox (architect), for helpful stubs on biographies, places such as Sumica, Florida, and papers such as Southwestern Christian Advocate, for adding to articles and creating redirects, for collaboration and being open to suggestions, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Great!!! Some day I hope to move up and join you at Bodacious Wikipedian status, but I have a long way to go. Have a happy every day. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Great perspective! DYK that my first barnstar was (also) for resilience? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Not patience? FloridaArmy (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Florida! Nice job on the Carnegie page, I fixed up some of the formatting, and changed the way you linked to it on the Live Oaks Library page (per WP:MOS). I noticed you created a page for the WLD Johnson Neighborhood library and originally made the page under the improperly spelled name, W.L.D. Johnson Neoghborhood Library. I've never done a CSD before, but it seemed to meet the criteria for R3, which is why I listed it with CSD. Just thought I'd let you know in case you were wondering. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all your help Semmendinger! Very much appreciated. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Thomas W. Conway, FloridaArmy!

Wikipedia editor Semmendinger just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Fixed the references, otherwise the page looks good. Helpful tip for the future: When you find a reference with google books you can click on the right side bar "About this book" which will lead you to a book info page. While on the wikipedia editor, in the toolbar click "Cite" then "templates" and choose "cite book". Then just paste the URL from the new google page into the correct spot and hit the magnifying glass right next to it - all the book information will be filled in for you! You can use this tip on many other pages too, the magnifying glass icon will fill in refs for you very quickly, which is helpful for formatting :)

To reply, leave a comment on Semmendinger's talk page.

Learn more about

SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Charles W. Hornor, FloridaArmy!

Wikipedia editor Eddie891 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please take care to put more effort into your edits. Admittedly, you can do great work, but you leave a path of spelling errors and unfilled references behind you that are tedious to clean up in the best of circumstances. Other editors are not your maids. I'll repeat that you do great work, but PLEASE try to avoid credibility-damaging things such as spelling mistakes. It takes so little time to proofread something, and makes such a big difference

To reply, leave a comment on Eddie891's talk page.

Learn more about

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The article was created at 1:25 and it is now 2:10. And I've been actively eprking on it as the edit history shows. Some of the citation tools I've been shown do the entire page. That said I've been having some trouble woth how they format cites and the results dont seem especially satisfactory. I haven't asked anyone to do anything. It's a volunteer project. Please refrain from making any fixes you dont2 want to make. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Catahoula Parish, Louisiana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Cemetery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

On

1st Missouri Regiment of Colored Infantry in the civil war and, with his regiment, established the Lincoln Institute as a school for African Americans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Foster (abolitionist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Richard Foster (abolitionist)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page

.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

This person does not meet the

notability

standard.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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 page 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. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Audubon College, FloridaArmy!

Wikipedia editor Chetsford just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

In the future, when you locate a reference using Google Books kindly include basic information like the page number, year of publication, or even just the name of the book, using the "cite book" template rather than slapping up a 250-character bare URL with your search string included.

Also, please take care to correctly spell the titles of your references and include information by which they could possibly be checked or referenced in the future. For instance this-

John Smith Kendall's History of New Orlean

- doesn't really tell us what this is or how to locate it and, I suspect, spells "New Orleans" incorrectly on top of it.

This -

WP:REFBEGIN

- is a good source on referencing for beginners.

To reply, leave a comment on Chetsford's talk page.

Learn more about

Chetsford (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

here you go. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Great! You need to add this to the references section of the article you created though, not your personal talk page. Did you have a chance to read

WP:REFBEGIN? Chetsford (talk

) 15:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:About? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating

Wikipedia editor Chetsford just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

In the future please provide references in a form in which they could possibly be referenced by others. This reference -

"Houzeau's book on his experiences at the New Orleans Tribune"

- leaves no way by which it could ever be easily located. Is the name of the book "Houzeau's Book on His Experiences at the New Orleans Tribune", is it "Experiences at the New Orleans Tribune", is it something else entirely? When was it published? Who was the publisher?

WP:REFBEGIN

provides guidance on referencing for beginners.

To reply, leave a comment on Chetsford's talk page.

Learn more about

Chetsford (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"leaves no way by which it could ever be easily located." Are you sure? Did you try searching for it? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you had a chance to read

WP:REFBEGIN yet but, generally, we like to add things like the title of the book, its publisher, year of publication, etc., as opposed to a general description of the book. For instance, if sourcing Stephen King's IT a good bibliographic reference would be something like "King, Stephen (1968). IT. New York: Bantam. p. 12" as opposed to "King's novel about a clown." Thanks! Chetsford (talk

) 15:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

True. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating John Charnock, FloridaArmy!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

A well-written article and a useful addition to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about

Thanks! FloridaArmy (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating James E. Yeatman, FloridaArmy!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed, well done!

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about

SamHolt6 (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Samholt6! FloridaArmy (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hello wikipedian. You said I didn't give any citations for this assertion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research_and_Analysis_Wing_activities_in_Pakistan&diff=827971868&oldid=827971420. Can I mention this content with the doc file of WikiLeaks? 124279_Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.doc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WikiLeaks_cable.  M A A Z   T A L K  22:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ma'az! There are two issues or problems with Wikileaks as a source. 1) it is a primary source of leaked documents. So when you add content from them you are doing original research rather than reporting what is in a secondary source reporting on what's in the documents. That said, I am fairly inclusive and tolerant of sleuthing but with regard to this document what is it? Emails? From who to who? And what I saw was a series of quotes or comments of unclear origin. So Wikileaks is the host site of the leaked document but what is the document and is it a reliable source? I hope that makes sense and is helpful. :) FloridaArmy (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate your input. But the main question in our mind is "Is WikiLeaks a reliable source."? I don't think just saying that they are emails makes it of less value. If your,my or anybody else's comments or emails are published by a Media news channel, that reference would be labelled authentic. The main question is "How reliable is WikiLeaks"? Should we ask this question on AN?  M A A Z   T A L K  08:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ma'az who are the messages from? To? When were they sent? None of this was noted in the citation. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Pls check this page [1], where two tags have been added on top the article despite more than 20 citations of reliable newspapers/websites such as BBC, Dawn, Express Tribune have been added. Instead of pointing out any specific unreliable source, a tag has been placed on top of the article to generalise it, effecting the whole article's credibility despite substantial citations attached. Please look into this. Thanks (103.228.156.33 (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC))

