A tag has been placed on Ole Piss, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kart2401real (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not believe the creation of this redirect because of the 2019 Egg Bowl incident is nonsense that doesn't merit a redirect. If you think otherwise, please provide an explanation. Kart2401real (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The incident, according to The Athletic, had a major effect on both teams in the game: "The Egg Bowl Butterfly Effect: How two firings altered almost 300 coaching careers". Ylee (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ylee - you are a idiot! Don`t touch my information ! I warning! No more warnings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.18.93 (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed the entire planetary rings section from the Saturn article on the grounds that the information is covered in the article Rings of Saturn. While this may be true, it is usually customary to include at least a paragraph or two with some basic information in the main article, if the reader desires more information then he or she may read the more in depth main article. For a good example of this see Mars#Geology and Geology of Mars. IN addition, after comparing the deleted information with the Rings of Saturn article, I noticed that there was quite a bit of information in the deleted text (especially some historical information) that does not appear in Rings of Saturn. I am asking if you would please either restore the text you removed or instead add the deleted information to the main Rings of Saturn article so that the knowledge is contained somewhere within Wikipedia and then expand Saturn#Planetary rings to include at the very least some basic information. Thank you. --Nebular110 02:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, thanks for doing that. I agree with you that the section is longer than it really needs to be. I'll try to fix that, maybe by transfering some of the info to the Rings of Saturn article. I'm not sure how soon I'll find the time to do that, lots going on right now, but I will put it on my to do list. --Nebular110 05:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm writing because I saw you made some (intelligent, sagacious, wise, brilliant, geniustic, glorious) contributions to the John Podhoretz and Jonah Goldberg articles, so you might have an interest in this: There's a move to remove the "American conservatives" category, and a vote is going on now which may result in its deletion. The vote is tied at this moment. I'm hoping you'll visit there, make up your own ((intelligent, sagacious, wise, brilliant, geniustic, glorious) mind (and I hope you agree with me to keep it, but of course it's up to you [you fine human being, you]).Noroton 23:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The_animated_Supergirl.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:The_animated_Supergirl.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it seems like I'm bugging you about the above image - I'm trying to determine the copyright holder, which needs to be specified on the image page per WP:NFCC#10a. When I click on the source link, I get an "access forbidden" message. Can you please specify the copyright holder on the page? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - the only other thing required, so far as I can tell, is evidence that the copyright holder published this image, to satisfy WP:NFCC#4. As the source link can't be accessed, and toymania.com is apparently not the copyright holder, where was the image published? Thanks... Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is accessible at the URL I published. Connectivity is sometimes intermittent, apparently; I too once saw an "access forbidden" message today. However, it is available as of 30 seconds ago.Ylee 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will keep trying, but I'm having no luck. When you looked at it, what did it say regarding publication? Did it specify the comic book in which this image was published? That's really all we need re WP:NFCC#4. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the message I get is Forbidden: You don't have permission to access /news/images/0402_supergirl.jpg on this server.. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no mention of what comic book or TV episode the image is from. I believe it is actually a promo image.

Gah, that's not good. We need some verifiable evidence of prior publication by DC Comics. Do you have another image (with a more verifiable status) that can be used? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original comic-book cover and commercial posters identified. Ylee 17:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for straightening this out - I marked the image as "reviewed" for Supergirl. Respectfully - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot synopsis you removed was neither overly long by Wiki Film Project guidelines nor for the most part was copied from IMDb. Please do not undo the hard work of other editors without just reason. Thank you. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep some of that info on the Checkers speech in there. Yes, much of it is also found in the article, but it is useful to keep the basic description of the speech in there so that readers might understand the outpouring of support without having to go read the other article. 65.190.95.8 (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at Template_talk:NYC_Colleges#King's restored, Cardozo deleted. --Aepoutre (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say: nice edits. That page is on my watch list. It had got into quite a state! Best wishes, Millstream3 (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One somewhat important point about the tag: Cassel is not absolutely guaranteed to earn $14.65 million. Cassel could sign a long-term deal, with the Patriots or another team, for any amount. He is only guaranteed that amount if he plays for the Patriots under the franchise tender. Samer (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a big deal at all, but I just wanted to say, that I left the "citation needed" instead of deleting, because I intended to find a citation myself, in case it was true. And I was hoping that maybe someone might add one in the mean time. No big deal. Belasted (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ylee. Yes, your request can be fulfilled without problem, as it:User:Ylee has no edits.
I'd be grateful if you could follow the directions and leave your request in this page http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cambiare_il_nome_utente/Riassegnazione#For_it-0_speakers_.28SUL.29 so that one of the local bureaucrats will free the current account for you to grab it.
Feel free to contact me, should you have any trouble. Bye, --Paginazero (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me. YLee (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - the 7 days are long over. The username is now free. Please log into it:wp for including it into your global account. Bye. --Paginazero (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi, Ylee.i wrote an email to zh:user:Ylee to tell him/her your usurp request. but he want to keep the username and left the note on zh:user talk:Ylee. a pity, you don't get the name.--Pubuhan (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You can do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:Television series]]
[[Category:Hypothetical second category]]

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit on "In Plain Sight." You removed basic factual information about the main character without an edit summary. If there's a reason to remove it, please state it in the edit summary. Otherwise, edits with no summary are likely to be reverted. Drmargi (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ylee, why do you keep on changing my paragraph on Caltech? Wikipedia is supposed to be an universal effort and I don't see why you should keep on editing it. I understand you want to keep the Popular Science section short, but the moon landings, especially with Caltech professor and alum involved, is highly relevant and should contain enough description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerjean888 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue this discussion on the Talk page for the article. Short version: It's not very relevant to a popular culture section. YLee (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PROD. Reimplementing a PROD indiscriminately can be considered abuse of process. You should understand how prod works, before making claims about the process. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it after seeing your unexplained blanking/redirect and have read it again. Your action still doesn't make any sense as it does not fit into any of the criteria listed under "Before deletion." It fits best under the "blanking the entire article" vandalism under "Contested deletions," which is why I restored the PROD tag. YLee (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the PROD rationale given, it was duplication of information found elsewhere, which would be WP:CFORK, and thus should be redirected or deleted, since it's a valid search term, redirecting is proper. Redirecting is not blanking, since the redirect target should still contain the information. (If it doesn't then it would be vandalism, but in this case, the target does contain the info). WP:BOLDly redirecting is something that qualifies as fixing the article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, if you think an article should be deleted after it was deprodded, please create a WP:AFD nomination for it. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting the cite in on Conan O'Brien --Flashflash; 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clever edit here [1] Relief to see someone else with economics knowledge Mac520 (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you. I always favor integrating links whenever possible. YLee (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've responded on my own talk page to streamline the conversation. Thanks. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misjudged your candidate because since that time the individual has abused the privilege and caused angst among others. I strongly recommend that you reconsider and revoke this privilege because the individual does not employ mature judgment in edits.

