Thanks for creating American names, Bali88!

Wikipedia editor Jennie Matthews 97 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Excellent article!

To reply, leave a comment on Jennie Matthews 97's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

As you seem to be a good crime editor could you please take a look at the Oba Chandler article to see if there is anything you can find to expand. Always good with more input.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also moved you contributions page to your User page. As that made it impossible to send messages to you without them beinf incorporated in that list.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the compliment! I haven't studied that particular case so I'm not sure how much I can do, but I'll take a look. Also, I'm brand new to wikipedia...I've only been editing for about a month and a half, so you might want more experienced advice on top of mine.

Also, would you mind taking a look at the David Camm article? I've studied the case, so it's tough to be objective, I need someone not familiar with the case to tell me whether it makes sense and whether they have questions that I didn't answer. Bali88 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made a read-through of the article and I find it to be really informative and good :) I will however do a more over all read in a day or two but from what I can see I do not have any complaints or ideas at this time. Also one of the reasons that I contacted you about Chandlers article. :) Good work!--BabbaQ (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I looked at the article. Looks really good. One thing--personally, I'm of the opinion that we should only state facts we can really know, so like I favor phrasing such as "Oba Chandler is an American man convicted and executed for the murder of..." instead of "Oba Chandler is a murderer". Even though he was convicted, we can't really know with absolute certainty whether he is truly is a murderer. The only thing we can know with certainty is that he was convicted of that murder. For the same reason, the part that reads "Chandler lured Canadian tourist Judy Blair onto his boat", I would write that more like "Judy Blair stated that Chandler lured her onto the boar". I feel like it improves the neutrality and helps the reader understand where the information is coming from. :-) Bali88 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, if you find the time please change that. Yes the Oba Chandler article is in my opinion one of the better crime articles on English Wikipedia and it has recieved praise from most users reading it. :)--BabbaQ (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just saw your other new articles and I helped you by adding the Wikiproject tags to each of them. Good work expanding the crime articles.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a look at the Tammy Lynn Leppert article. You might not have any ideas of improvements but I let you know about it anyway. Interesting case but bad article.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for your help! I know how to write, but I still don't know how to do very much in the way of tags and things. Also, do you know much about using non-free photos in articles? I noticed that a lot of crime articles use them, but the explanation doesn't make much sense to me. I'd like to add photos to the David Camm and Haleigh Poutre pages. I'll take a look at the Tammy Leppert page and see what I can do. Bali88 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		for your wonderful work at Alexian Lien beating --μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your excellent work at the Alexian Lien article. I personally felt strongly that the article should not be deleted, but I did not have the time/energy/will for the thorough rewrite it seemed to cry out for. Thank you for your efforts. I am also dropping this note to User:Medeis. Cheers! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I'm so glad I was able to help. Bali88 (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lol, oh okay. That makes sense. User:Medeis did a ton of work on the article but I couldn't find any substantial edits from the other dude. Bali88 (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey I found a good article that may help with your African American names article

       Distinctive African American Names: An Experimental, Historical, and Linguistic Analysis of Innovation
       Stanley Lieberson and Kelly S. Mikelson
       American Sociological Review
       Vol. 60, No. 6 (Dec., 1995) , pp. 928-946
       Published by: American Sociological Association
       Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096433