I see the issues are discussed on the talk page including a request that the tags be moved inline to better identify the contested content. Seems reasonable to me. Good luck! FloridaArmy (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed a template that said it had one source. It has more than one source. I also removed the notabiloty template because it is at AfD. So it's redundant. And it's got soirces and more are on Google News. So O also disoute the tag. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Walter M. Digges shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Sitush (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you were doing at

I was writing an article with the best sources and info available. I have never heard of Prabook. When you write an article you should explain what the subject is in the opening paragraph. Criminal Tribes Act fails in this respect. I also encourage you to consider whether your edits improve an article. You include a lot of controversial commentary uncited. This is a no, no. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue what you are on about, sorry. But Prabook is not a reliable source, as has been discussed at

WP:RSN, and a huge chunk of what you wrote there was not supported by another source that you cited. - Sitush (talk

) 01:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but after finding a couple more problems in your subsequent "sourcing", I reverted everything you did since my note here. I can appreciate that you would not know of the Prabook issue but you appear to have repeated the same general problem that I also highlighted, ie: dumping a citation at the end of a paragraph where the source at best only supports a minute part of it. That is not the way we work: if a source supports one sentence or whatever then we should put the citation against that sentence, not all of the paragraph. I could try to pick it all apart but I'm simply not in the mood to do so and you were using some sources that I cannot see but, quite plainly, getting it wrong on those that I can see.

Please try to take this on board as constructive criticism, not some life-defining moment. I still have no idea why you are referring to the Criminal Tribes thing and, yes, I too make mistakes from time to time, but I'm pretty sure the CTA is not one of them, nor most of my numerous contributions. - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You are still adding stuff back that is not sourced and sometimes inserting it in a manner that makes it a misrepresentation of an existing source. Furthermore, you are not providing necessary information, such as page numbers. This is despite the 3RR warning below. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Jbhunley. FloridaArmy, thanks for creating Blyew v. United States!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please return to the article and correct the close paraphrasing. Wikipedia requires all articles to be written in your own words. Thank you.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

Jbh ^Talk 17:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

George Schuyler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Black Muslims

William D. Bloxham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rappahannock Academy

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I've enjoyed seeing your edits and new articles for the town of Henniker, New Hampshire. I'm wondering if you're a resident there. If so, would you know what's been going on at Craney Hill State Forest? I was adding coordinates to your article and looked at the air photos on Acme Mapper to confirm the neighboring gravel pits, and was very surprised to see that most of the forest property has been cleared and mined for gravel as well. Has there been any communication between New Hampshire Forests and Lands and the town of Henniker regarding this? Thanks, --Ken Gallager (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ken. Thanks for the message. I'm a fan of New Hanpshire and its history but no expert. I would like to see all the state's state forests have article and I believe the

WP:NGEO guideline states that protected areas are inherently notable. That being said, having lived out West I can report that government ownership or protective status is no guarantee of environmental conservation. Interesting that you're finding gravel pits at a State Forest. I'm afraid I can't add any insights but am interested in the issue and what yoir investigation incovers. Godspeed. Please let me know of I can help in any way. FloridaArmy (talk

) 16:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The article

reliable source

that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

Hi. Please don't post stub articles without references as they are liable to get deleted. Your sandbox is for experiments. Deb (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deb. Which article are you referring to? FloridaArmy (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

There were a few, such as Abbott State Forest, that you initially created without references, adding them in later. A lot of your articles on state forests still have no categories. Deb (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I can certainly try to include an under construction template but I don't think a statement about an area being a state forest in New Hampshire is a bad start to an article. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Put at least the following lines at the bottom of each New Hampshire state forest article, please:

{{Protected Areas of New Hampshire}} [[Category:New Hampshire state forests]] {{NewHampshire-protected-area-stub}} You can copy these lines from edit mode; don't copy the "nowiki" tags. Thanks, --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, like I said in my reply to your message on my talk page, I don't recommend creating an article for every state forest. Some are just too small and don't have any published access descriptions. So far, the ones you've created that I've edited have been notable, in my opinion, except for Craney Hill and Ames. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I can't find anything online about an Abbott State Forest in Merrimack County, New Hampshire, and the article is currently referenced only by a Google Books search for the name. Are you sure you've got the name of the state forest right? Thanks, The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Not as large as Russell-Abbott State Forest. New Hampshire calls lots of protected areas "state forests" but many are donated lands owned by that state not the major parks or preserves implied by the name. Some are logged. Or used as nurseries. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, but if it's a state forest, then there must be some mention of it somewhere. At the moment, you're continuing to create what are effectively unreferenced articles, by simply throwing on a Google Books search for the name inside ref tags. Dodge Brook State Forest is another example of this. Please slow down, and create good, well referenced stubs. There's no need to rush. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You say you can't find anything about Abbott on the other hand you criticize me and say the source I referenced from Google Books is just a link to a Google Books search. I haven't referenced any Google Books searches, I've referenced sources on Google Books that discuss the subject. If you couldn't find anything why are you criticizing me for the sources I've found? You also tagged one of my cites for failed verification but it absolutely states the area was logged "two or three years ago" for spruce. I'm sorry you aren't happy with my article work, I am always happy to receive suggestions or constructive criticism, but I'm not seeing the issie you're hitting at apart from what Ken Gallager noted above that there isn't a lot of coverage for some of these state forest areas. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The broader issue for me is that we have a list of New Hampshire State Forests but it's just a list of state lands thate have the words State Forest in their names. They are no different than lots of other state owned lands with names that don't include the words state forest. I would like to clarify and perhaps do an article on the structure and history of NH state lands. It's true that the "state forests" aren't hugely notable and supposed they could be merged to articles about the areas or town where they're located, but as I read