		The Original Barnstar
		A barnstar for your excellent expansion of Nikki Finke! Jokestress (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinking is the usual method of encouraging new articles. The issues raised in this Article elevated the significance of the aerodrome in question. It may be that sources are limited, but that does not preclude nominating it. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing WP:REDLINK (which I should have done before my edit) I see that you were right and I am wrong. Thank you for the correction. YLee (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo? TYPO? TYPO? How dare you accuse me of a simple slip of the digit. I'll have you know that was a bloody stupid error caused by complete brain shut-down, lack of sleep or alcohol; or probably all three in a previously unrecorded scientific incestual alliance. On a more level note - ta, amazing how these things can sit there despite edit after edit ... Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and a ta for the removal of 'out of continuity' OR (by accident) - you're right that humour dosn't mean non-canonical. Somewhere in there is an article on Father Christmas in DC Comics waiting to burst forth .... Archiveangel (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, YLee. Are you an employee, student, faculty, or otherwise affiliated with Caltech, JPL, or a member of the Caltech or JPL communities? I ask because I notice you are putting a lot of effort into the Caltech article. In fact, you surely remember reverting my recent contributions which you described as "good faith." In reviewing the history of the article, the article talk page, your own personal talk page (this page), and the history of your talk page, it appears that you have maintained certain aspects of the article as you deem fit. Soon, we will discuss Wikipedia's editorial policies. First, the most important question I have you regards your point of view. Personally, I attended Caltech and never graduated. I believe this qualifies me still as a member of the community. With that in mind, and in the certainty that many readers of Wikipedia are members of the Caltech community -- what is your connection, if any, with Caltech? Heathhunnicutt (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My affiliation (or not) with Caltech is irrelevant to my edits. I am happy to discuss the edit in question with you, at the Talk page. YLee (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your affiliation is relevant because you have a pattern of edits which indicate the possibility of a non-neutral point of view. WP:NPOV is a policy of Wikipedia and your bias is a matter of valid concern here. You have made a number of edit reversions which, on the surface, do not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. I am interested in first discussing your evident POV bias and not limiting the discussion to your one edit which triggered my curiosity. I have been looking through your contribution history and the history of the Caltech article, and I see that you have made a number of edits which I intend to call into question. I therefore reject your move to narrow the scope of my inquiry away from your possible point-of-view bias. I'll give you another chance to reveal your Institute affiliation. Keep in mind that Wikipedia admins will have not trouble shedding light on the question. If you are bound by the Caltech Honor Code and choose not to reveal your affiliation, it would seem that you may be in violation of the Honor Code also. Cooperation with the policies of Wikipedia is not unfair participation even if you make mistakes, but any campaign maintained through concealing your affiliation would seem unfair to me. What, if any, is your Institute affiliation? Heathhunnicutt (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, feel free to discuss my or anyone else's edits at the Talk page. YLee (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to send some praise for your clean-up on the Bowl Championship Series article. Good work, and thanks for helping to keep it balanced and neutral. Obamafan70 (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words! YLee (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like any mention of a boobs zip code, and as the latest ip that was just reverted shows, it could use 6 for a lowercase b. Plus, sourcing it to the episode is inaccurate and WP:OR as Moe says it spells boobs, not saying which of the at least 3 it could be. CTJF83 chat 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. I am not thrilled about having "BOOBS" in the article, either, but I'm not sure we can completely ignore it, either, as per the Talk discussion. YLee (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see why I'm saying OR? I think it is just a throw away joke, that can be ignored, actually, along with the other zip code mentioned, as that was just a brief 2 second mention. Unlike the area codes, which are the subject of an entire episode. CTJF83 chat 21:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider citing dialogue or on-screen elements as OR. That said, I'm fine with removing the zip codes completely, as per the consensus to omit mention of contradictory location info. YLee (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we can remove them all together then. I only say OR as cause he said it spells boobs, but not how. CTJF83 chat 21:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it can only be two permutations for real cities, unless Springfield has a fictional Zip Code. 58008 and 60065 are the only two which match actual US cities. The later is a suburb of Chicago and is certainly the closest yet to a real Springfield.--Closettrekker (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is no closer than any other clue to a "real" Springfield that we've seen in the show's 21 seasons. (In other words, just as meaningless.) And of course the zip code could be fictional; that goes without saying. YLee (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this, which indicates 1958. Do you have a more reliable source? Not being contentious; at this point I'm honestly curious. Mark Shaw (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure:

• Brown University Khruschev archives
• Time
• Boston Globe

I believe the reason the news articles on the Wayne-Khruschev meeting say 1958 is because a 2005 Wayne biography gives the wrong year. The book cites the meeting as occuring during the Hollywood dinner for Khruschev hosted by 20th Century Fox head Spyros Skouras that the Time article mentions. The 1959 visit was Khruschev's first (and, I believe, only) visit to the United States, and the first by any Soviet leader, which is why it got so much publicity. YLee (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your feedback is well-appreciated.
ABCxyz (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ylee ...

I made changes to this article and you insist on removing them. I thought Wikipedia was meant to be based on fact and not on the missreporting of the worlds press.

The changes I made are factually correct. IBM has nothing to do with the Refs scoreboard that failed at 47-47 ... this syetem is the refs system.

Specifically this statement is incorrect.

"IBM programmers said it was only programmed to go to 47–47 but would be fixed by the next day"

Similarly IBM programmers did not work until 11:45etc ...

I would appreciate you re-applying my changes as we are all interested in ensuring this historical event is recorded accurately. What gives you the right to decide what is fact or not? I would appreciate your assistance.

I work on www.wimbledon.org

Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.15.111 (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth". I know that sounds strange, but it's for Wikipedia's own protection. This means that only things that can be reliably sourced to a newspaper, a book, or something similar, can appear in articles; otherwise anyone could add anything by claiming that (despite all the reliable sources that say otherwise) Hurricane Katrina hit Miami, not New Orleans, in 2005, and that he knows this because he was in Miami. What you need to do is to find a reliable source that supports your claim, and then we can proceed from there. Until then, sorry, we need to stick with The New York Times. YLee (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for a record - Andy's information are accurate and NYT are not. Not the first time journalist missreported. At least there will be truth on talk page :) Gabrysb (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also - a question, if I can, and if you know an answer. How can one "realiably source" that a newspaper was wrong? I suppose that in situation like this it would be better to remove content that is inaccurate, I think Wikipedia was not designed to mirror newspaper archives... What's also important - Andy did not add new information (for which he could not give realiable source). Gabrysb (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can suggest is for you and Andy to bring this issue up on the Talk page for the article. Explain that Andy works on wimbledon.org (and/or whatever your own connection to the match is), and that the New York Times article isn't correct. While the requirement for a reliable source that supports what you and Andy say can't be avoided, perhaps others can help you find such a source. (Also, since Andy works at wimbledon.org, perhaps he can have that Website publish an article explaining the correct details of the various scoreboards and their failures?) YLee (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic example of why Wikipedia should not be used as a reliable source of information. It can not be trusted. The red tape in getting the facts recorded will prevent the truth being told. Just because a news paper prints something, that does not make it fact. In most cases the reporters have collected the details of their story with little solid evidence to back them up. Given I was in the room with the people running the wimbledon.org scoreboard, I could not be a more informed source. I am not disputing most of what's been written, I am just trying to correct a few facts to support this record. For information, almost all reporting of this subject was incorrect, leaning towards creating colourful stories ... so where do people find out the facts? I feel its pointless me pursuing this ... this is just one more case of Wikipedia not working. Please be proud that your moderation has ensured this information is not accurate. A disappointed Andy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auk20 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI - I was the one who wrote "hotfix"... but I suppose I cannot be a source. Gabrysb (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrysb ... thanks for your support in this matter. Auk20 (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Hi, Ylee. We have some disagreement about Capricorn One. I spelled out my case here and would value your response. SnappingTurtle (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plot description you reverted was not entirely bad. Yes, the guy couldn't spell and had serious phraseology issues, but several of the points you omitted leaves the plot details a little thin. The popping zit is particularly bland in its revised state. Referring to name characters "Professor Jennings" is preferable to "a professor." Mentioning that he is played by Donald Sutherland is appropriate, just as the mention of Belushi earlier would be. Referring to Otto as "the Delta" just lays there. In short, there is some value to these edits. This could be improved upon, not just reverted and disappeared. Trackinfo (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sutherland's role was basically a cameo and the plot summary does not mention Professor Jennings elsewhere, so "a professor" is preferable. "The Delta" is an alternative to repeating Otter's name again in the sentence, since "him" or "he" doesn't work due to the ambiguity. I have no objections to inserting actors' names (I don't think it's a MOS issue but could be wrong) but it should be consistent; either all major actors' names should appear or none.

