User talk:Sunshineisles2/Archive 1

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to J. K. Rowling, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Bernie Sanders is on the front porch with Mike Klopp

Thanks for uploading

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to I Wish (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Tomatoes]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/i_wish_2012|Title=I Wish|work=[[Rotten Tomatoes|accessdate=2013-07-21}}</ref>

Thanks,

Thanks for uploading

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from

Thank you. I see you have already taken the step to do so. --

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 05:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

My apologies for reverting your first edit. I was too hasty. Happy New Year! Sundayclose (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It's alright. Happy new year! --

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 19:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The Locus piece was wrong - premature - see the Locus front page now. His wife reported half an hour ago that he is in very critical condition and is not expected to survive, but he is still alive. Please wait. Tvoz/talk 06:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. It seems there has been a bit of confusion all night over whether he is alive or not. In any case, I have reverted the article to a "critical condition" version that I briefly had up. --

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 06:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there has been a lot of confusion. But my information is accurate as of 1:30 AM EST - Locus and PNH had it wrong. Thanks for the fix - this is very sad and difficult. Tvoz/talk 06:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't very familiar with Hartwell before hearing the sad news, but the more I've read about him, the more of an impact it's clear that he has had.--

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 07:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Tvoz/talk 08:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see

Hello. I am well aware of that page, and have used it before, but in this particular example, there was no reason given for its removal, no talk page discussion, or any prior complaints.

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 17:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RegistryKey -- RegistryKey (talk

The article The Andy Griffith Show you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Andy Griffith Show for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RegistryKey -- RegistryKey (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I just filed an arbitration request against The Rambling Man, citing an example in which you were involved in. You might be interested in the case. Link is here: [1]. Thanks, Banedon (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 15:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in discussions about

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You've made recent edits to Kevin L. Bryant, Hugh Leatherman, and Yancey McGill by deleting or altering the office of President pro tempore of the South Carolina Senate. Even though these offices were briefly held, they are important enough to note as it was a requirement in the gubernatorial line of succession. Additionally, the issues with "office jumping" resulted in a constitutional amendment, which is also notable. We believe you had the best intentions, but your edits have been reverted. --Nicholemacgregor (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 04:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2:I'd agree not to list Dick Cheney as acting president for four hours. But Hugh Leatherman resigned and was subsequently reelected. I doubt that qualifies as nonessential. The South Carolina law requiring the President Pro Tem to elevate to Lt. governor was a strange law and is the only reason these infoboxes are seemingly odd. But having the office present in the infobox allows the reader to trace the constitutional rule, it's nullification, and its effect on SC politics. --Nicholemacgregor (talk

) 04:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 04:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I noticed your edit on the article Barack Obama for the capitalization of "President of the United States" and I agree and appreciated it but if you visit other articles for other US presidents you would notice that user Joefromrandb changed like a dozen of them this way. I tried to fix them but he reverted my edits. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 20:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

On 8 June 2019,

Linda Collins-Smith, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page

.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

On 30 June 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Whitney North Seymour Jr., which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

– Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Please reread this one – it doesn't say what you think it does, at all... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 07:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to respond a few months late. Was trying to do something nice. To put up his top ten list. Most films critics have top ten list on their pages. I am dumbfounded that you don't its necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:200:A661:A915:1ADD:C7F2:8995 (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Many editors who have encountered such lists, myself included, have found top 10 lists on the articles of critics to be overly promotional and/or trivial. If you disagree, and believe that an archive of top 10 lists is appropriate on a particular page, please open a discussion on the

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 23:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason the dates were in dmy format in the Chief Keef article is that when I began the copy edit for the GOCE all of them in the Infobox and the majority throughout the article were in that format. I was simply making them all consistent. I believe the general rule is the date format used when the article is created is the one later editors follow; it has nothing to do with where the subject was born. Since you've made the change I'll leave it alone. Regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 17:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2: Having read this again, it's really a judgment call depending upon the article's subject. But, like you, in this case I prefer the "strong ties" suggestion over "consistency". It just makes so much more sense. Thanks for pointing it out. Twofingered Typist (talk