WP:NGEO, protected places and named georgraphic locations (natural features) are inherently notable. FloridaArmy (talk

) 18:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The guide states that natural features (such as forests, let's say) are "often notable", which is how we should be approaching it. I'm thinking references that discuss how to access a particular property would be an indication of notability, or any press coverage for whatever reason. Being listed in a database printout or in a master plan inventory, in my mind, is not automatically such an indication. --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although protected areas are said to be notable and I think I've sourced all the state forests I've wprked on to more than just to a directory list. If it pisses people off to work on them I can wprk on other articles. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to have articles on geographic features that are identified on maps and which can be sourced as far as their size, origin and designation. Some of their history is usually available as well or at least how they are used and function. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You're still creating articles without categories and with inadequate referencing. Please use the sandbox until the articles are ready, or use an underconstruction template. Deb (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Deb, can you please point me to the policy page where it says articles have to be created in sandboxes and not in article space? I've read that editors are to be given time to work up articles. Are you doing that? There's also quite a lot of policy about Wikipedia being a Wiki and a collaborative enterprise. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, your userpage says you delete articles without warning. But if you read our policy pages they CLEARLY state that alternatives to deletion and discussions with article creators FIRST are the way to go. It seems you like to pick and cboose which guidelines to follow. I guess I do too. So we have that in common. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

That isn't the only form of repeated bad editing practice. I am becoming fed up of FloridaArmy not taking on board what people say. Look at the mess at Walter M. Digges, for example, and umpteen posts on this page. It is going to end in tears. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes by all means look at the article Sotush linked and the edit history. He has rendered the entry almost unreadable. Requests quotes from sources then removes them. Removes burial info cited to a source with an actual photo of the headstone as unreliable. This is what we deal with. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You are becoming a timesink. Either listen to well-intentioned advice from people who have been doing this sort of thing for a lot longer than you or face the distinct possibility that your edits will come under intense scrutiny. You've done all sorts of "wrong" things just in the last week or so, including misrepresenting sources etc. It has to stop. - Sitush (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Diff please where I misrepresented a source. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The article right now, up to the point where I have inserted the first {{

cn}}. Then go back to the article immediately before my first edit and compared what you cited to p. 339 of the JHU book to what that book actually said. I could go on - it has been roughly 50% misrepresentation from the outset. - Sitush (talk

) 00:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy:, I started the Transportation in Augusta, Georgia page. That expanded the information that is on the Augusta, Georgia page's "Transportation" section, so only a brief blurb needs to be mentioned. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I see that you created a separate page but shouldn't the basics about infrastructure and transportation still at least be summarized in the Augusta, Georgia article? It seems like just linking to more in depth coverage in a separate entry isn't enough. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

In my initial edit, I added a summary of the transportation in the city. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Something I've noticed with your work at Walter M. Digges is that you do not often give an edit summary. They're useful for other people and, you may be surprised, can be useful to you in retrospect also. Not providing summaries, if done regularly, can be construed as disruptive editing. Overall, you've only provided them about 40 per cent of the time. You probably should improve on that. - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I see that on 3 March someone asked you above to fix the copyright problems at Blyew v. United States. You didn't and have only returned to the article now - four days later - when I changed a statement about distance because it was not in the cited source. Your return seems to have been entirely for the purpose of reverting me, not fixing the potential legal problems to which you have exposed Wikipedia.

Since you are online, I'll give you thirty minutes to fix those problems, failing which I am going to delete the last paragraph of the article. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed the "Background" section for the minute as there is too much text that is identical to https://nkaa.uky.edu/nkaa/items/show/2045. As you can see every time you open the edit window, you got a message "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted". I don't like doing this, as it upsets people and makes them feel their work is not valued, but I have to do it to comply with Wikipedia's licence policies. It's better than deleting the article or blocking anyone, which hopefully be not necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough Ritchie. I had made some changes and I believe there was more than one source used for the section you removed but I trust your judgment. I'm not convinced that basic statements about who was killed, their ages, or what type of ax was used are copyrightable. Seems to be part of the trial records and in the public domain. My understanding of copyright is that there has to be creative language or unique research involved. But again, I defer to your judgment. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, should be blocked for

WP:CIR and POINTiness at Walter M. Digges and elsewhere, not all of which relate to copyright. I've already given notice that I intend to review more of FloridaArmy's article - it is not stalking when the issues are as serious as these have been, eg: misrepresentation. - Sitush (talk

) 14:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sitush I am tired of your lies, harassment and disruptive editing. I did indeed make edits to the disputed section after the issue was raised. Please don't post on my talk page again. I'm sure you're familiar with talk page policies and understand that you will be sanctioned if you comment here further. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll accede to your non-collaboration request except where I am required to post here, eg: when I take you to

WP:ANI for all of the issues we've discussed and more. However, if you are not willing to collaborate then please don't revert me without a very good cause. Bye! - Sitush (talk

) 14:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC).

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mason Weaver 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/Mason Weaver 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi. The best, really, the only effective response to an AfD on a lightly-sourced article, is to source the article. You were quite right not to use unreliable sources, but there are solid sources on him - jsut takes searching. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scott Malcomson 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/Scott Malcomson 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• An encouraging word: An AfD like this on a conspicuously notable chap is pretty strange, but here's the thing. Even with an obviously notable subject it is far, far easier to only create an article if you can do so with enough solid sources to insure that no one will happen upon it an s drag it to AfD. AfD is a nuisance (indeed some editors start AfDs as a harassment technique) but it is a nuisance because it can come at an inconvenient time, or require lots of your time refuting misinformation on the deletion discussion page. Easier just to start articles that show clear notability. They don't have to be long, just solid. It takes a while to find your sea legs here. Welcome aboard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Hello, FloridaArmy.

talk!