The zit issue is slightly different. Wikipedia's house style requires a clinical approach to writing for it that is as stripped bare as possible while still accurate and complete. The humor within the subject matter here makes it all the more important that the tone be retained and any deviance be either marked as such (such as the notable quotes, integrated into the text but clearly marked as such) or otherwise separated out (footnotes, for example). Can Bluto firing mashed potatoes into Marmalard be succinctly described while adhering to the tone? Perhaps. Is the incident important enough to do so in the plot summary? Or, in other words, is it as important as the resulting food fight? I don't think so. YLee (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are formally correct that "strange goings-on" is not really good tone for a WP article re 2001. However, it is a direct quote from the dialogue of the film. An alternative clean-up would have been to put it in quotes indicating as such. However, I am satisfied with the way it stands.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just rechecked the film; the phrase does not occur in the scene. YLee (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confused the film dialogue "mystery of what has been going on" with "strange goings-on". Close but a couple notches off the bulls-eye. Thanks for checking.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ordway article might be very useful for adding positive material on the "Scientific Accuracy" section of the "Space Odyssey" article over which there is now a tag expressing concern that it gives undue weight to the inaccuracies.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit mystified, to be honest! I think a "see also" at the bottom of the articles in question would have been fine (in fact put one in if you like!) but in making internal links you do need to keep the purpose of these things in mind. If the connection gets oblique and obscure it rather defeats the object of making things clearer and easier to understand! If it's too general it is little immediate help for someone who wants specific clarification. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About your edit, since "business school" is spelled out in the preceding phrase, I believe it is appropriate to abbreviate the verbiage in this case. Spelling it out is redundant and makes the dab very lengthy. Also b-school is a common abbreviation. Will you reconsider? —Eustress ^talk 17:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's slang, just like "j-school" would be in an article about a university's journalism school, or calling Harvard "H-bomb". You are right that repeating "school" three times in the hatnote is not ideal, but resorting to slang is not the way to avoid the awkwardness. YLee (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like your compromise. It's even more clear and accurate now. Thanks! —Eustress ^talk 21:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this comment, you could try asking an admin (ie. Theleftorium) to add a copy of the page to your user space, then you can get whatever you need from there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much getting content from the article that I'm interested in but the article itself. Like politics, religion, and the media, education seems to me to justify a separate article beyond just Springfield and Springfield Elementary School. YLee (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was my thought when I created the page. But, it ended up just being a big list of schools and character alma mater, and it didn't seem like there was a lot of meaningful content that could be added. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a misclick? The content has been cut and pasted to the merge target's talk page. –xeno^talk 15:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that; no idea how it happened. YLee (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering mouse =] No problem. –xeno^talk 15:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick! (RE: Lloyd Carr and 2006) I decided to go back and move that to the 2006 BCS page, but it was already gone. Figured that people who were reading the Lloyd Carr page probably are well aware of the issue. Yes, Florida and Florida State aren't in the same conference - I didn't realize my contradiction at the time. They are in the same _region_ though, that's what I was trying to say. We're all good, thanks! Ypsidan (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your graciousness. There's never anything innocuous about the Mob. "Mafia ties" reads like a proprietary connection. In that business @ that time, rubbing shoulders w/ Mafia guys was inevitable. I know whereof I speak. Tapered (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance I can get you to watch the article in case someone changes it again? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to look at my discussion regarding the template reversion. Template talk:Colleges and universities in Los Angeles County Thank you so very much.--S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my plot changes to said movie article, due to "colloquialisms". I thought I kept it pretty neutral, but whatever. Mind you, I was actually trying to add what was missing in the plot section AND added a "Controversy" section. Your reversion took out a huge chunk of actual content on the article, so I encourage you to change my wording if you think is not up to snuff, which might be the case, but don't take the content out because it belongs there. Thank you. 200.115.236.94 (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		Strategic Barnstar
		This is to certify that Wikipedia User:Ylee has been awarded the Strategic Barnstar. For hard work and due diligence creating or editing strategic deterrent related articles or FBM submarine related pages. Your outstanding performance provides significant and long lasting benefits to Wikipedia, Congratulations! Signed: Legohead1my_talk 21:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well give up editing Star Trek movie articles as Wiki administrator "David Fuchs" constantly reverts edits that he considers not to his liking, if you check the article history he does it all of the time!

217.22.0.171 (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it!! 98.71.247.79 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just reported User:Kopimama for a 3RR violation. You should consider self-reverting your last edit to the article so it doesn't look like you're edit-warring as well. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have the impression that you think I'm a drive-by editor of this article - I'm not. Let's work out any differences on the talk page please. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I think you are right about focusing about not citing the release of the documents and audio and focusing on integrating it better in to the article. Thanks for all the great edits and improvements to the article. It is fascinating reading through some of the internal investigative reports about everything that happened and how the Secret Service responded. Warfieldian (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing the documents to Wikipedia's attention. YLee (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for reverting my edit on Friday (Rebecca Black song). You're totally right, I should've checked the source before I jumped in. Cheers, DubiousIrony ^yell 18:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Awarded to Ylee for his/her dedication to "Friday" article, fixing it up, adding references... everything... Novice7 (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm not seeing where my edit of the hidden notes in Elizabeth Taylor mangled the text - could you point me to it? Obviously, I didn't intend that - but do want to fix the notes that are there and add short one where they're missing so we can avoid the back and forth regarding the upper case U. Thanks Tvoz/talk 15:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look at your edit; it completely removed some text, making a part of the summary nonsensical. Ylee (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what happened is that a hyphen dropped off of the arrow at the end of the hidden note, which screwed up the text. Fixed it now - thanks. Tvoz/talk 19:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ylee. You have new messages at Talk:Mitt Romney.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Dear Ylee -

Would it be too much trouble to provide the page number from your source for the "panties" citation from Tedrow? If you have a collection of books on Chappy incident, perhaps you'll keep an eye on the edits and provide sources and citiations to confirm or revise mine.Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the cite again. It uses the rp template to specify the page, 36 in this case. Ylee (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits to the Conscription in the United States article. SocratesJedi | Talk 07:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say the same thing, very useful additions and great citations! Foxyshadis^(talk) 20:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good find. Well done. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix your refs on Postum, they are currently broken. Also, I don't think it's good form to remove stuff when you add stuff. I don't mind the additions, but I think I will merge your changes with what was there before. (It's perfectly possible for the company to claim it's like coffee in one ad, and that's it's not like coffee in a different one - or at a different time. So because of that I think you should leave both versions.) Ariel. (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the broken cites; I fixed them. I don't know what you mean by "remove stuff"; what did I remove? Ylee (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You removed nothing. I misread the diffs - you moved stuff, you didn't re-move stuff. Ariel. (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your posting on Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series. Those disruptive edits are getting annoying; let me know if I can help. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were previously involved in the discussions. Please weigh in and join. 94.230.85.129 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Rationing, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page PTA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 14:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Physician to the President, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medical Corps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited JLA/Avengers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spectre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Jeremy Lin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Camino Real (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Space Shuttle thermal protection system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stress test (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss about the incorrect cite that you inserted at Talk:Data (Star Trek). HumphreyW (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Felicity (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington Square (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frasier Crane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:George Ho/Frasier Crane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

