THIS IS A TALK PAGE ARCHIVE Please do NOT edit this page. If you leave a message here, I will not respond to it. |
there are alot of people here to write their propaganda. most argue and force their views without proof. wiki should get rid of them.
also that huge armenian genocide page is very very one sided. especially the way the article is written.
also there was a turkey-pkk conflict page, they made it turkish-kurdish conflict as if we fight each other. why? thats a propaganda go check. 10 mil kurds in turkey, many kurds live in istanbul izmir etc west of turkey. theres no fight, the terrorist organization pkk attacks turkish soldiers and they call this turkish-kurdish conflict. is that right? wiki will never be a reliable source because of that.
in that armenian genocide page i wanted to check some sources, but most of the sources are broken and doesnt lead anywhere or some lead to irrelevant links. those articles are a huge mess of propaganda. maybe wiki should only host articles that are proven and known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.151.232 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I dont have the energy, the time to do any of that. instead i asked you a simple question, why was that changed from turkey-pkk conflict to turkish-kurdish conflict? there is no such a conflict in turkey. anyways, this is a site where majority wants is accepted and taken as truth rather than real truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.151.232 (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I read the article you suggested. However it did not specify to my direct question after you removed my edit. Due to this, I will ask the following, Does CNN account as a reliable source? IF POSSIBLE, please reply to me directly, if not, i will check your User page in a few days Thanks! Malistare77 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC) 14:50 2016-29-12 (PST)
The article in question is Kathleen Neal Cleaver. I'm seeking to have Kathleen Cleaver become the main article page and Kathleen Neal Cleaver as a redirect page. Kathleen Cleaver is far more common, than Kathleen Neal Cleaver. Please see Google Ngram for proof. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
JudgeRM,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.
Hi! In November 2016, there was a discussion regarding deleting the Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims article. The decision was to keep the article. In January 2017, there is again discussion to delete the article. See the article's Talk page.
Could nudge the users in question not to nuke the article as the decision has already been made to keep the article. Thanks! WSDavitt (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
He was starting to drive me crazy. I had to undo his Trump Tower edit which is just insane. Maybe he is 9, or maybe he is a liar, but he is a disgrace to Wikipedia, IPs, and probably Mr.T. L3X1 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey JudgeRm you said if I wanted to request a change for the title of the page "Abyssinian people" I should do it here. First let me give you an example of why the title doesn't make sense for this page I am habasha, Tigirnya habasha to be exact and Tigrinyas are only found and are native to Eritrea our Ethiopians Counterparts the the Tigrayans the difference is they live in Ethiopia and we live in Eritrea that is the main difference and we are both habasha but we are not both Abyssinian, Abyssinia was used as the name of the country now called Ethiopia it was used by outsiders as name for people who come from Ethiopia but we are not Ethiopians we are Eritreans so we can not be Abyssinians. Every ethnic group in Ethiopia was considered Abyssinian therefore the title of the page is incorrect.The ethnic groups listed in the page as "Abyssinians" is not correct because Tigrinya Eritreans are not "Abyssinian" they are Eritreans but they are still listed in this page when they are not Abyssinian(Ethiopian) but what is incorrect is the title of page "Abyssinian" the tile should be Habasha that is what the Ethnic groups you listed are and what they are mainly referred to by outsiders who have knowledge about them and by Habasha people themselves. This page has always been called Habasha as far as I remember until last year. Whoever made that mistake has confused a lot of people on a non confuseing issue. We are called and mainly refered to and refer ourselves as Habasha not AByssinians so I request you change the title from "Abyssinian" to its original title before it was changed which is "Habasha" thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:8414:7800:60DF:232B:C910:9CC8 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh ok JudgeRM I am new at this so I'm not used to the editing I am the IP user and when I messaged you When I was not logged in (i forgot) i am the person who requsted to change the name of the page "Abyssinian people" name to "Habasha people" 02:44 8th January 2017
THE MESSAGE PLEASE STOP REVERTING MY EDIT - WHY DID YOU NOT RESPOND - I AM THE SAME PERSON WHO DID IT - PLEASE RESPOND - 49.149.113.205 (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
112.198.72.164 (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Major party. The new country Democratic People's Republic of Robotsylvania. you shouldve done some reaearch before reverting the edit
Mr./Mrs.