) 12:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting thanks. I think it's actually individual members of the family and not the family as a whole that have sites named after them but I could be wrong. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your contributions to James A. Trimble. It escaped from being deleted as a consequence. I took the liberty, to make editorial improvements to the way on displaying the references. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Still needs quite a bit of work but happy to see it live to fight another day. An interesting topic. Thanks for your improvements to the article. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Schuyler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Muslims (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it's a disambig page but it also discusses the broader topic. Perhaps it should be a main subject page with a link to a disambig page for related subject matter? FloridaArmy (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi - many of your references are either bare URLs, search engine queries, or things like this [2]:

"Henniker Open Space Trail Plan"

The purpose of referencing is, among other things, to allow others to verify the authenticity of information so a minimal amount of bibliographic content is needed. Simply describing where you found content does not allow one to do this. For instance, an article on George Washington with a source like "Smith, John (2000). Biography of George Washington. New York: Lexington Books. pp. 199–213." allows verification of content, while the source constructed this way - "Smith's book about George Washington" - does not.
In the case above, one way you could have represented the source is like this:

"Open Space Trail System Plan for the Town of Henniker, New Hampshire" (PDF). henniker.org. Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission. Retrieved March 9, 2018.

This would allow others to quickly review the reference for verification, or to obtain additional information.
I know you've expressed in the previous messages from other editors to your Talk page that your standing policy is that these details are for others to clean-up because WP is collaborative, however, the template referencing system in the toolbar is very easy to use and - if it's possible we can gently encourage you to begin using it - it would allow us to clean-up your articles in a much more efficient manner. Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, FYI, there are several tools/scripts which make generating the baseline reference very easy:

• MakeRef
• Google Books RefMaker
• WebCite citation archiver
• ISBN 2 Wiki
• WP:CITOID
  which you can add to your sidebar by putting importScript('User:Salix alba/Citoid.js'); in your common.js.
• Wikipedia:Citation expander which you can enable in preferences

I know filling out the templates by hand is a pain but now you know there are tools to help. Jbh ^Talk 17:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the tips JBH. I have enabled citation expander and will give it a try. Not sure if it will work on my phone.. I tried another ref tool that was suggested to me but it did such a poor job I decided it was better to leave the refs raw so they could be properly formatted by an editor with better tools and know-how. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo    = old(31d)
| archive = User talk:FloridaArmy/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 150K
}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}

You can find more details at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo, but just dropping the above into your talk page should be fine. It won't take effect immediately; at some point, the bot will notice your page and do its archiving magic. Maybe it runs once a day, I'm not sure. You can look at my talk page for an example. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your awesome contributions to Florida articles and many other domains! gidonb (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow!!!!! Thanks so much. My pleasure. A lot of people have helped me a great deal. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This has been tagged for 2 issues.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about

Boleyn (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have moved your article

I believe you just violated both 1RR and "don't restore without consensus" provision (the stuff about McCabe's wife), not to mention WP:BLP on the Andrew McCabe article. Please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If I violated it didn't you also violate it restoring your edits? I reverted you. And made a paragraph. Your next step should not be to restore your disputed changes and then threaten me with 1RR when I remove them again along with an additional NPOV biolating quote you +. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict as I was adding extra material and clicked "save". However, regardless of whether you violated 1RR (which you did) you restored the challenged material TWICE - i.e. with full knowledge that you were violating a discretionary sanction. Seriously, please self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please revert or you are facing a block for "don't restore without consensus". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Neil are you talking to me or Marek? He added disputed content twice now. I'm confused how that is allowed? FloridaArmy (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I added particular content ONCE. I explained what happened with the edit conflict above. You restored disputed content TWICE. Now, you could argue that because of the edit conflict the second revert shouldn't count - fine. But that still leaves you restoring challenged material without consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

EC I went to self revert but Specico (sp?) Has already reverted. Awaiting explanation as to why Marek can readd disputed content without violating 1RR but restoring the status quo is a violation? FloridaArmy (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking to you as you re-added the disputed content. I see that SPECIFICO has reverted. All editors need to use the talk page now. I am assuming VM is objecting to material added today which you re-added. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, although roughly the same material had been added previously and I had challenged it previously. I'm assuming that the user who added it recently, User:Soibangla, was unaware of the previous "challenge". FloridaArmy was.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

EC I objected to Marek's additions and removals as explained in my edit summary. He then added the material back along with another NPOV violating quote. Are we going to make a quote farm of people who commented on the firing or do we just include criticisms? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any previous edits. I just saw Marek making lots of contentious changes. As I explained in my edit summary they were not appropriate. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If there's a stable version of the article please link to it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about a stable version, but Marek made a low of controversial changes adding one-sided quotes, removing Grassley and others objections to COI issues with wife's campaign, and an ooening paragraoh that is one sentence long. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I need to have a version to revert back to before all the challenges took place. This? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That version does have a couple BLP vios in it, like saying that McCabe is part of the "deep state" (even if attributed).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• (outdent) I went through Marek's.changes and they were obvioualy partisan and one-sided. Certainly adding quotes only attacking his firing is weird. And claiming that objections to noting McCabe's wife's political ties and donations received is a BLP violation is just weird. It's been widely reported on. Meanwhile he added language about "possible" criminality for a living person instead of maintaining a link to an active investigation. That clearly IS a BLP violation. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to add different quotes. I didn't add anything that wasn't well sourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem wasn't just the one-sided quotes you added (violating undue and npov) but that you also removed well sourced content about McCabe's wife taking donations and running for office while he oversaw an investigation into the leader of her party. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating William Taylor (historian), FloridaArmy!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Clearly a notable subject. An obvious thing to add with the biography of a published author is an "authority control" tag so that their work on library catalogues can be directly viewed. Noting his middle initial might also help with distinguishing him from others of the same name. It's preferable to use the Google Books citation generator to process Google Books citations since it adds things like ISBN number and author.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about