From User talk:George Ho/Mentorship discussions#WP:articles for deletion/Fictional women of All My Children, volume 2; read more there:

While I agree that primary sources can be used to establish a character's fictional background, they cannot bestow notability, they cannot be used for interpretation (and "X is an important character" is inherently interpretation), and content should not be based on primary sources alone. Huon (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for kicks.... Since you brought up his personality and wealth, I think I must somehow find ways to attract general audience with these traits. I don't know how notable his traits are, but calling them important without non-primary source is original analysis and thought, which I must omit. For instance, The Boys in the Bar is considered a derivative of "The Boys in the Band", but it is not included because it's an original research and because there are no reliable sources to confirm such analysis. --George Ho (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it; there must be non-primary sources that analyzes Frasier's wealth and eruditeness. If there is not one, why must they be explained in detail? I mean, how notable are his traits? Clearly, to me, he started out as love triangle of Sam and Diane, but he then became a friend and victim of these common pranksters, a husband of some one-tone woman with a kid, a radio psychiatrist, and... I don't know. Nevertheless, I trust treat an article of the fictional character as if it were a biography of the (living) person, like Kelsey Grammer. I don't go into full detail about one aspect or another; inserting our own analysis without good publication is original research. Tell me why eruditeness or wealth must be explained analytically. --George Ho (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some; for example there's a New York Times article, which the Frasier and/or the Frasier Crane article cites, discussing the show as an example of how the US has a class system. There's no need to discuss these attributes in detail; just some examples, using cites from individual episodes. Ylee (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does not mention much about his own failures to meet standards of royalty, and even his personality is already mentioned in my draft... but in very short prose, unless you disagree. Is there anything else fron that source worth including in my draft? --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I paste my draft into main userspace right now? Why demanding personality information if general readers may or may not care about his wealth or personality a lot? Even if his personality is developed, I don't know how it is relevant or needed for general readers. I just developed the article in a chronological way because it shows how writers figure out what to do with him AFTER the "Sam and Diane" story. They just added personality and wealth stuff, even if irrelevant to the true origin of Sam and Diane, because... that's what they wanted him to be explored as more than just a mere love interest. Even his stories are not that great, with an exception of "Ham Radio" episode. --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it; the more eyes the better. Ylee (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ylee. You have new messages at Talk:The Blitz.
Message added 21:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hi - hope you can help - I am totally confused! :) thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Blimey. Thanks. Well spotted! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Single Integrated Operational Plan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to James Doolittle, Francis Matthews and Bernard Brodie

General Dynamics F-111C (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chief of the Defence Staff

General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to U-2

Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to V-1

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the ((cquote)) template, which are reserved for pull quotes)."--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is aimed at block quotes in the body of the text itself, as opposed to pull quotes. Cquote is discouraged in and of itself in favor of quote and rquote, the latter of which is used by the quote in question. Ylee (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely ugly adding even more clutter to an already cluttered article. If no one else cares, I'm leaving it because it's not worth fighting about.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the clutter. I moved the quote to a more appropriate section. Ylee (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still hate it, but I hate it less. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited History of New York University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Concourse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Did the events in question not occur in Avengers Vs X-Men issue #1, as 96.28.232.24 indicated? (Just asking.) Nightscream (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that; I must've erroneously clicked. Reverted my revert. Ylee (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing ((User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox)) on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing ((User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox)) on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tightrope (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Denby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sound film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Sherwood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Annexation movements of Canada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Seward

History of British Columbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Little England

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing ((User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox)) on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Princess in Berlin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

France3470 (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Rationing in the United Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Razor blade

Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ballast

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would you like to sign up in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Cheers and Frasier task forces? --George Ho (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd be the best suited. I've only seen a half-dozen Cheers episodes. Ylee (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ylee, I've just undone most of your most recent change to this article. I don't think that the comparison with the US is terribly meaningful - Hasluck compares the Australian losses at Singapore to what a similar loss would have represented, in proportional terms, to the UK and US, but it's not really very meaningful so far down the track (and his decision to highlight only these countries smacks of a regional bias which wouldn't be considered sensible by modern historians). I'd be happy to discuss this further on the article's talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's quite all right. I saw your explanation in the edit history and cannot disagree with your logic. Ylee (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits on Ulysses S. Grant? McFeely is an established source on Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Must've clicked on the wrong thing. Fixed now. Ylee (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ylee. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grant remained popular up until the end of the 19th Century. Afterwards historians really only covered corruption during his administration, rather then looking at Grant's whole Presidency of foriegn, domestic, and Reconstruction policy. At the turn of the 20th century historians began to look at Grant's Presidency from a new approach of appreciating his protection of African American civil rights and American Indians, in addition to his mostly successful foriegn policy under Sec. Hamilton Fish. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to participate here: Talk:Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.#Merge_citation --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I liked your edit to the "Releases" section of the article. That conspiracy churn didn't belong. Something that would be relevant would be a section on the film and book's role in paranoid conspiracy theories. IIRC, both Obama and McCain were touted as "Manchurian candidates" (Obama: partly raised in Indonesia, McCain: POW with Communist Vietnam) during the 2008 election. The challenge would be to find reliable sources for this; I believe most of the people who write about this are the conspiracy theorists themselves.--Sus scrofa (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see ny proposal to rename Category:Television series canceled after one episode to Category:Television series cancelled after one episode; to follow the spelling of all the other subcategories of the parent category. Hugo999 (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Veterans Stadium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mouser (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 19:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing references from articles, as you did on Carly Foulkes, is not considered a minor edit. Please see also Wikipedia:DEADLINK#Keeping_dead_links NE Ent 12:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ylee. You have new messages at Jack Sebastian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

It's a bizarre claim. Try to find any corroboration that "one shot, one kill" is anything but a computer game meme. I've tried, and I can't find it. The wording I have put in matches the facts: both wordings state that he never shot a fallen person. Why do you insist on including "one shot, one kill"?—Kww(talk) 23:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's from a reliable source--contrary to your claim--and illustrates the training and mentality that was driving Whitman. (And my god, you're even altering other Wikipedia articles to support your claim! Five seconds of searching would have pulled up two books on military snipers that use the phrase. One is even titled "One Shot, One Kill"! I strongly suggest you revert your attempts to alter Wikipedia to support your lack of research.) Ylee (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been removing dubiously sourced material. You don't really think Sasser is a reliable source, do you?—Kww(talk) 23:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you claiming that One Shot, One Kill must be unreliable? Because one of the authors, Sasser, has written fiction and religious books? He has a military background and appears credible. If you want to question the book's reliability, take it up with the publisher, Simon and Schuster, and/or find other reliable sources that contradict it. Find something in WP:RS that rules the book out. You cannot, however, arbitrarily decide whether a source is RS just because you feel like it, without basis for the belief; that's pure WP:OR. Ylee (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other way around: for people to claim that a source is reliable, they have to demonstrate that it has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.—Kww(talk) 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the military for 22 years and we were always taught "one shot, one kill". It's strange that there aren't more reliable sources confirming it. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" clause is primarily meant to, as the next sentence in WP:RS indicates, prevent Wikieditors from using OR to interpret primary sources themselves. A book written by an author with credible relevant background (in this case "29 years in the U.S. Army, 13 of them as a Green Beret") and published by a reputatable publisher (Simon and Schuster) is assumed to clear the bars WP:SCHOLARSHIP sets out unless and until someone can demonstrate otherwise.