Rbruc022 (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest that you nominate this article for mention at the DYK. It is a great article.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All newly created articles with more than 5,000 characters are eligible for DYK. You seem to create well-sourced and long articles so it is atleast a suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also really interesting developments with the Oba Chandler article. From nowhere, the case was considered closed just a day or two ago.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for the compliment! What is DYK? I'm new enough that I have no clue what that means :-) What happened with the Oba Chander article? I hadn't been following that one. Bali88 (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know , there you will find all the DYK information. But it is for the "Did you know" section at Wikipedia main page as you will see there. It is several articles each day that are newly created and approved that is featured there for million of users that log onto Wikipedia every day. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I nominated it, but I'm seriously not sure if I did it right. Maybe you can look at my submission and check it out! Gah Bali88 (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 6 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Disappearance of Terrance Williams and Felipe Santos, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Terrance Williams and Felipe Santos went missing months apart after being arrested by the same police officer but never made it to jail? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your great work here on Wikipedia. Being a crime writer myself on this Wiki I feel your help with expanding and creating articles are priceless and useful!--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's so wonderful to hear that!!! And thanks for the DYK suggestion. The age got over 7k views that day alone! Bali88 (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes that is great :) If you want to you could add it to Wikipedia:DYKSTATS as all articles over 5k can/should be added to the list for March.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	This is a well written article, thanks for your contribs! Beakermeep(talk) 16:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoops, I forgot to mention this was for Murder_of_Carol_Jenkins, well done & cheers. Beakermeep^(talk) 16:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I figured it out. Appreciate it! :-) Bali88 (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your good and helpful suggestions on the AFD. I have begun to add some sources. :) --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

Excellent article I recommend a move to Naming in the United States. Also I was wondering if your interested in splitting Adam Lanza from Sandy Hook? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! That's a good idea. I have no idea how do that. lol I haven't studied the Sandy Hook shooting at all. I really don't know if there is enough for him to have a second article. Is there a reason you're mentioning it to me? Do you need help with that move? Bali88 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll move it for you, just wanted to see if you agree. Also there is enough for a split, I don't want to do it though. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you create a redirect for American names? Bali88 (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 20 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marvin Gabrion, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Marvin Gabrion was sentenced to death in Michigan despite the state's ban on capital punishment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marvin Gabrion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just FYI, I have completely rewritten the Chiles-Whitted UFO incident article, complete with new citations and sources. Feel free to edit/change the article. I'm the poster who discussed the UFO skeptics with you on the article's deletion talk page. Thanks! Populism (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome! Thanks so much for all your work! :-) Bali88 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, this is the Chiles-Whitted editor. I do try to keep an eye on certain UFO-related articles to keep out vandalism and unwarranted edits. I'm having trouble with the McMinnville UFO photographs article and could use some help from a more experienced editor. An anonymous poster keeps deleting whole paragraphs that are skeptical of the incident, even though they are cited. They also persist in changing the words of a ufologist to "proved" instead of the more accurate and less-POV words "asserted" and "argued." I have restored the deletions no less than six times, yet the poster keeps returning. I think it's clearly vandalism, as they give no reasons for their deletions, they just do it. Is there any way you could block the poster, or at least send them a warning to not make wholesale deletions without providing a reason? I think it may just be a teenager getting some kicks. Thanks! Populism (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You notified the IP that you had reported the UFO edit war, but I don't see your report of the edit war. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I was in the middle of filling out the report and my kid fell. Had to tend to other business! It looks like the page they were vandalizing has now been protected, so I just deleted the notice. Bali88 (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't recall whether I posted in support of your previous application for semi-protect status on this article, but if you apply again and drop me a note I will make sure to chime in. Cheers. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I'll hold off for now. It seems the vandals have screen names now, which makes things easier to deal with. If it continues, I'll nominate again and let you know. Bali88 (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Cornelius Dupree article was actually created after a suggestion from me :) --BabbaQ (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh awesome. :-) Bali88 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As someone who has edited the article Asian American this year, I am seeking your input on a proposed change to remove a reference to epicanthic eyefolds. This topic has prompted discussion in 2009, 2010 and most recently in 2013.