The whole article about Croatian Kingdom in period of 925-1102 is croatian propaganda, which only goal is to create the feeling in world that the Croats are people that have statehood manners. In that period there is no such evidences, and the books and articles from list of reference are made when the Croats where in period of succesion from Yugoslavia, mostly of them in 2000's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.185.116.48 (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
the people are dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by K1744498 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The move discussion seems to have been lost in the move. At least, I can't find it. Can you put it back? Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You closed the move discussion I opened here at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Requested_move_15_January_2017. I would ask for justification for the close? I put down the logic of my opening of the request and if there was consensus to develop for it to wait, it had not developed yet. I would ask you to reopen the discussion. Casprings (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
On the River Forest High School website I have a reference but the thing is it isn't on a website it is something I know personally what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth4515 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Did you mean to suppress the talk page redirect from Talk:John Andrew Barnes, III on moving the article? Doesn't seem right to me... but I'm always learning. Andrewa (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Just read the sub heading to understand my request. Love, Shepherd. (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it you that removed the updates to the Beezid page concerning the current status of the site? If so, why not keep the updates current? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belle Readneck (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The company (Williams-Sonoma, Inc.) and brand (Williams-Sonoma) are two separate entities with different names, logos, website, products, number of stores, locations, executives, number of employees, and slogans. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. is the parent company over 7 brands, which are referenced in the existing Williams-Sonoma article, including Pottery Barn, west elm and Rejuvenation - these three brands each have their own article. The brand (and cookware line) is independently notable with coverage that differentiates the brand from the corporate entity in these reliable sources (sited below): Yahoo Finance, Forbes, Businesswire, San Francisco Chronicle, Oprah.com. The reason for decline I have seen is naming conventions, however this rule is not enforced by other retailers, ie. Macy's Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy's,_Inc. and Macy's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy's. When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate (for example, Oracle Corporation, Borders Group, Be Inc., and Illumina (company)). Ideally there would be some sort of disambiguation using (company), Inc. or Corporation.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/williams-sonoma-launches-chocolate-collaboration-110000107.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/williams-sonoma-debuts-exclusive-tabletop-130000522.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/meggentaylor/2016/03/28/a-chefs-life-celebrity-chef-vivian-howard-launches-her-brand-on-william-sonoma-today/#2abd7bff2cd9 http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160825005394/en/WILLIAMS-SONOMA-KICKS-NATIONAL-FUNDRAISING-CAMPAIGN-BENEFITING-KID http://www.sfchronicle.com/food/article/A-slew-of-smart-gadgets-for-the-high-tech-kitchen-7950010.php http://www.oprah.com/gift/Williams-Sonoma-Croissants?editors_pick_id=25904
Thank you Lmurphy1 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't actually write an auto biography I wrote a Page about my son who has the same first and last name as me but we have different middle names please don't take down my page about him thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewsefolson (talk • contribs) 03:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I fixed the citation please can you take the warning off of the post we have redbull sponsorship coming in and i would really like for the big red warnign sign to be gone it might scare them off — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewsefolson (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
You denied the speedy because you claimed an endorsement is a credible claim of significance. I have been unable to verify anything in the article. If you have any sources, can you add them to the article? Postcard Cathy (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
"The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines"
Just FYI, the arbitrary break in the Daily mail RFC was simply so that users don't have to scroll down through the whole thing every time they click the edit button if they want to add something new to the bottom. I've seen this done in lots of other very long discussions, so I had decided to implement it here as well simply for convenience. Some people didn't get the idea and continued to edit in the upper section though, so not a huge success. Forgive me if the effort was inappropriate. InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not familiar with editing or responding to articles.
I would like to express an opinion about the topic of moving discussion of the Year of the Rooster in the Chinese zodiac, but am unable to find how to submit a comment.
I would support renaming the article, but certainly NOT to the year of the chicken. That would be totally absurd in my opinion.
The Chinese creature for which the year is named is definitely NOT a chicken. It's a bird, true, but NOT a chicken.
It is the fenghuang, which as one of your commentators points out is gender neutral. But just like the dragon, it is a mythical character, and has no representative in real life.
The fenghuang is a magnificent, powerful bird, and is linked to female leadership. It represents the female ruler or empress, just as the dragon represents the male ruler or emperor.