) 13:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 21:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I'm on a "side" for one or the other; rather, I'm just thinking about

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 04:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

...creating total inconsistency with the use of American English.12.144.5.2 (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

PMJI, but one is for semi-automated checking of date format, and the other for semi-automated checking of spelling/manual adjustments of vocab in a few instances. If one necessitated the other their wouldn't be any need for two separate templates. Where mixed forms are found unifying on the one most prevalent is reasonable. If you disagree with having separate templates I think the village pump is the place to raise that issue. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

On 19 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Geulah Cohen, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

On 30 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jerry Herman, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

On 21 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Derek Fowlds, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

My research shows that Diffie was first contacted by Liz in advance of Davy Allison's funeral for the purpose of obtaining the sheet music to one of Diffie's hits. Diffie sang the song at the funeral and a friendship blossomed which led to their living together in Nashville. Diffie's wife had filed for a legal separation and was awarded a divorce in 1996. The way the narrative currently reads is that whomever wrote it has an ax to grind in order to make Joe and Liz appear to be doing something wrong. They weren't. Joe was legally separated and taking care of his wife and children and lived separate and apart from them while he was with Liz in a committed relationship, a relationship his wife was fully aware of. I think the narrative should be reworked to accurately reflect their relationship and to stop it from reading like a dime novel. Thanks for reading my thoughts. Reference: "Miracle: Bobby Allison and the Saga of the Alabama Gang" by Peter Golenbock, https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/miracle-peter-golenbock/1111508049Writer2022 (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 20:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to understand your edit summary better. What do you mean by "there wasn't anything in this box anyway"? How is an IP user supposed to understand why their contribution was rejected? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 20:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 20:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I also don't know. Let's assume that is a new user, how would s/he even know how to find an edit summary? I remember my first days on Wikipedia, when I added something, that was gone after a while, and I thought I had just made a mistake when saving, and did the same thing again. Some must have thought I was edit-warring ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that it's worth taking the extra effort to err on the side of more expansive/explanatory edit summaries whenever appropriate.--

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 22:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but what I remember is when a user doesn't yet know that there is such a thing as article history, where edit summaries can be read. I have no idea what an IP editor receives when reverted. - Back to my first question, though, what do you mean by "... wasn't anything ...", when it looks pretty much like

Beethoven? --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 22:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

My point was that the only content in the Penderecki IB was/us the birth/death places and nationality—while that might be what the consensus for the IB on the Beethoven article is, my general understanding of an infobox is that it usually needs to have substantially more than just that, barring consensus to the contrary. Otherwise, why have one if it's just repeating everything seen in the lede (as articulated in the

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 23:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

On 9 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Little Richard, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thyra Stevenson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Madrid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

——Serial ^# 17:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits on this entry. Thank you. (2601:543:4380:3A10:6856:D66A:DF5A:22C (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC))

I fail to see what was "unconstructive" about my edits. The article has no inline citations anywhere—including reports of the subject's death—and per

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 18:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The citations i.e. a death notice is pending. reverting the entire page as if Ted is alive is not the way to go. Also, his name wasn't 'Edward' though I am not sure you were the one who added that in. Did you know Ted personally? Ted wasn't at the level of fame where his death would be reported by national news outlets, so please bear that in mind. (Sellpink (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC))

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 18:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The most recent edit requesting citation and noting that there are currently none seems like an appropriate compromise while the death notice is published. Thank you. (Sellpink (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC))

Hi - I noticed you removed the "current election" template from this page. While the projections have been made and Bush is the definite winner, the results could still change until they're considered "official" by the Missouri Secretary of State. See here for the actual results page where it still says "Unofficial" for this race. Paradoxsociety 17:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I should have said the numbers could change slightly. The result/outcome of the race won't change. Paradoxsociety 17:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

On 4 January 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Paul Westphal, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 10:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't look very carefully and then I saw you had already added her memoir, but I put it under personal life while you put it under career. Would you agree to let it be moved to personal life?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 17:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the article I'm reading (the 1:52pm version – I hope you're reading the same one). Quoted directly: "Allan Burns, a television producer and screenwriter best known for cocreating and cowriting for the television sitcoms The Munsters, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and Rhoda, has died. He was 85 and no details were immediately available on the cause of death.". —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 23:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, just refreshed the page. My bad haha. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem!--