There's a fine line between being WP:BOLD and subverting WP:CONSENSUS. Given the history of this topic, I'm hoping that a robust discussion, for the record, would improve the article whether this reference stays or goes. Ishu (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bali88. Thanks for your review of my nomination. Yoniah has proposed a second hook, which now needs a review. Would you mind having a look at it? I ask as you have already checked for close-paraphrasing/other issues etc so it shouldn't take you very long, Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alpha Phi Alpha, Kappa Alpha Psi, Iota Phi Theta and Phi Beta Sigma are both in the IFC and the NPHC. Please restore.Naraht (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see the talk page to discuss the topic. I am in the process of removing double listings and putting an asterisk indicating double membership to improve readability of the page. If you disagree with the decision, give your feedback on the talk page and we'll discuss :-) Bali88 (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 30 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Disappearance of Holly Bobo, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that missing woman Holly Bobo is the cousin of country singer Whitney Duncan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Holly Bobo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC) 00:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 1 September 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of hazing deaths in the United States, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a 1959 hazing death from choking on a quarter-pound piece of raw liver was the inspiration for the 1977 film Fraternity Row? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of hazing deaths in the United States. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good work Bali88! Impressive DYK. --Pudeo' 19:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

D'you think it's worth adding File:Stuart Pierson, hazing casualty (1905).jpg to the article, as a reminder that these were people, not just names? DS (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the info! I've never added a photo to a list before, where would I put it? If you'd like to go ahead and add it, go right ahead! Bali88 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kudos for creating this article. If it could raise awareness, and potentially contribute to the abolition of hazing, that would be a very good thing. Best, Awien (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A while ago, when I was seeking conflict resolution regarding another editor on the page for Katy Perry, you took my side and said this:

"For what it's worth, @Mitsguy2001:, I agree with you on this issue. It looks like you guys have come to a consensus, but just thought I'd tell ya. For something like this where the article states a fact as literal truth: the songs are about teenage love, and the writer of the songs herself says something that contradicts that, we need to consider whether our reliably sourced statement is worth having on wikipedia. I mean, just because it's deemed a reliable source doesn't mean it's true. For whatever reason, many wikipedians want to hide behind the policy and say that they have no duty to truth, they have a duty to verifiability. I just think it's silly. It may be following the letter of the rule, but it's ignoring the spirit of it, which is to have an accurate encyclopedia. I'm not saying we should skip the verifiability phase and just post what we believe to be the truth, sources be damned, but on top of verifiability, we should also consider which sourced information is the most reliable and true. In this case, where Perry herself said something that contradicted what the magazine said, I would err on the side of truth in this case and then attribute the statement. It would be different if it was a self-serving statement, but it's not. She knows what she wrote the songs about. The way I would handle it is to say "W magazine said her songs are about teenagers in love, but Perry said..." Secondary sources aren't always preferable to primary ones. It just depends on what it is and how you use it. Bali88 (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)"

I am now having another dispute with one of those same editors regarding the Katy Perry article (about her voice type, and her family's financial history). You can look at that page's Talk page for details. I feel that editor thinks he/she owns that page, and that he/she alone can decide what sources are reliable and what are not. I do not feel that is right. And, I feel that he/she is again, as you said, focusing on the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law, in that he/she is focusing on sources, rather than truth. In both cases (her voice type, and her family's financial history), he is asserting things based on sources that he/she says are reliable, but do not make any logical sense.

In particular, her voice type should be deleted, since Katy is not an opera singer, and there is no reliable source as to what her operatic range would be, and Katy's pop songs clearly include all 3 female vocal ranges (although the editor in question seems to consider that to be original research).

As for her family's financial history: the logical explanation is that her family's income in itself would have been below the poverty line, but that they inherited significant money from Katy's maternal grandparents when they died, allowing the to live an upper middle class lifestyle despite having low income. No, there are no sources that say that, but I'm basing it on logic. In any case, saying that they lived in poverty or struggled financially is extremely misleading. If you want to argue that they did struggle financially, then there needs to be some explanation as to how that is possible, despite her maternal grandparents' money. And there needs to be an explanation as to how they were able to afford an upper middle class lifestyle in one of the top school districts in the nation, and in a neighborhood where comparable houses go for $800,000. Since it's unlikely that a source exists, I think that any comments on her family's financial history should just be deleted.

I have already deleted both of those comments months ago, but they were reverted. So, I know from experience that if I try to delete them again, I will be accused of edit warring, and that Wikipedia's moderators will just take the side of the other editor, as they did before.