Please do not make this amazing creature into a chicken. If the name is changed, it should be made the Year of the Phoenix which comes much closer to being a literal translation, and much more appropriate cross-culturally. Only trouble is, it is NOT the phoenix of Western culture since it did not arise from the ashes.
If the name is changed from Rooster, it should be changed to Phoenix, a much more appealing, appropriate and literal name in English.Twintx (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Then marked me opposed to a move! twintxTwintx (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
That was strange. I reverted it with Huggle which also added a warning. Never seen that happen before. Thanks for the fix. Jim1138 (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with you, however the people who primarily wrote this article (those from rationalwiki) also have a stake in this too as they are vehemently opposed to and vandalize conservapedia. Godspeed Trump supporter 1776 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Greetings,
I recently made the following edit. My concern with the original is that its lengthy structure, in which two year ranges are followed by "respectively," delays clarity, and might make some readers suspect that the first 2017 is an error for 2014 (as if Mr. Costos served two tenures as ambassador to both nations: 2013-2014 and 2014-2017). In my edited version, parenthetical year ranges after each nation interrupt the syntax, making it clear that Mr. Costos's two ambassadorships overlapped. This was not a test, but an intentional edit. Could you please let me know if something was amiss? I welcome your feedback!
BEFORE: James Costos (born 1963) is an American diplomat who was the United States Ambassador to Spain and Andorra from 2013 to 2017 and 2014 to 2017, respectively.
AFTER: James Costos (born 1963) is an American diplomat who was the United States Ambassador to Spain (2013 to 2017) and to Andorra (2014 to 2017).
Thanks, TeiseiMG (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)teiseiMG
Could you please be specific about what makes the original flow better? Flow is largely a matter of taste, but there are concrete differences between these versions: my edit requires less space, and resolves the confusion of year ranges by hewing each range to the nation it applies to, while mimicking the punctuation style used for year ranges elsewhere on the site, such as for lifespans (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Taylor).
TeiseiMG (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)teiseiMG
The current page for Emmett Till--a fourteen-year-old boy whose murder helped fuel the American Civil Rights movement--currently leads off with an inappropriate and only marginally accurate statement that he allegedly "flirted with a white woman." This is bad for the following reasons: 1) It ascribes fault to Till, rather than ascribing fault to his murderers (or the white woman who recent scholarship has proven lied under oath). 2) It fails to capture the historical significance of Till's murder. I tried changing "he allegedly flirted with a white woman" to "the perpetrators of his murder were never brought to justice." This is an accurate statement that every single scholar of Till--along with the murderers themselves, who admitted guilt after a rigged trial--support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShanonFitzpatrick (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
My edit is "pointless" in your opinion? What is pointless about removing the victim-blaming "he (allegedly) flirted with a white woman" clause from the first sentence when it is WIDELY SOURCED (including through admission by the woman herself, as I cited) that this "white woman" LIED UNDER OATH about her encounter? Furthermore, saying that "none of the perpetrators were brought to justice" is NOT UNOBJECTIVE. They were tried in a "Jim Crow" legal system that repeatedly and systematically excluded black jury members and refused to persecute white perpetrators of murder. There is no lack of historical or popular consensus on this assertion. As the wiki article later explains, with appropriate citations, the murderers confessed after they got off scot-free, and the "white woman" (Carol Bryant) was NEVER PROSECUTED. UPDATE: Since you are reverting my edits--after I have posted ample support on the talk page--I am submitting a request for dispute arbitration. ShanonFitzpatrick (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Please undo your Trump disambiguation closure.
Read this... There is, in fact, no rule that says a closing editor has to be an admin, so the only argument against the closure is whether it was mere vote-counting. But that's an issue for the move review discussion, if you would like to start one. StAnselm (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Read this...(WP:RMNAC) Some editors do not approve of non-admins closing contentious debates. Non-admins should be cautious when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved.