AussieLegend, "One shot one kill" is something that's so taken as a given by soldiers that it's almost akin to saying "water is wet". For example, consider this USMC-published news article. Other than the headline there is no connection between "one shot, one kill" and the article other than that it deals with snipers; the phrase is used in the headline because the principle is taken for granted by its readers. (Kww apparently thinks that the phrase is purely a creation of modern videogames and other examples of popular culture. It's a common mistake.) Some more uses of the phrase by the US military:

• Every Marine is a rifleman. Regardless of age, gender or military occupational specialty, every Marine is trained to operate the M16-A2 service rifle. The best of the best. At 13 weeks in length, Marine Corps boot camp is recognized as one of the world’s most intense basic training programs. One shot, one kill. Simply put, Marines are just that good; it should only take one round. Though universally true for all Marines, for the scout sniper, these phrases take on a whole new meaning.

• The school trains students to engage targets up to 800 meters away and take them out with one shot ... SFC(R) Stan Ellis said he conducted more than 80 sniper missions in Korea during the 1980s and though the environment and conditions for today's snipers has changed, the mission is still the same. "The sniper's goal is always one shot, one kill," said Ellis, who served three times as the school's NCOIC during his Army career.

• One shot, one kill: It's the creed of every sniper.

Lots and lots more where these came from. Ylee (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC

There seems to be an unfortunate and widespread, bizarre belief that things didn't exist before mobile phones, computer games and the internet. My kids (I'm 53) were amazed that I understood "LOL" and even more so when I explained that "ROFL" was originally "ROTFL" - those terms have been around since the early days of Morse code, I've been using them since I got into Ham Radio at the age of 13. This probably explains why Kww thinks that "one shot, one kill" didn't exist until the age of computer games. Ahh, kids, can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to put together a correctly sourced addition to sniper, feel free. I removed unsourced material, and a quick scan didn't find sources I felt comfortable with.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you did more than that. You

• removed properly cited text despite the preexisting WP:RS, apparently without bothering to check it to see whether the text was indeed, as you wrote, "well beyond dubious".
• removed text from sniper. Admittedly the text was uncited and needed further work but it was a start, and—also relevant—it served as a target for the redirect of One shot, one kill ...
• which you also removed, calling the text you removed in the previous cite "dubious". You then ...
• undid my revert of you in the Whitman article, writing "Facts as stated in source are presented. Try to find a reliable source that shows that 'one shot one kill' is a sniper tradition", even though such a RS already existed!
• You then above write "Try to find any corroboration that 'one shot, one kill' is anything but a computer game meme. I've tried, and I can't find it". After I show that this is untrue, you 1) groundlessly attack the veracity of one of the additional sources and 2) show an embarrassing misunderstanding of the criteria a RS needs to meet.

(I hold no brief regarding the redirect debate you are having with AussieLegend so will not discuss that. I do note with amusement, however, that you later again edit the Whitman article with the comment "removed wikilink to an NCIS episode" as if you didn't cause that issue in the first place.) Ylee (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of an apology I will accept you reverting your own edit in sniper and redirecting one shot, one kill to it (a longstanding concept in military training and doctrine seems more important than a TV episode named after it; further, a hatnote can be added to the sniper article if desired). I will then improve the admittedly problematic text. Ylee (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed unsourced material from "sniper", and reworded the Charles Whitman article to precisely represent the facts as presented without the editorial description. Once I removed the unsourced material, "One shot, one kill" could no longer redirect to sniper, so I pointed it at the next most likely term. In terms of "reliable sources", "Texas Monthly" isn't going to qualify as a reliable source as to the existence of a "sniper tradition". All issues in the Charles Whitman article were caused by your insistence on retaining the term without providing good sourcing about it. No apology will be forthcoming, but, if you choose to add well-sourced information about the term to "sniper", I won't have any objection to that. You can even restore the redirect at "one shot, one kill" to point at sniper without any objection once those sources are added. I won't restore any material in advance of sourcing, though, nor, per WP:BURDEN, should you.—Kww(talk) 21:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homogenity of the Tasmanian population. A good understanding of the historical data of the flow of population in and out of the Island over the last 100 years would make the assertions that you have entered to be fundamentally flawed. I have no interest in debating the veracity of your source, or reverting the edit, but I would suggest that epidemiologically speaking the claim of homogenity of the might be correct within certain statistical parameters, but very far off the screen in historical terms... More Tasmanian born people live in Melbourne than in Tasmania for a start. Its an interesting hypoethesis but its not a tune you could dance to easily - there are too many side steps of clarification to stay standing for too long.... I strongly suggest that if you wish to discuss this further - it goes in the talk page to the Tasmanian article - and be warned - it is on very few watch lists, like most of the Tasmanian project articles... cheers sats 08:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The journal article explicitly discusses outmigration's impact on the island. Other than that, the fact that Melbourne has more Tasmanians than Tasmania itself is meaningless to the issue. Ylee (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well looking at the article - and reading the paragraph: -

It is believed that these “founding families” are responsible for ~65% of the current residents of Tasmania. Only modest immigration has occurred in the last 150 years. This is supported by census data from 1996 (Australian Bureau of Statistics), which indicate that >80% of Tasmania’s current 470,000 residents were born in Australia and that almost 90% were born in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, and Ireland, suggesting that the population is relatively ethnically homogeneous

and then back to the article: -

Tasmania's population is unusually homogeneous. The state receives relatively little immigration, and an estimated 10,000 or fewer "founding families" in the mid-19th century are the ancestors of about 65% of its residents. As of 1996 more than 80% of Tasmanians were born in the state and almost 90% were born in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, and Ireland. The homogeneity makes it an attractive location to study population genetics.