Do I have any recourse at this point? Or do I just have to suck it up and deal with the fact that the Katy Perry article is not accurate and probably never will be? Mitsguy2001 (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oy...the song thing was one thing. I'm not sure if I want to get into a big discussion over all that stuff. I'll take a look at the article tomorrow afternoon, but honestly, when it comes to those articles that are heavily guarded, often it's better to just let it go and focus your energy elsewhere. You have to consider whether it's really worth your time and energy to fight for those issues in that article because they will no doubt be a bear. Bali88 (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So in other words, you want me to give in to a bully? That is especially ironic given Katy Perry's song "Roar". (then again, she also sings "Choose Your Battles") Mitsguy2001 (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not saying you should go either way, It's up to you, I just know that with featured articles, people are pretty protective of them and it may not be worth your time or effort. I've gotten exactly one edit into a featured article since I've been an editor and to this day, I still can't believe it made it in. Another thing to consider, those two issues you mentioned are probably not going to amount to much in terms of readers. Her vocal range and whether or not her family had extra help financially...virtually everyone is going to read it and then immediately forget it. This may be a "pick your battles" type of moment. It's your decision, but if it was me, I'd probably just focus on another article and bring it up to snuff. Bali88 (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have these problems on any article, not just the "featured articles". My problem isn't so much these issues in themselves (Katy's family's financial history, and Katy's voice type), but rather the fact that most Wikipedia pages seem to be dominated by 1 or 2 bullies who basically shut down anyone else's opinion. As Wikipedia is more and more dominated by such bullies, and users such as myself (who want an accurate encyclopedia) are forced to throw in the towel, Wikipedia will become more and more dominated by the bullies and will be less and less accurate, rendering Wikipedia more and more useless. Unfortunately, many casual observers believe Wikipedia to be 100% accurate. Unfortunately, the moderators usually side with the bullies, since the letter of the law is usually on the bully's side, and the bully is usually a more experienced editor who is better known to the moderators. I realize that there is nothing that you or I can do about it, so I'm mostly just venting. The one thing we can do about it is (as Katy Perry would say) "find your inner roar" and stand up the bullies, but since I've been threatened by the moderators with a permanent ban, I'm not in the position to do that, especially not over a minor issue. It seems that people like a rags to riches story (even when none exists) and like assigning voice types to pop singers (even though such classification isn't really appropriate), so if I'm going to risk a lifetime ban, I'm going to risk it for a bigger issue than these. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it can be frustrating. What I would suggest is to work on articles that either aren't in existence yet or articles that are stubs/have been abandoned. No one is really working on them and you won't have any resistance to making the article really good quality. Unless it's an issue that is really glaring and has real world implications and you have a ton of proof, I wouldn't bother working on featured articles. I mostly do crime articles, and there aren't a ton of editors that do crime, so I have a lot more creative control. I'm not sure if music is your major interest, but there are probably artists and albums that haven't been covered yet. You just have to find your niche. Bali88 (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have created a stub article about Maria Jose Alvarado a missing beauty queen. Unfortunately she is likely dead and the news will blow up big in the next few days. Sh e was about to compete in the Miss World beauty pageants in the next few days. Cheers--BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll help you work on it if I get a chance :-) Bali88 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks :) She was unfortunately murdered today.. sadly.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My article Von Sydow murders will appear at the top of the DYK section in a few days :)--BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exciting! Congrats! I've been too busy with Thanksgiving and kids to write anything lately. Bali88 (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that does sound much more important :) Hope you are having a great time!