Thank you. Lakeshake (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
About my case Fanny46 |
Look dude i have no intentions in doing anything bad i just like to add cause i know more thing than Snowflake91,Karpich and Kante4 and i like to give them a warning not a threat to stop deleting my edits i asked them to stop doing that but they did not listen to me so now what's going to happen? Fanny46 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC) |
<reply redacted>
Hey listen, i apologize for adding too many sources on Milo Yiannopoulos. EntertheNinja (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you recently reverted a change to Owler. Have you taken a look at the history of that page, its talk page, and Mgc5256's user-talk page? 2620:0:1000:1601:48EC:9A93:5902:46A5 (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Sources provided |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
RE: February 2017 Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Panzer-Abteilung 40. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. JudgeRM (talk to me) 00:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, he started it, mocking me for not knowing German, all because he can't accept edits to "HIS" article. Why don't you spank him too? All I'm trying to do is be helpful ... but I won't stand for his type of self-righteousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
nouveau-business (2016)[1] |
---|
# Coat of many colours |
# Homeless World |
# Mr Big Man |
# Reasons |
# Deep Sea |
# To Whom it may concern |
# Mr Cock |
# Coat of many colours (Acoustic) |
# Mr Big Man ( Acoustic) |
# Deep sea (Acoustic) |
# Mr Cock (Acoustic) |
Please see the edit summary. 178.42.217.43 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I clicked on your signature which links to your userpage, and I noticed the page says "formally" instead of "formerly". I just thought I'd mention it. Master of Time (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The owner of Captured by Robots wishes page removed. Please verify the fact of ownership of Captured by Robots by emailing him via the webpage link on the capturedbyrobots wiki. He will respond to you via said email. He wants it removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF7F:BAF0:EDD6:DBA:7A9B:3ED2 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I understand you declare you will not remove the article for the simple reason of the subject wanting it removed. Let's go ahead and delete it for the other reasons you mentioned, Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF7F:BAF0:EDD6:DBA:7A9B:3ED2 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Some socks disturbing, so i want to reopen the page and want to adding discussions,its for feature reference,please allow me 9````0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamepriority (talk • contribs) 21:05 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi SkyWarrior
Congrats on your great work relisting so many RMs.
I just noticed that when closing or relisting RMs (e,g. [1], [2]), you are using a sig which displays as "JudgeRM" rather than you actual user ID.
This is confusing, because the name which appears on the rendered page is not the name which appears in the page history. WP:SIG doesn't directly forbid this, but WP:SIGPROB does frown on it. To help other editors, please can you ensure that whatever sig you use includes the actual username which is making the post?
I would also urge you to consider whether including the title "JudgeRM" in your sig is appropriate when posting at RMs. It conveys the impression that you have some special community-approved role in respect of RM discussions, which as far as I can see is not the case. Have I missed something? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't a total lack of response be taken as lack of controversy, and OK to close as moved, as if it had been listed as a technical request? Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
There was already a RM recently and another one 7 days ago. This should not be re-litigated every week. At least give it a few weeks. Chris H of New York (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
See where I closed it.
I direct you to undo your edit warring of a decision. This will show you are ethical and not edit warring. Thank you. You may see my talk page where I am taking the high road. Do not take advantage of this because it shows poor Wikipedia behaviour and poor character. Thank you again. Chris H of New York (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Now, there are consensus to move the page. Could you move it ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The editor at Fifty Shades Darker seems to be section blanking again despite your kind warning. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi on Jennifer Hudson's page, It use to have a Paragraph about how Donald Trump helped Jennifer when her family was slain. It has since been removed. I think that it shows the President in a positive light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennymo13 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I saw it and was wondering. Istandwiththesilent (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! Istandwiththesilent 14:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Istandwiththesilent (talk • contribs)
Hi, Can you please help me for editing my page so that it could follow the wikipedia policis and guidlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guptamonoo90 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
SkyWarrior, you reverted an edit of mine where I had included a mini-biography (wikilink to person's name, DOB-DOD plus professions) in a category page. viz: Hermann Burmeister (1807-1892), zoologist, entomologist, herpetologist, and botanist.
I did this because there is an ambiguity with the name Burmeister - in this case there are two German entomologists. Given that the authority for a taxonomic name only ever refers to a surname and a date (eg Burmeister, 1839), I thought the best way to resolve this would be to put a clear and brief mini-biography to advise users of this Category page exactly who was being referred to.
I was following someone else's lead and found it very useful at the time, and adopted it here and other Category:Taxa named by ... pages that I have created.