I would suggest the lack of the term ethnically homogeneous, is one issue, and the claims only modest immigration in the cited article and its derivative relatively little immigration might suit the articles, but are in my opinion fundamentally wrong - the flow in and out of the island in the last 50 years alone is statistically and demographically larger than modest and or little. But hey it is unlikely anyone else is the slightest bit interested, Tassie is a silent space on wp Australian stats... cheers sats 09:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ylee, you recently reverted an edit that was intended to show optional scenarios to the death of David Gunby; thirty years after the fact that he was shot by Charles Whitman. 1.) The coroner does state homicide. However, as I tried to show on the discussion page, medical examiners may have motives to claim homocide, when in fact, it is passive euthanasia, at the request of the patient, as was Gunby's request to cease treatment. Gunby may very well be alive today if he had continued treatment, a reasonable point of contention. That is why I added the alternative view, which is also a reasonable point of contention, with a reference. Please reconsider your reversion and if not, please explain on the Whitman talk page. Thanks! 2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was an attack comment, nothing more. I have not violated - explicitly or implicitly - any policy or guideline of Wikipedia, and your accusation of such borders on a personal attack. You will note that at no point did I attack your or anyone else within the article or discussion, yet you felt compelled to make this personal. I am asking you to make more of an effort to keep the conversation civil. You will find I have very low tolerance for that sort of behavior, and my post in response to the personal attack should be taken very seriously: the next time it occurs, you and I will be heading over to AN/I. You will not like the result. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to bring this to ANI any time you wish. I look forward to bringing up your laughable inability to read the date the Carly Foulkes article was created, your comparing the debate to a rape victim "asking for it", your disregarding of the (even mild) resulting consensus, and your obvious violation of WP:POINT. Ylee (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said: consider this your only warning, -Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I notice that you recently contributed to the TRS-80 article and wondered if you were interested in adding your opinion to the discussion on the proposed article split. If you have no strong opinion either way, or don't wish to contribute, please feel free to ignore this message. Thank you for your time. Ubcule (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here - contribute the amount for the eBook - and then you will know what you are talking about and stop claiming I am disruptive. http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/an-all-american-boy-the-texas-tower-tragedy/x/2754202 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's your real name Ylee? What have you ever done, for anyone, that gives you license to be critical of anyone? I usually try to give someone the benefit of the doubt in regards to errant information, but you have a mindset that accepts illogical premises, as long as it is sourced, by anything in print. Let's try this - AGAIN! Look at the explanations I gave previously, and note that Daryl Gates and John Nelson of the LAPD, were given the green light to create S.W.A.T. after the Watts Riots of 1965. I am not trying to sneak anything in the article, WP is not transparent like that, and you mentioning it, shows your immaturity, what ever age you are. WHITMAN, was not the impetus of SWAT. That is true whether I am John Moore, Jesus Christ, Satan or any other moniker you want me to be. Grow up Bubba! Look at the cordial exchanges with Kieronoldham. You don't see him bitching.2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is all yours. You view the talk page to see why! ****ole! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Dan Marino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Division II

Jim Kelly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Baltimore Colts

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Margaret Thatcher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John E. Davis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sherlock Holmes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Polish Air Forces in France and Great Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ralph Ingersoll

Stalin's cult of personality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ikon

The Blitz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ralph Ingersoll

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alaska boundary dispute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statute of Westminster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the reversal of edits related to Imprints of DC Comics, but it seemed like everyone was against it and it would be deleted. So it seem like there was no point to your edits. --Spshu (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sure it was just an accident, but your 2 most recent edits [2] (good ones, btw) were marked as "minor". Minor edits should only be marked to fix grammatical, spelling, or simple syntax mistakes. Thanks, ∴ Naapple TALK|CON 08:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were accidents. Thank you for the reminder; I'll be more careful. Ylee (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The O.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arrested Development (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Area 51 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Atomic Energy Commission and Richard Bissell

JP-7 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Doolittle

Lockheed U-2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to SS-6

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Noticed that you removed my additions that shed light on how CIA/officials first discovered Area 51 and provided appropriate references (including documents that were made public only recently). Can you please explain why this addition was removed? Would like to discuss. Thanks

Contributor2007 (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Area 51#News: US Acknowledges Area 51 in Connection with U-2 history. You can't just dump text into an article like that without any consideration regarding what's already there. Ylee (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see your point about Area 51 being "known" already but official acknowledgment is important. Plus, the history of who & how it was discovered is important, and certainly was not previously covered. Also, I don't understand why it is being claimed that what I added was copyright violation. Can you please explain? Thanks

Contributor2007 (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I kept the FOIA request info mention because that is new. Most of the rest is already in the article (the U-2 section already discusses Area 51's naming, the CIA/Lockheed people who chose it, its first use, etc. in the 1950s, citing the CIA history). As for copyvio, I apologize for writing that without checking first; 90% of the time, when someone suddenly dumps "newsese"-sounding text into an article on a subject which has lots of ongoing news coverage, it's copy-and-pasted from a news article. (That said, if it turns out it really is a copyvio, I'll be really annoyed.) Ylee (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lockheed U-2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lushan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm curious, what is your interest in this obscure film? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Government Girl (1943), a film related in a way to Princess O'Rourke. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An early scene has Princess Maria confiding to both her uncle and her secretary/governess that she is afraid of flying. The governess gives her a sleeping pill to soothe her nerves, and cautions her that the effects are different from person to person. When she is onboard, Maria doesn't think the pill is working and asks the stewardess for another one, following that she asks again and the co-pilot gives her one, then the pilot gives her two more. After being unable to be roused, she finally is walked around but at the cafe, the owner feels sorry for her and assumes she can't sleep and slips two more sleeping pills into her coffee. The whole pill issue is s classic plot point, and affects her greatly as later when she recovers, she barely remembers the whole flight. When Eddie encounters her on the street, she doesn't recall who he is, as she was dozy during the entire episode. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to her destination not being important, the Secret Service were supposed to be with her throughout the flight but her uncle considers that too intrusive and doesn't allow the princess any freedom. When the agent in charge of her detail, explains that at the very least, there will be a Secret Service agent at San Francisco, Holman relents. Since the regular agent is not with her during the period when she has disappeared, Princess Maria makes up a fanciful tale of sleeping at the women's lounge at the airport, a story that the agent can't dispute. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't recount the plot to me as if I'm not familiar with it. More to the point, don't make the mistake too many people do in Wikipedia film plot descriptions of attempting to fit in too much detail.

Maria's destination is unimportant. She could have been going to Chicago, Alaska, or Mars; it's a MacGuffin in that sense; the important thing is that it gets her on Eddie's plane. Same with the number of pills she takes; what matters is that she takes too many and meets Eddie that way. The plot only mentions the Secret Service once, in an aside, because the agent is also a vehicle to move the story along.

Yes, the film is fictional, but the other people Maria's uncle mentions are real; that's why it's reasonable to mention them. (Conversely, had he only mentioned fictional people, their names wouldn't be notable all.) The film's versimilitude is based on contemporary audiences being aware that there really were many governments in exile in London, with some members coming to the US. Audiences would also have been aware of the war-driven spate—to the point of government and civic leaders considering it an epidemic and something to be discouraged—of rushed engagements and fast marriages; many other films of the era are based on this fact, such as Judy Garland's The Clock. That Maria is a princess makes this wartime romance more exotic, that's all.