--BabbaQ (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly suggest reading the trial transcripts from Ryan Ferguson's trial. Chuck's testimony is very powerful. Transcripts three and four cover his testimony. http://freeryanferguson.com/transcripts/ Countacolor (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What specifically makes you think it's reliable? I'm not sure how much we can trust what he said at trial given he didn't seem to remember what the murder weapon was or where it happened or anything about the crime scene when he was first interrogated. If someone gave me the details of the crime, I could pretend I was there and give a powerful performance too. To me that doesn't seem very solid. Bali88 (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the stand, he mentions that his memory appeared to be foggy during the interrogation not because he couldn't really remember, but because he wasn't ready to give a full confession. He wasn't ready to take that step, so he was trying to minimize his involvement. If you read the full transcript from the interrogation, you'll discover that Chuck knew quite a few details. He knew that Kent was beaten around the head with a tire tool, and then strangled afterwards. The strangulation was not public knowledge. He also remembered yelling to the cleaning lady to go get help, which is another key detail that wasn't public knowledge. Have you read the trial transcripts now? Have you read how Chuck details the murder? Have you read how Chuck describes cleaning themselves off in the creek? Have you read how Chuck describes returning to the club? Have you read how Chuck claims he is 100% sure that he and Ryan committed this crime? I think the question to ask is if Chuck was 100% sure at that point in time, what in the world is causing him to doubt himself now? Countacolor (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not read the transcripts. But I've seen the video of the interrogation and he doesn't seem to know much at all. He very much seems to be led around by the police. And he doesn't seems so certain anymore. Also, how did they return to the club when the club was already closed? And if he yelled at the cleaning lady, why did she say those weren't the guys she saw? She seemed very clear on that point. Right from the start she said those weren't the guys she saw. Thus far, I don't see anything convincing. To me, the coworker seems like a very likely suspect. His paperwork was in the parking lot, he had a confrontation with the victim that day, he was with the victim very close to the time of death, and his behavior afterward was very strange. Bali88 (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Their theory is that the two white boys were just bystanders on the basis that they just casually walked away toward the janitors as opposed to running the other direction. To me, it seems like too narrow of a time frame for Boyd to have left and then someone else came along and committed the murder. 166.175.59.214 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should read the transcript of the interrogation in its entirety. It puts everything in proper context, and it isn't a cherry-picked edited video from a biased source. He's recanting now because he wants to get out of prison, simple as that. He's been labeled a snitch in prison, and he has to stay in solitary most of the time for his own protection. Do his recantations really sound credible to you? His first recantation is that he alone murdered Kent, while Ryan tried to stop him. He now says that he was so drunk, he doesn't remember anything at all. Do you really find that credible after the narrative he gave in that courtroom? Shawna Ornt has said that she can't identify the suspects, that is true. Have you seen her police sketch though? It sure does resemble Chuck though, no? Both Ornt and Jerry Trump testified that they saw two young white males near Kent's car when they went out in the parking lot. One of the boys yelled out to them before they ran off. This fact alone completely eliminates Michael Boyd, the coworker, as a possible suspect. Obviously Boyd isn't a young white male. Anyway, a lot of this was clarified and refuted in the trial. You really need to read the transcripts so you can have a better understanding of this case. If your research is based on biased defense propaganda, then you really haven't done your homework.Countacolor (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Fraternity/Sorority Barnstar
		for creating Template:Fraternities and Sororities DocumentError (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much!!! Bali88 (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re template for 'false confession'. Knox never confessed. Overagainst (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not an article I care a lot about, so you can do whatever you want, but I think a lot of people would dispute that. It seems pretty clear the prosecution considered her statement a confession, even if she implicated someone else in it. You can discuss it on the talk page for knox. See what others say. Bali88 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Bali88. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Arthur goes shopping (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((teahouse talkback)) template).Reply[reply]