Is there a better way to resolve these ubiquitous ambiguities?
John Tann (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes, a common-sense guess based on the title of the category isn't enough to figure out whether a page should be listed in the category. So, rather than leave the text of a category page empty (containing only parent category declarations), it is helpful – to both readers and editors – to include a description of the category, indicating what pages it should contain, how they should be subcategorized, and so on.
I'll take on board your need for complete sentences, though I will add a bit more than what is already in the title of the category. My reading of the instructions at WP:CATEGORY is that descriptions are encouraged:
This description, not the category's name, defines the proper content of the category. Do not leave future editors to guess about what or who should be included from the title of the category. Even if the selection criteria might seem obvious to you, an explicit standard is helpful to others, especially if they are less familiar with the subject.
As both a reader and an editor, knowing quickly who is the person in the title of the category is of prime importance. For those people describing taxa, information about when they were alive and their field of interest is key to establishing them as the correct authority for a taxa, and hence defines the proper content of the category.
WP:CATEGORY also encourages links to Wikipedia pages and sister projects:
The description can also contain links to other Wikipedia pages, in particular to other related categories which do not appear directly as subcategories or parent categories, and to relevant categories at sister projects, such as Commons.
Giving readers the information they need makes a lot of sense to me, as useful descriptions of more obscure people who describe taxa may be best on Wikispecies rather than elsewhere.
After re-reading the advice in WP:CATEGORY, I am convinced that clear information about people who name taxa should be included in the Category page. I have edited the page on Category:Taxa named by Hermann Burmeister to reflect that. John Tann (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Sky, thanks for persisting. There are a lot of these pages, so it is probably important to spend some time getting this in a workable form.
I have re-worked the description (again) to include when the person was alive - this is important for confirming authority dates quickly. I have also re-arranged the wording so that it includes the phrase taxa named by [person] to reflect the heading, and added their fields of interest as nouns after the person's name and dates, which in my view, reads more clearly. Putting someone's interest, achievements or profession before their name is certainly done for titles - eg President Gorbachev, or Doctor Jekyll, but sounds a bit quaint for general use: eg botanist Joseph Banks cf Joseph Banks, a botanist. John Tann (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Suggest we reopen and relist the RM on Belle's Magical World... there are some relevant issues not yet raised, and no consensus yet achieved. Andrewa (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
So I wanted to have a picture for Joey King's wiki page but the edit was removed. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sami7em (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
How did you know that the page was changed so quickly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedks (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Please add 2016 Asia Cup (T20 format), under achievements paragraph for MS Dhoni page. [1]
Htwo0 (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)htwo0
I'd like to know the final decision as I am eager myself to create a new sub heading and put the Ruby "AWARD" myself. I'd like the other major editors opinion too, so we can reach a unanimous decision. The Ruby "Play Button" is not even shaped as a Play Button, so it just deserves another category instead. Thanks. Yes, I'll sign it. Aaryan33056 (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for approving the move of Joaquín Guzmán to Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán. The article still remains the same, however. Does this have to be done manually or will it be taken care of by a bot later today? Thanks again, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 21:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Not to complain too much, but there was actual consensus for moving the page Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and my guess is that there would have been a month ago. I understand your concern about too many move request, but I would ask that you read the arguments of other users in the future. My move request, both now and 1 month ago, was about grammar. When framed in those terms, there was good reason to believe that it could gain consensus. I would just ask you have a little more respect of other editors opinions.Casprings (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your comment on the Pingu page a while ago saying "turns out we've been lied to this entire time; it really is "nug nug". I just wanted to say thanks for putting up the good fight! I originally found that out to my surprise and edited the page, and it's become a bit of a running joke with some mates at work for me to constantly keep having to change it back even though most people when they edit it leave the original source and the followup that it's written noot noot in popular culture. (Which was a compromise someone else added.) Great to have you on my side! :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.20.202 (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Love is defind as a strong feeling you have for something and for a person. Love in human is like a person who like a flower in a eye of a man. If a man love a woman, he will trust her very well and he will keep her happy, smile nd give her joy in all way. When that woman feel happy then sex will come in. Love is a strong thing to a man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngkeys (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Please move John Lewis Smith, Jr. to John Lewis Smith Jr. without the comma to comply with MOS:JR. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)