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 23:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

On 1 February 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Allan Burns, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

On 3 February 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Maureen Colquhoun, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 22:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The Reason Jen Psaki was added as declined is because she was in a position mount a serious campaign for governor do to the fact that her Predecessors Predecessors is doing the exact same thingSnowycake (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 16:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand and respect your opinion how ever she is prominent enough to run for governor if she chose Snowycake (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Not saying she isn't prominent, but there was no serious speculation that she was going to—especially next year, with an incumbent governor from the same party eligible for re-election.--

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 16:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There may have been a little bit between the time huckabee announced and she declined Snowycake (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 21:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

We're going around in circles here; I meant a source indicating that there was speculation alongside the source of her declining. We know she said she isn't running, my qualm has always been that I don't know if there was serious speculation to begin with.--

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 21:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

On 13 February 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Leslie E. Robertson, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 03:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

On 13 February 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sinyo Harry Sarundajang, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 17:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

On 10 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Steven Spurrier (wine merchant), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Really you tagged as "problem sentences" due to "excessive citations" and you chose not to fix it yourself? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of being blunt, yes. It was late at night, I looked at the page, saw one-sentence claims tagged with the same five sources apiece, and I was honestly too tired at that point to make anything more than those edits. I can certainly have a look at it later, but it just wasn't practical for me to do so at that time.--

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 17:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I was not trying to be difficult. I would like to trim this to your liking, but I don't know what standard (quantity or quality) you are applying. Or want? I don't want to cut too many or too few. Or the wrong ones. Trying to measure this — like equity and the "chancellor's foot" or the emperor's ear Die_Entführung_aus_dem_Serail#"Too_many_notes" — makes me queasy. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's admittedly an imprecise standard on its own, but I think it just goes on a case-by-case basis: take the sentence "Simon quit after three years of intense training, due to his concerns that his social life was suffering," in the second paragraph of the early life section. It's followed by five citations. It just strikes me as unnecessary, and I think raises some questions. Do all five sources verify this claim? Are all five sources necessary to verify this claim? If we were to pare it down to one reliable source, would someone substantively challenge it as insufficient? The answer to all of these questions is, as far as I can tell, no. Now, the real challenge of it is that it requires looking through the sources with more scrutiny than I have given thus far, and determining the best way to cite each claim individually. I'd certainly be open to having a closer look myself, but at that time yesterday evening, I was not able to. That was my rationale behind the tag; it wasn't out of some secret, nefarious desire to run out the clock on the nomination. I just didn't think that the sourcing in those specific instances was quite up to the standard of what's necessary or preferable.--[[User:Sunshineisl]

Thanks for responding. Your answer wasn't. I guess I will cut them down to one source on most of them, and you can peruse that, if you are so inclined. Tagging without editing is one way to participate. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I cut back on the references. I noted you were editing there, too. I hope that helps. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. I just did a few more edits myself. All of the sources were reliable (except for one claim that was sourced to the IMDb, though I was able to find a better replacement), and it looks like it was mostly just a matter of specifying which sources verify which claims.--

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I tried to add you as an article improver at

WP:ITN but somebody beat me to it. Thanks for getting on this. I had worked very hard on this article, and it is frustrating when it just get ignored at ITN. I have several horror stories there. Neil Peart and Joe Cocker (I think, not sure) and Dr. John — there were others — all of which failed the ITN imagined 'tests' based on how prolific they had been (basically disregarding the overall shape of the article, and focusing on the fact that they had been so prolific, and every work didn't have a citation). ITN has been habitually perverse; and I am largely gun shy. I am not confident that this one will get through, either. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎

) 22:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

On 17 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cliff Simon, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

On 31 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Didier Ratsiraka, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 02:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

On 9 April 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Phillip Adams (American football), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! VV 05:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

On 4 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gavin MacLeod, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

On 16 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Carol Jarecki, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