The "continuity error" is no such thing. Well, it is an error, but no more so than any other film that shows the "wrong" automobile, train, plane, or rocket taken from stock footage; wikiplots never mention such discrepancies, and rightly so. Sometimes they are mentioned elsewhere in the article, in a "historical accuracy" or "production" section, but only in cases where (such as a historical docudrama of a real event) accuracy is particularly important. For a romantic comedy? No. Ylee (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I detect a bit of testiness in your first comment; my relating of the plot was not meant to edify but to explain my reasoning behind my edits. The error in continuity is due to the use of stock footage of an airliner taking off, and is now placed in the production section, as only the DST had a sleeping compartment, which is the plot device in play in the film. Moreover, few audience members may have even noticed the switch in aircraft; I only spotted it on a review of the film. As to the other "suitors", they likely aren't worth more than a mention, and in the last edit, I simply removed the note as it is misleading whether the characters were actual or fictional. The sleeping pills does warrant a mention in the plot as that is the sole connection of Eddie to Mary. After reviving, she barely makes the connection to who Eddie is, as the only times she has seen him was in a drowsy state. Nonetheless, I have removed the lengthy note in the last edit. Again, your interest in this film is ... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Princess O'Rourke may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:

• Roosevelt's dog, [[Fala (dog)|Fala]], to deliver to his master. In the middle of the night, the P. (resident summons a [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] judge ([[Harry Davenport (actor)|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

1983 Houston Oilers season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The big one

1983 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The big one

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if I've been caught in the reverting dragnet of the IP user re: the above article (Charles Whitman) as I just received a notification that "my" edits have been reverted, but I haven't made the edits and was in the process of reviewing and removing them. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know you're not responsible. You were who I was referring to regarding the subsequent edits (although I should have made it more clear that you are not the banned editor; my apologize for the ambiguity); since you're aware, feel free to do so yourself instead of me. Ylee (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Instances where more than one editor takes a differing approach to resolving issues along these lines can lead to instances where two or more persons attempt to resolve the issue at the same time. Best regards and have a nice weekend.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - what part of the Daryl Gates video did you not understand? He does not mention Whitman at all. He mentions the 1965 Watts Riots, he mentions a sniper in LA that caused a stand-off, but Whitman is not mentioned anywhere between the former events and the Black Panthers and SLA which came after Whitman. Did you look at the video - or just have a reaction, being the Meme spreading virus that you are?! Here - view it if you did not view it before.

http://www.policemag.com/videos/channel/swat/2010/04/lapd-s-chief-gates-on-creation-of-swat.aspx

Does your momma still have to spoon feed you?98.209.161.183 (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jason Blum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kicking and Screaming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ylee. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kennedy curse, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Deletion of this page may be controversial or is under discussion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new mini edit war in need of opinions at Carly Foulkes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Bruce Carver (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chris Crawford

Independent video game development (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chris Crawford

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Ghostbusters video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ylee. I saw you added a link to "The Fireman" on the Fahrenheit 451 article. As a full copy of the original work that may still be under copyright, that link may violate WP:LINKVIO and WP:ELNEVER #1. I shall remove it for now unless proof can be given that the Internet Archive has permission to host that material from the copyright owner. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit to Kaypro. The Jerry Pournelle quote is amusing. —rybec 18:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at DOS shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of personal computers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names.

Here you added a new reference pc19810203 but didn't define it. This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. Cite error: The named reference was invoked but never defined. Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks --Frze (talk · contribs) 06:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names.

Here you added a new reference nortonpcjraudio19840124 but didn't define it. This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. "Cite error: The named reference REFNAME was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks -- Frze ^{> talk} 06:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Please ping me[reply]

:((ping|Frze)):

Hi, Ylee. I note you reverted the attached edit I made to the Whitman article earlier. Although nice of you to note the edit of mine was good faith I would have thought it pertinent for the reader to note the rolls of film were actually photographic film as opposed to video film, given this was an event half a century ago? Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but then the thing to do would be to just say "photographic film", with no wikilink. Ylee (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll do just that now. Kindest regards. --Kieronoldham (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Apple III (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to RFI

De Re Atari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chris Crawford

IBM Personal Computer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Startup

Influence of the IBM PC on the personal computer market (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to S-100

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IBM Personal Computer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sperry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sherlock Holmes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King of Scandinavia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 20:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just want to say thanks for the hard work you have been doing posting reviews from Computer Gaming World on retro games! I did something similar about 4 years ago with "Dragon" magazine, going through each issue one by one and posting at least a small blurb on the article of each game. As a result, I even created dozens of stubs in the hopes that people would be able to add more reviews over time; a few have, here and there, but you have been doing quite a few lately, so I just wanted to say thanks and keep up the good work. :) BOZ (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're the one who posted the Dragon reviews! I haven't gone as far you in terms of creating stub articles for games that don't have any presence, but probably ought to have a blank one I can paste in. Ylee (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I try to put my reviews before or after the Dragon ones based on chronological order. Sometimes I may forget and put the new one before the existing one despite this; if so please don't take it personally. It's unintended. Ylee (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken! When I add a review to an article that already has a review, I usually put them in chronological order of publication unless there's another reason to do it differently. It isn't strictly necessary to do it that way, I imagine. BOZ (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you guys have done what I would love to do. I have stacks of sources I am itching to use to fill reception sections because this is really the best way to ensure that good articles don't get deleted. Amazing how many you run across that have zero sources.... I lean inclusionist so I don't even dare to bring up this topic for fear that there will be purges before I get a chance to add sources. Anyway I've already tried to express my thanks to BOZ in the past and I give you my thanks as well, Ylee. Great work both of you - especially in the addition of period sources! I hope I can soon join you in your efforts. -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS - You may also be interested in expanding Wikipedia:VG/RL#Magazines if you have a lot of free time on you hands. -Thibbs (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Computer Gaming World may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:

• Gaming World | date=1988-08 | accessdate=3 November 2013 | author=Sipe, Russell | pages=6))</ref> (Sipe's religious background led to "[[Psalm 9|Psalm 9:1-2]]" appearing in each issue.<ref name="

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pool of Radiance may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"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:

• in a game she otherwise described as a "well-designed slicer/dicer", concluding that "patience (possibly of [[Job (biblical figure|Job (biblical figure]] [is] required to get through this one".<ref name="scorpia199110">((cite news |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the hasty reversion of your addition to this article. However since the source reference given is accessible only to subscribers to the "New Yorker" could you please clarify the meaning of the passage regarding a contractual obligation for Swiss mercenaries to return home if their country is invaded. Does this refer to present-day Swiss enlisting as individuals in the Foreign Legion or the Papal Swiss Guard; or to those formerly recruited for 18th and 19th century Swiss units in foreign armies; or what? Thank you. 121.73.91.201 (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The passage refers to the mercenary contracts that existed before they were banned in the 1800s. The article does not discuss whether the clause still exists in contracts for the Papal Guard (but I would not be surprised if it still does). Ylee (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I will just note the date context in the text. Again, apologies for late night irascibility.121.73.91.201 (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Influence of the IBM PC on the personal computer market (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to EGA

Laser 128 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Flight Simulator II

PC game (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to EGA

Post–World War II baby boom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Babysitters

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who's this guy who's adding AWESOME citations to all the video game articles in my Watchlist?!? Thanks, man! Awesome work! Have TWO barnstars!

		The Citation Barnstar
		For your tireless work of references to classic video game articles. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Video Game Barnstar
		For your tireless work of references to classic video game articles. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

DeskMate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Runtime

Jam Session (software) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Instant Music

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	On behalf of the WikiProject Video games community, this barnstar is for you in recognition for your tireless contributions to video game articles in recent days. Keep up the good work! ProtoDrake (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Legend of Faerghail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bard's Tale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I reverted your recent edit to IL-2 Sturmovik (video game), which added this bit: "A 1992 Computer Gaming World survey of wargames with modern settings gave the game two and a half stars out of five, stating that "it lacks elan"." IL-2 came out in 2001, so I think you made some mistake here. Perhaps you meant to add this to another article?  — daranz [ t ] 18:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reference was for a different game which apparently doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for catching my error. Ylee (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. No worries.  — daranz [ t ] 19:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Buck Rogers: Matrix Cubed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Eye of the Beholder

Galaxy Science Fiction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Space Patrol