Blythwood (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips and for your help with the page. Let me take a look at your edit and what an authority control tag looks like.. The tag should be included fo any author? Just of books or articles too? Alive or dead? There are quite a lot of William Taylors so I was wrestling with how to title. Thanks for spotting the missing initial. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Does it matter which ISBN I use? Why are there two? FloridaArmy (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You should have obtained help from more experienced editors before replacing the draft in article space. Please don't do this again without making a serious attempt to improve the article. Deb (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Taking your points in order: authority control tags are a good thing to include for any subject with a publication history of any kind, including artists. They only become visible when a bibliographic author ID (such as VIAF) is attached to the article on Wikidata–so no need to worry about doing more than adding an authcon statement below the reflist. The citation generator takes the ISBN from Google Books-you just put in the URL and the beginning and end points of the page range you are citing and it will do the rest. Blythwood (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexander Stone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Graft (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello FloridaArmy,

When expanding bibliographies, please comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works. For contemporary books, please furnish the ISBN number and the publisher, at a minimum. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, FloridaArmy,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Holton High School should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holton High School .

If you're new to the process,

Thanks,

Eagleash (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello FloridaArmy,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged G. H. Glower for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

SamHolt6 (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Keep up the good work on writing articles on all the brave African-American men who served in the Georgia assembly during reconstruction. Let me know if you need any help. Meanderingbartender (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Fletchers Land, FloridaArmy!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please explain why "Zuku and Junie Restaurant" needs highlighting, or delete it from the article. It reads promotional. Surely it's not the only business in the neighborhood. Note

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about

--Animalparty! (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Animalparty. I included it because it seemed to be a significant institution in the community. I can't find good sourcing for it which makes me wonder of it still exists. The only other restaurant in the area I've come across is Culture Twist, an ex-con operating a restaurant out of wooden boxes to try and support his family. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)↔

Hi. Please check categories at Thomas Bayne. I've added some. Hope they are the correct ones. If not, please change. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello FloridaArmy,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Charles Sumner Sedgwick for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

SamHolt6 (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thanks SamHolt6. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done LadyofShalott 04:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, your edits creating and developing

I thought disambiguation pages are only allowed one link per entry? I know I've seen lots with redlinks.

Should the one called Palace Crystal Theater or Dixie Crystal Theater be included or only if there is evidence they are actually known as "Crystal Theater".

Thanks for your help.FloridaArmy (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Good, i was hoping i was helping, not hurting. Each item is supposed to have exactly one bluelink. If the item is itself a redlink, then it needs a supporting bluelink, and if/when the article is created, it's technically necessary to come back and remove the then-extra bluelink.

Dixie Crystal Theater is technically a "partial match" or "PMD" or some such term usually meant derogatorily, and some disambiguation editors will object, but they should only move it to a "See also" section. Although sometimes they just delete the partial match items, get the total number of items down to two, then PROD or AFD the page to destroy it and run up their deletion score or whatever.  :( Often for partial match items that I think are relevant to keep, I will support its inclusion by a phrasing like "'Dixie Crystal Theater', also known as 'Crystal Theater'". Where hopefully the DCT page shows the "Crystal Theater" as an alternate name. The disambiguation-rules-crazed editors will then be less likely to delete the item or move it See also section. It makes sense to me to keep all the U.S. ones in state then city order, to help reader do a lookup, rather than splitting into a regular list and a "See also" list, so I want to make it harder for them to mess things up. :) I am kinda battle-fatigued, having built most of the 4,500 or so disambiguation pages having NRHP items, which are categorized within WikiProject NRHP. Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Does it make sense to group the "theatres" and "theaters" separately or just lump them all together and go alphabetically by city? FloridaArmy (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's best to mix them and order by state then city. Readers can't be expected to know which spelling applies, and for many there will actually be spellings both ways in different sources, IMHO. Readers usually can be expected to know state and city. That's what i've done in many theater disambiguation pages, and I probably have returned and restored such ordering occasionally after others have done crazy other orderings, like putting all the bluelinks first then redlinks (which is silly as redlinks will turn blue) as if the fact of bluelink is so all-powerful an indicator of importance of the actual place, rather than being a random result of Wikipedia editor's random development of articles. Grr, i have some issues, come to think of it! --Doncram (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Howdy, per my spam on your Watchlist, there is a tool called

Sorry about that IVORK. I've been trying to use the refill tool at the top of my page and the Google Books remaker linked there as well. I will try to shape the new pages up. They also need categories, Wikiproject links and such. Much work to do.. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I did follow the instructions for how to add some kind of refill tool to my edit window. But haven't found it or used it yet. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

To add it in, you need to create and add the line

mw.loader.load( "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zhaofeng_Li/Reflinks.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript" );

into your User:FloridaArmy/common.js page. It will then appear in the left-hand column as reFill^(options). Clicking that while on any page will automatically scan the page you're on and take you to the results. There are plenty of scripts you can add in to help automate / highlight different things while editting. — IVORK _Discuss 03:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That page doesn't seem to want to let me copy and paste into it. I will try to take another look tmrw. Thanks for your help! FloridaArmy (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, User:IVORK, i applied your suggestion to my own common.js file and it works, i just used it in this diff upon an NRHP list-article. FloridaArmy, you don't have a common.js page yet, you can just create it with just the one item. See mine at User:Doncram/common.js, with multiple items. Note i usually add an explanatory comment after the indecipherable code, so I have a clue later about why i have that code. --Doncram (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Happy to be of help Doncram, and @FloridaArmy: perhaps try using this link? Special:MyPage/common.js. The page is admin protected by default to prevent other editors from potentially maliciously adding disruptive code into your browser, I'm unsure if you speficially need the Special link to get around it or not, goodluck — IVORK _Discuss 04:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Frank Marshall Davis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arkansas City High School