On 29 July 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mike Enzi, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 16:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jeanne Robertson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WRAL.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

On 25 August 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jeanne Robertson, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 04:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I came to Brett Butler (actress) to add info from the recent Hollywood Reporter article, but I was happy to see it had already been added to the article. Thanks! Marquardtika (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

On 1 October 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 74th Tony Awards, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 01:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phil Murphy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WABC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

On 25 November 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article James Fitz-Allen Mitchell, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

On 7 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Fred Hiatt, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. TJMSmith (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

On 16 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Charles R. Morris, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. TJMSmith (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

On 29 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Harry Reid, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

On 31 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bruce Davis (offensive tackle), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 23:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

On 16 January 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Terry Teachout, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 01:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

On 20 January 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article André Leon Talley, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Cooper Raiff, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

talk

) 16:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing Actions Requested on 1-30-22: 1. “American emigrants to Sweden” is incorrect category for Everett Lee, conductor. This is inaccurate and misinformation. Lee worked frequently in the United States.

Carnegie Hall Digital Collections https://www.carnegiehall.org/About/History/Performance-History-Search?q=&dex=prod_PHS&pf=Everett%20Lee_ Lee needs to be removed from this category “American emigrants to Sweden.”

2. Lee needs to be placed also into category of “Music director (opera).” Lee conducted over 100 opera performances. Reference: "Wheeling Born Maestro Celebrates 100th Birthday". www.archivingwheeling.org August 31, 2016 by Erin Rothenbuehler. Retrieved January 13, 2022

http://www.archivingwheeling.org/blog/happy100theverettlee?fbclid=IwAR3iuA7aCxQ6ygL6Kd5SeBbO2wnjHy6hgnU-eaCNwCvpL-xF3iuiF9bDMNY#:~:text=Everett%20Astor%20Lee%20was%20born,right%20here%20in%20Wheeling%2C%20WV

Discussion: There is a misperception and misunderstanding of where Lee worked. There is also a misunderstanding of his international profession as a conductor. Lee did not permanently leave the United States. At all times he was aligned with the United States. Lee frequently still worked in the United States and maintained strong ties. For example, he performed 16 times in New York City with the American Symphony, the Symphony of the World and Opera Ebony while at the same time he conducted the Norrkoping Symphony, Bogota Philharmonic and performed in other European concert halls. He frequently still worked in the United States. He did not permanently leave America. Lee was not an “immigrant” or “emigrant.” This is a misperception in the news. Everett Lee’s name needs to be removed from category “American emigrants to Sweden.” He was an international conductor. Lee’s profession as an international conductor caused him to be a “world traveler” similar to a State Department official like Blinken or Caroline Kennedy. Lee is a “world traveler” as an international conductor. Lee is not an “immigrant” or “emigrant.” Otherwise the term “emigrant” or “immigrant” would have to be placed describing all international conductors, such as Riccardo Muti, Yannick Nézet-Séguin or Jaap van Zweden, and these terms are not applied to these international conductors. I do not believe any other international conductor has been placed into an “emigrant” or “immigrant” category. Ettezoc243 (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've added him to the music directors (opera) category. As for the emigration category, I've moved him to the category "American expatriates in Sweden", which reflects that he lived there but did not permanently leave the United States. However, I would say that I don't think someone who does permanently move to another country couldn't still be considered an emigrant just because they occasionally returned to their home country. But I do agree that there's a lack of supporting evidence in the article to suggest the prior category.--

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 21:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"Tuskegee Airmen”, www.history.com, retrieved January 25, 2022.