Hi, I notice your article is going to the main page soon. Could you please add a cite to the first paragraph under Trials? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I made two paragraphs out of one and forgot to put an additional cite :-) Bali88 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 18 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Juan Rivera (wrongful conviction), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Rivera (wrongful conviction). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you find time for it I would appreciate if you took a look at the article Murder of Catrine da Costa. It will appear on OTD on the main page in a few days and you are great at crime articles so any help is appreciated. Thanks :)--BabbaQ (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for the compliment! I'm on vacation, so I'm not sure how much I can do but I'll take a look. Bali88 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have created an article about the Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp. Please take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

..is dead.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, I hadn't heard about that case! ~~

You seem to have a lot of interest in this subject. I saw this article and wasn't sure how much detail was appropriate or how to include it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I did see that article, but it didn't have a whole lot of info that isn't already in the article (we already knew about the specific forms of abuse, we already knew he led them to the body, etc) . I'm going to wait until we know a little more to update. :-) Bali88 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I'll leave it to you. I started the article when I felt it was time, but others seem to have taken over so I'll just let them.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating the article! If you feel there are things that should be added, go ahead and add them! :-)Bali88 (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Bali88. I'm wondering if you would be willing to determine if Deborah Peagler, who has both a wiki site as well as a second wiki site for the film about her called "Crime After Crime" would constitute a valid entry in the "List of Wrongful Convictions". Although I'm a wiki editor, I am comfortable with correcting typos, grammar issues, etc. Adding a new entry to the table, if Deborah Peagler indeed qualifies to be listed in the 1980s, is beyond my current wiki editing abilities. In advance, thank you for your consideration. I turn to you because you seem to be the primary editor for the "List of Wrongful Convictions". MLOestreich (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely! As long as they have a valid wiki page. Go ahead and add them.

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen that you've done a lot for the article of Franklin Delano Floyd. I want to translate and extend this article for the German Wikipedia and I am looking for quotations and articles about Floyd, but I found nearly nothing expect the book of Matt Birkbeck, some unoccupied statements at facebook and a 90s interview of Floyd. Do you have something interesting for me like paperwork, newspaper articles or something like that? This would be quite a blessing for me. I am looking forward to hear from you.--KeinerMagFassmann (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Greetings,

Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Good afternoon Bali88. I noted you joined the Fraternities and Sororities Project. Thanks for that.

We welcome your participation.

For many of us, these institutions represent a very impactful period in our lives. I know of several chapter advisors among the regular 300 participants, along with general alumni and undergrads that are Wiki-savvy. We presently keep an eye on 1,500 or so Greek pages, while a fairly substantial number of recent or dormant local chapters don't make the cut. There are perhaps 6,000 locals that do not have a Wikipedia article, and maybe 50 that do - mostly at Ivy League schools. Long ago, the Baird's Manual editors decided to include as national groups those societies that had three or more chapters, or locals that met a certain bar of longevity: ten years or more. We follow that same logic.

The Project page lists several items on our To Do list, but among them are:

1. Review any of our watched pages for vandalism.
2. Update chapter information for the many lists of chapters.
3. Write an article to list the Greeks on a particular campus. 50 of these have been done, so far.
4. Research a new article for a page that is missing. On our watchlist, these show up as red links.
5. Vote on whether to keep a contested page or not.

There is a debate among editors on Wikipedia about whether to aggressively delete articles or allow their inclusion, based on a notoriously fickle determination of NOTIBILITY. Once an article is factually and cleanly written, I personally favor Inclusion, in order to make life easier for future researchers. Especially for fraternity, sorority and collegiate society articles.

If this last issue is of interest, you may wish to weigh in on a recent discussion of an "Article for Deletion" or AfD: Two or three of these crop up each month. One we are currently discussing is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Beta Phi. Voting is simple, and the instructions are at the top. Just add a line, with your vote, to Keep or Delete (or some other option) bolded at the start of the line.

Whatever you choose to do, we welcome your participation in this Greek-friendly project. Jax MN (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!

Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.

The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Indianapolis explosion and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 12#Indianapolis explosion until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may not have seen these. There are current Article for Deletion (AfD) debate on two Project articles. You may be interested in weighing in, whether to delete or not. Voting requires the addition of a "Keep" or "Delete" option as a new bullet at the bottom of each discussion. There are a couple of other technical types of votes. Jax MN (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fraternities and sororities

Thanks for uploading File:Franklin Delano Floyd and Sharon Marshall.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The redirect List of wrongful convictions has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 27 § List of wrongful convictions until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]