Jacob LaTurner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Galena High School

List of high schools in Kansas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Deerfield High School

Madelyn Dunham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Augusta High School

Monroe Work (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arkansas City High School

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi FlA, please, please, please start using edit summaries on a regular basis. LadyofShalott 13:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about my edits to Ignatius Elgin Shumate? I thought I used edit summaries? And initiated discussion on a couope issues on the article's talk page. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You used them on two edits out of several, just the edits where you added paragraph breaks. LadyofShalott 21:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Using edit summaries came up in a discussion section below. What i have to say (adapting what i said there) is IMO edit summaries are not absolutely required (or the Wikimedia software could enforce it) but it is courteous and good practice. Another editor that I've recently collaborated with has a practice of creating new article in a user page in many edits without using edit summaries, then copy-pasting it into mainspace all at once, which is a different way of operating that avoids having the resulting edit history be unlabelled. I prefer to develop new articles in mainspace and to always give an edit summary... easy to do. After my first creation edit where I make some effort to compose a meaningful edit summary, I often just use "add" or the like, which my browser pops up as a suggestion when i hit just one letter.

To go further, really it becomes easier and easier if you do use edit summaries. When I create a new article I make an effort to suggest what it is about and why i came to be starting it, e.g. if i created a new article like Waconia City Hall I would have mentioned architect Charles Sumner Sedgwick in the edit summary. If i created an article to support its item being in a disambiguation page I indicate that, e.g. "create article supporting Crystal Theater dab". I am often creating new NRHP articles with "create NRHP article in COUNTY" where COUNTY is the NRHP list-article that I am working from. I use Chrome browser which pops up suggestions when i start to type anything in the edit summary box, which I can just point to with down with another keystroke, then perhaps modify, and select hit return. For example

• "r" suggests "revise"
• "a" suggests "add" or "avoid dab link"
• "b" suggests "begin article, tagging with "under construction""
• "c" suggests "create NRHP article in Idaho County, Idaho" and "create category" and others
• "d" suggests "disambiguation"
• "e" suggests "expand" and "expand NRHP nomination document reference to include authors, date of preparation, etc. Other."

Whichever ones i select get "learned" better by Chrome and are suggested first.

I sometimes edit in a different browser where there are less suggestions popping up, which reflects i have less past history in that browser.

My point is that it gets easier and faster. It is so easy and automatic that I do not think about it at all. Sometimes I automatically select something that doesn't apply, like "expand" when it is the first edit creating an article, so maybe in my next edit I give the edit summary that I should have the first time. But overall my edit summaries are pretty informative about what I am doing.

My having informative edit histories has been helpful to me later, sometimes, in defending myself from weird attacks later. Like I can figure out why i created an article about some theatre, because I was developing a disambiguation page and this item's inclusion needed to be defended. So I created the article with less info/sources than i would usually, because of the fact that someone was trying to delete the item at the disambiguation page. So if someone is attacking me for having created the theater article as a short stub, I can at least know why I was creating it that way then. Attacking/harassing happens, but less if you do have edit summaries, which is helpful for friends of you and your articles too. --Doncram (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear FloridaArmy I worked a bit on your article Crystal Theater (Dublin, Georgia) adding categories, more specific stub and one book mention. Please add more references. It was unclear for me from the article when it was opened and when it was closed down/turned to the restaurant. Good luck with your edits! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2018)

Thanks for the suggestions Bbarmadillo. I will try to work it up a bit more, improve the references, and answer the issues you've raised when I get a chance. Thas for your help! FloridaArmy (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

...is now in

Please explain how creating and working on that entry in article space is disruptive. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the page I just referred you to? You know what your sandbox is for; please just use it. Creating lots of half-finished articles is not useful, and you've been previously warned about it on this very page. See also Wikipedia:Competence is required.Deb (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That essay notes "Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter." I'm sorry you think I'm incompetent and that the Alexander Stone addition is unhelpful. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

An incomplete article is not an "improvement"; it just creates work for others. You showed early on that you are capable of writing a decent article, yet after a couple of years here, you seem to think it's okay to act like a newbie and to ignore advice and repeated requests to do things properly. Just on this talk page, I have observed most of the disruptive behaviours listed in that essay: for example,

• tendentiousness
• Does not engage in consensus building
• Rejects or ignores community input
• Failure or refusal to "get the point"
• Point-illustrating

Nobody's perfect, but eventually the community's patience with you will wear out, and continued disruptive editing can earn you a block. If that happens, don't look for my support. If you had really wanted a reply from me to your comments above, you would have posted them on my Talk page or drawn my attention to them, but it does start to seem like all you want is an argument. I hope not to have to contact you again. Deb (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Just popping by to say that if you do get blocked, you can count on my support of an unblock. I regret to disagree with

here to help, and they're generally doing great work. Certainly incomplete articles are bad news, but I have seen no indication that they do not complete them for the most part in a few hours. Do check out using a sandbox for that point please, FloridaArmy. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work

17:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, maybe you know this, maybe you don't, but you can use {{Ping|Username here}} or {{u|Username here}} to contact a user if they may be not watching your talk page. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• I found myself here through clicking away from an AfD discussion. I'm sorry but I cannot agree with the notion that half-made articles are fine for uploading. Whoever says this misunderstands the spirit of Wikipedia's inclusiveness. The point of statements like "we can all contribute" and "unfinished work is OK" is NOT meant to encourage, or even allow, sloppiness, laziness, or burdening others with work. The point is that we should all be doing our best! If we are able, as evidently FloridaArmy is, of building a solid text, we should do so, and not be content with just a few bricks! And if we truly cannot post up an adequate article about a subject, then we should allow others to do it. (Or propose, in the appropriate talk space, that the article be created.) Otherwise, Wikipedia would be flooded with incompetent efforts and text drafts. People use Wikipedia all the time for information and they are entitled to the best efforts of anyone who wants to contribute here.