Carnegie Hall Digital Collections https://www.carnegiehall.org/About/History/Performance-History-Search?q=&dex=prod_PHS&pf=Everett%20Lee_ Lee needs to be removed from this category “American emigrants to Sweden.” Ettezoc243 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

He's out of the emigrants category. For your other question, far as I'm concerned, the common contemporary definition for an "expatriate" is just somebody from one country who has some kind of long-term, fixed residence in another. I don't think it implies someone who renounced any affiliation. You can be an American citizen and live in a different country, and remain an American citizen all throughout. I would say that

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 15:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

None of these negative terms apply to the life and career of Everett Lee. I will take this discussion to senior editor.Ettezoc243 (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Expatriate as a verb could have negative connotations. Merriam-Webster's definition of it as a noun is simply "a person who lives in a foreign country", which has no negative connotations and is the context by which it is referred to in the categories. It's called "American expatriates in Sweden", not "Americans expatriated to Sweden". I for one do not see living in another country as a sign that one has any negative feelings towards their home country or that their achievements in their home countries are diminished by extension. Many people of distinguished stature in one country, including military veterans, have eventually lived in other countries, for long periods of time, and for various reasons. The American expatriates in Sweden category includes multiple other such examples. I included Lee in the expatriate/emigrant category because his New York Times obituary notes that he lived in Sweden at the time of his death, and further reading notes that he had a long professional history there.

Also, to clarify, Wikipedia does not have "senior editors" in terms of individuals who have editorial hierarchy over others; there is a classification called

WP:SVC

, "service awards do not indicate any level of authority whatsoever; "master" editors are not bestowed with more authority through this award than "novice" editors". There are administrators, but their role does not really expand on the level of standard editorial debate.

Therefore, if you would like to make the case for the category to be removed, seeking consensus on an article's talk page moves it from a one-on-one dialogue on a user talk page, and gives every editor a chance to voice their opinions on a matter so as many people as possible can participate in the making of a decision.--

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 02:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

On 16 February 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article P. J. O'Rourke, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

On 19 February 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jim Hagedorn, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @

@

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 01:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I've just noticed this, and yes that's certainly not your fault. Though it would still be helpful in future if you could cite the source in the edit summary on the recent deaths page when you make the changes. I think the Telegraph is the stronger source here as their obituary seems to suggest they had more insight from someone close to him, but I'll ping the Guardian an email asking them to clarify. As the Telegraph is paywalled, other editors will likely keep changing it back to 21st unless it is addressed. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem. The thing that happened with that edit is that I switched out a source that did not give a date with a source that did, and also did the same with another listing for that day, so the edit summary was overly broad to cover both. I agree with you that the Telegraph is probably right on this, but since both it and the Guardian are reliable sources, I'm just giving equal weight to both on Shepherd's article for now pending a clarification.--

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 01:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

On 24 February 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Richard Shepherd, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

On 10 March 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Walter Mears, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. TJMSmith (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I think that an infobox standalone portrait caption is unnecessary to begin with. I raised the issue on the MOS talk page a while back but I suppose it's beyond the point of any return at this point. Connormah (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I'd agree in most cases, upon giving this question some further thought.

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 01:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

On 29 March 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Elspeth Howe, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that this diff did more than just tweak date formats, it removed an entire infobox. Please make sure that if you are using scripts to assist in editing, you ensure that you are not causing unintended problems. If you intended on removing the infobox, then please make sure your edit summary does not imply something else entirely. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe I recall removing the IB as a matter of editorial choice, so I neglected to mention that in the edit summary for whatever reason. Maybe I did it before I hit the script and it didn't show? Strange. Thanks for pointing this out.

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 20:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please explain your citation needed tags in the talk:Bob Graham page. You questioned trivial facts like the names of his children. Your edits constitute Wikipedia:tag bombing which says, "Adding tags to articles should be accompanied by sufficient reasoning on the tagged article's talk page." Timhowardriley (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:TAGBOMBING

essay says that "There is no need to add [CN] tags to numerous unreferenced statements in an article when [unreferenced] or [refimprove] would state equivalent information". What do you want me to add on the talk page, though, that isn't in the tags? It's an article about a living person which has entire unreferenced paragraphs, about such subjects as what he did in office, awards in his honor, and books he authored.

And yes, the names of his children absolutely should be referenced: please see

WP:BLPNAME

, which says: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced".

If anything, all of the names except for

Sunshineisles2 (talk

) 20:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Put this in the talk page. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. Now, the article is being improved. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Graham&diff=1080366849&oldid=1080365333 Timhowardriley (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:David Rubin. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk

) 03:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)