As it happens, I recently put up an

people who feel strongly about Economics articles) with the task of improving it or making it whole. I chose many hours of work instead. In sum, I submit that we should move away from the desire to have one more Wikipedia article notched in our "articles created" belt; in fact, I believe that such a proclivity should be actively discouraged. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk

) 18:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Apart from having a lot of asides in the opening paragraph, which is all there is as far as an intro goes, the article never says what the opposing viewpoints are in its opening. If it were up to me I would make a lot of changes and substantial inprovements to rework it.

Which illustrates the strength of Wikipedia. We all benefit from peer review and collegial collaboration. What is so great about Wikipedia is having help and input on articles right from the getgo. Perhaps a subject is already covered under a different name. Maybe it needs to be merged. Maybe an author is confusing two subjects of similar names. I don't think Wikipedia was ever intended as a host for completed works by authors written up independently on their own. It's a collaborative enterprise. Some editors have difficulty with that aspect, and autism, aspergers and other social dysfunctions can make working together challenging for some people, but if we are collegial and keep our focus on the goals of what's best for the encyclopedia and helping each other amazing things can be accomplished. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. My comments were not about the article (or the draft) about "Alexander Stone". They were addressing the specific point about starting an article and letting others "finish" it, "improve" it, etc, intentionally. In other words, it's quite alright if we do the best we can do, and allow others to improve our work. It is not alright (it most definitely is not) to scramble together lazy, hurried, fuzzy text and post it up, knowing that others will surely take up our (literal) slack.

Some people might have indeed some difficulties with the work itself. You listed, for example, some disabilities. But what I'm saying stands: We should strive for our best, as much as each one can. This is an encyclopaedia; it might be fun and enjoyable to work on it, but the work itself is not a game, but something quite important, as evidenced by the plethora of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. The "beauty of Wikipedia" is the opportunity it offers to contributors to work together to produce encyclopaedic content, yes. But this opportunity is not an excuse for cavalierly lazy work. Drafts are not articles; they are drafts. This is why we have sandboxes. Understanding the guideline about "gradually building articles" to be a permission to create and post adrift mediocre content comes close to an abuse of guidelines, with all due respect. -The Gnome (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. It just occurred to me that your comments ("lot of asides in the opening paragraph...never says what the opposing viewpoints are in its opening...I would make a lot of changes and substantial improvements") are not about "Alexander Stone" but refer to the article I created, the one I offered as an example of what I mean by "hard work". Well, again, you're falling into the trap of an adversarial stance, instead of trying to understand what the other party is saying.

Again my point still stands, even if you fail to understand it: That new article might be lacking, as you claim, but the hard work behind it is evident; I tried to do my best. And that is all that's required from us. At any stage of the development of the text, I could have posted it up, as a draft, and let others work it out. But that would be an abuse of Wikipedia's open-source policy. Moreover, in your haste to contradict, you go way off: The article is about a debate. It's called "

own it. In any case, don't think that the draft "Alexander Stone" is anything but a draft. Floating such stuff up in Wikipedia as a fully fledged article is neither "fun" nor an invitation for "harmonious" editing. It's just bad editing. People read Wikipedia all the time and expect better than this. Take care. -The Gnome (talk

) 07:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Apart from replacing incomplete articles in the encyclopedia, which you've been warned about numerous times, you've now created redirects from your sandbox to article space. Can you please try and get it together and make sure you stop creating articles in main space without categories and with inadequate content and inadequate references. And while you're at it, start using the edit summary - another thing you've been warned about. I won't be asking you again - if I see any more disruptive editing I'll protect the articles so you can't recreate them until they're ready. Deb (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Please point me to the policy page that says articles have to be complete before they are created. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If you wanted a dialogue, you'd have put this on my talk page (as I've told you before). What you're doing is disruptive editing, because it creates unnecessary work for others. I have told you above what I'll do if you carry on ignoring all advice. If you still don't understand what you're doing wrong, there are plenty of pages where you can go for guidance, including Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to keep conversations in one place, thanks. Please point me to the policy page that says articles must be complete before they're put in mainspace. Please point me to the page that says article subjects that aren't complete when they're created can be deleted and protected from firther creation or improvement. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

From the policy page you linked to aabove: "You just need to remember that you can't break Wikipedia and although there are many protocols, perfection is not required, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles." Get with the program. You should consult the policy pages on stalking amd harassment. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Deb, it looks to me like your abrupt actions and rude words are in the wrong here. I happen to have been collaborating informally with FloridaArmy over the good new Crystal Theater (disambiguation) page and the new Charles Sumner Sedgwick architect article and associated pages, and find them to be making good contributions. Some comments:

• Silly to complain that FloridaArmy responded to you on this page where you started it!
• What on earth are you thinking, Deb, to suggest that it is wrong to have a redirect from userspace to mainspace; that is what happens when you create an article in your space then move it to mainspace. I have done that a lot and it is fine. It is true but not applicable here, that cross-namespace redirects of some kinds (like from mainspace to userspace) are not okay, and there are bots which identify and address such cases. Not an issue here. Deb is simply wrong AFAICT.
• About new Waconia City Hall (old one designed by Sedgwick and is NRHP-listed) if you want to complain about notability that would be ludicrous. Your edit there to add "United States" is wrong IMHO and I will remove that. Your addition of another category to add to the one FloridaArmy had put in is a minor contribution. But there is no requirement that a zillion or any other number of categories be added up front; categorizing is a weird specialty that most of us do not have to participate in.
• In this edit, Deb abruptly moved a legitimate article with a source to FloridaArmy's userspace, and FloridaArmy was right to simply move it back. The
  wp:BEFORE
  , to contest its existence, which you did not do.
• However Deb and others have a right to express concerns or make suggestions. For this to be a collaborative project we need to respond civilly to civil suggestions. And FloridaArmy has actually been responding positively to suggestions (me about developing items named Crystal Theater or similar to support the dab page; someone else about bare-url-fixer tool, responding civilly to someone about edit summaries). About using edit summaries, that is a topic which can further be discussed, e.g. in the civil discussion section above. IMO edit summaries are not absolutely required (or the Wikimedia software could enforce it) but it is courteous and good practice. Another editor that I've recently collaborated with has a practice of creating new article in a user page in many edits without using edit summaries, then copy-pasting it into mainspace all at once, which is a different way of operating that avoids having the edit history be unlabelled. I prefer to develop new articles in mainspace and to always give an edit summary... easy to do. After my first creation edit where I make some effort to compose a meaningful edit summary, I often just use "add" or the like, which my browser pops up as a suggestion when i hit just one letter.
• Perhaps Deb was having a bad day; this seems aggressive and inappropriate. Deb is wrong / out of tune with general practice on some points here, and as such they shouldn't be chastising another editor like this.
• Deb did use administrative tools in the action to remove an article from mainspace without leaving a redirect behind, and perhaps in more actions. If they do any more of that, then this becomes admin abuse of tools, and is basis for serious action to counter that, up to and including de-sysoping.
• They weren't completely wrong about everything, but this overall is out of line. FloridaArmy, ping me or otherwise let me know if there's anything more and I will do what I can to help.

--Doncram (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Deb replied elsewhere, including with assertion that I am incorrect in some of my statements, but without saying which or how any statements are incorrect. So this is not a discussion that is happening. They don't have to explain themselves further, if they don't want to focus here, and maybe that is best. Also whatever criticism they have expressed so far here, should not count in any future conflict resolution, because they are not explaining, that is how this should work.

It would probably be politically smart to make some adjustments, FloridaArmy, anyhow, wherever you can see some merit to suggestions, which indeed I think was/is happening. I expanded on my thoughts about edit summaries in the separate discussion section further above. --Doncram (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Doncram. Could you direct us with a link to "elsewhere"? :-) Thanks in advance. I agree with you about the harshness of Deb's tone (which could have been the result of frustration from bad communication; we cannot know). And I agree with most of your sentiments in that detailed response, above. This does not mean that FloridaArmy's points are all correct, IMVHO. My own objections to a specific point supported by FloridaArmy are here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The Gnome, I see your comments above as reasonable too. Well, my point is that real communication is not happening with Deb anyhow, who is preferring not to continue here. I commented at their Talk page; they replied at mine; their and my choices to comment at those other places reflect their and my being done with this for now. --Doncram (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

On 31 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Greenhaven, Georgia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the proposed city of Greenhaven, Georgia, would have a population of 300,000, making it the state's second largest city after Atlanta? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Greenhaven, Georgia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Greenhaven, Georgia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Very cool, thanks. I think SounderBruce did the vast majority of the work. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emily Mellencamp Smith 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/Emily Mellencamp Smith 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elaine Herzberg#Requested move 6 April 2018. — IVORK _Discuss 00:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

On

White Mountains of New Hampshire and have numerous places named after them there? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crawford family of the White Mountains. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Crawford family of the White Mountains), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page

.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello FloridaArmy,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Origibal Casuals for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Nerd1a4i (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, FloridaArmy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started,

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Obaid Raza (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You should put something, however brief, on User:FloridaArmy. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It's there now. Deb (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Boleyn. FloridaArmy, thanks for creating Shamrock, Florida!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add categories to the articles you create.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, FloridaArmy,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Marie C. Couvent Elementary School should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie C. Couvent Elementary School .

If you're new to the process,

Thanks,

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, FloridaArmy,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Sharon Springs, Georgia should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Springs, Georgia .

If you're new to the process,

Thanks,

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heritage Hills, Oklahoma City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstate 235 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

When creating new articles you should put them into categories. All articles are supposed to be categorized....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I was just coming to say the same thing. I did a single category for the article at Palco High School but there could likely be more. I also added assessment templates to the talk page which is a good way to notify members of particular projects of new articles. Just FYI. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vivian Burey Marshall 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/Vivian Burey Marshall 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cecilia Suyat Marshall 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/Cecilia Suyat Marshall 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

For this subject, the court case Lyons v. Oklahoma appears more notable than the person. If reliable sources predominantly and consistently discuss a person in relation to a broader subject or event, it makes more sense to write about the event.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about

--Animalparty! (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right @Animalparty, on the other hand that is the name of the appeal of the original case where he was found guilty of the triple murder. I also prefer the focus on the human being involved who suffered the beatings by police and gross miscarriages of justice rather than a title focused on the name of ine of the legal cases that punished him. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it to the case, as most mentions of Lyons are in reference to the Supreme Court and/or Thurgood Marshall. We should follow reliable sources when possible, not seek to '

right the great wrongs' of history by granting undue emphasis to people or events. This doesn't mean Lyons the person and the events that made him known can't be described in the article (e.g. in a "background" or "defendant section), but that the broader context should be emphasized. Just as we don't have articles for every minor fictional character in a book, we need not have biographies for every name that appears in a Thurgood Marshall biography. --Animalparty! (talk

) 22:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. The murders and trial were extremely notable. The man at the center of it all is veruly notable. The Supreme Court appeal was just one part of it and as you note a footnote in his career. The grislt murders and man accused and convicted are from my perspective the real story. Have you looked for contemporary coverage? FloridaArmy (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating

Wikipedia editor Kudpung just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

To avoid deletion please complete this stub according to the standard Wikipedia presentation and layout for schools

WP:GNG

.

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.

Learn more about

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Phillipsburg High School (Kansas), FloridaArmy!

Wikipedia editor Kudpung just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

To avoid deletion please complete this stub according to the standard Wikipedia presentation and layout for schools (

WP:GNG

.

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.

Learn more about

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Boleyn. FloridaArmy, thanks for creating Larned High School!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add categories to articles you create.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Swing Time Records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supreme Records (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, FloridaArmy. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Canaan Union Academy, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)