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ylee. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medical discharge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kay Summersby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Gavin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talent agencies has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're already done with everything you wanted to do. --Niemti (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to them at some point; don't know when, but it'll happen. Thanks for caring! Ylee (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Battle of Midway (1942 documentary), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Leahy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I do not need to argue with Stacey because he is on my side. see pp. 525-528 for the full story. The idea that Canadian participation in the Manhattan Project was restricted to raw materials is incorrect. There was also Chalk River and the experimental work carried out by the Montreal laboratory, a staff of 340 scientists. This included the ZEEP reactor and NRX. Also the heavy water program in BC. FAQ sheet. Cheers! Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read again. Stacey points out on p. 527 that

Without this American support the Chalk River project in Canada would have been impossible. And it was given, to quote a British official historian, in spite of the facts that the project "gave little real advantage to the Americans with their enormous plants in their own country" and that it was "essentially a postwar project and barely within the terms of collaboration agreed at Quebec". The debt to the Americans, and above all to Groves, should be remembered. It is the more important in that the Chalk River plant was to a large extent the foundation of both the British and the Canadian postwar achievements in atomic energy.

and

In approving the sub-committee's report, the Combined Policy Committee decided that the same group of men — Groves, Chadwick and Mackenzie — should continue to act, on behalf of and under the general supervision of the Committee, to supervise the execution of the new project in Canada. In the light of what has been said, there seems no need, in a book concerned with the history of the Second World War, to relate in detail the history of that project, for it had nothing to do with producing the bombs that were dropped on Japan. (The material for the plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki came from Hanford.)

Stacey notes on p. 528 that ZEEP did not go critical until September 1945 (as your linked FAQ sheet acknowledges) and NRX until 1947, and that "Few Canadians are likely to regret that it was too late to contribute to the bombs that went down on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." To repeat: As Stacey states on p. 514 (as cited in the reverted edit), "In fact it appears that Canada's only specific part in [the Manhattan Project] was to provide raw material, nor is it certain that Canadian uranium was used for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs." This is why of the 14 pages (514-528) he uses to discuss atomic matters, most deal with uranium mining. Ylee (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Canada's only specific role in the Manhattan Project was providing raw material". This is not true, and not supported by the source. There was also the Chalk River and Montreal research and experimental work. Note that the Manhattan Project continued until the end of 1946. I suggest rewording to something like "Canada's principal role in the Manhattan Project was providing uranium ore from the Great Bear Lake mines in the Northwest Territories, although it was also involved in the production of heavy water at Trail in British Columbia, and research and development activities at the Montreal Laboratory in Quebec and Chalk River Laboratory in Ontario." I might have also mentioned the dollar costs in Canada, which were substantial. (This is all supported by the source)

The article says that It is unlikely that Canadian officials were aware of the Manhattan Project beyond the circumstances of the delivery of "Tube Alloys". But the source duly notes that Mackenzie King was present during discussions of Tube Alloys in 1943 and 1944, and that Canada was represented on the Combined Policy Committee (CPC), which was the highest authority of the Manhattan Project. Suggest replacing the text with words to this effect. The source says "It is not clear how many people in the Department of Munitions and Supply knew about it, but there were certainly very few", which is as you would expect. The source notes Canada's role in bringing the US and Britain back together when the British were considering running their own show. Hence the CPC, which officially made the Manhattan Project, like the Normandy landings, an Anglo-American and Canadian effort. While other countries were involved, they were not represented on the CPC.

Although Canada had little to do with production, Canada was involved Canadian uranium did indeed make its way from the Great Bear Lake mines into the enrichment plants at Oak Ridge and the reactors at Hanford (which turned it into plutonium), and therefore may well have made its way into the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs (which the article does get correct). Canadian heavy water was used on the research reactors at Los Alamos and Chalk River, but the real fruits of this came in the postwar period. Now while the source can chop things off abruptly in late 1945, the article's scope is wider, and this should be mentioned.

Finally, the article says (without a source) that the Manhattan Project which was so secret that Vice President Harry S. Truman was unaware of it when he became President after the death of President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt]. But that is not true; he was informed of the Project in 1943 while he was in change of the Senate's Truman Committee. (See Jones, Manhattan: The Army and the Bomb, p. 337) This is one of those zombie myths that will not die no matter how many times they are debunked by historians. And it's completely out of place here; I presume it's supposed to illustrate how secret the project was. Suggest removing this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come now. Yes, after the Nagasaki bomb the Manhattan Project did not shut down the next day. That said, when you and I and everyone else say "Manhattan Project" we are talking about the development process that resulted in the bomb, and not the year between the end of the war and the founding of the AEC. To claim otherwise is sophistry. Again, quoting Stacey: "In fact it appears that Canada's only specific part in [the Manhattan Project] was to provide raw material, nor is it certain that Canadian uranium was used for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs." How is "Canada's only specific role in the Manhattan Project was providing raw material" an inaccurate paraphrase?

Chalk River ended up, as Stacey mentions, entirely a postwar project because of delays. It led to Canada's substantial postwar civilian atomic expertise—CANDU and all that—but had almost nothing to do with the bombs themselves. (Stagg Field went critical in December 1942; another pile almost three years later, after Nagasaki, would hardly have contributed to the bombs' development.) As for Montreal, the ex-Cambridge scientists there (with the key exceptions Groves requested to come to Los Alamos) ended up doing little direct work on the Manhattan Project itself because of security concerns and the American desire to avoid giving away too much atomic knowledge, just as they were able to do little in Britain before the Americans pulled out their wallet.

Stacey states that the total spending in Canada from 1944 to 1945 (p. 526) was $11 million with Canada contributing about half, a laughably small fraction of the $2 billion Manhattan Project. It cannot be claimed as the equivalent of the Canadian beach on Normandy, or the Canadian Army in the Netherlands, or the CMP truck in terms of Canada's contribution to the war effort. It was, rather, as Stacey explains, American largesse in supporting a small side effort, unimportant to the main project, that benefited Canada after the war.

Why don't we say that in the article? It would allow the reader to put it in perspective. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canada had a seat on the CPC, yes, but as Stacey says on p. 522-523, it played no part in the Quebec Agreement and its seat was due to British largesse:

She was clearly not there as an independent entity; the Americans would certainly never have agreed to being in a minority on the Committee. In effect, what seems to have happened, as in the case of some sub-committees of the Combined Chiefs of Staff was that the British government chose to give one of its seats to Canada. So Canada had, so to speak, a foot in the door; and that was a great deal better than being entirely outside.

Yes, it was! I'm very familiar with how much the Australians envied it, particularly in the immediate post-war period. (Not so familiar with the concept of British largesse though.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to removing the "Truman" mention, and will do so. My concern is entirely over retaining the other text. Again, if you object, argue with the Canadian government or find other reliable sources that contradict its official history of the war. Please don't make unfounded claims on the text's veracity relative to the cited source. Ylee (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to IBM Personal Computer 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Integer BASIC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HP BASIC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Steve Jones (athlete) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:

• '''Stephen Henry Jones''' born 4 August 1955) is a Welsh athlete and former world [[marathon (sport)|marathon]] record holder.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

PC game (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to PS/1

United States Marine Corps Recruit Training (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Leckie

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the fixes to the article links in the NYC Colleges that you reverted in your last edit to that template. I have also added the full word to "Optometry", since "Opt" is very vague. Also, I have re-read the WP:INITIALISM page and I do not see any exception to templates that allow them to harbor massive abbreviations. As a lot of editors, including myself, are not from NYC, we would not be familiar with the abbreviations used in the template, especially for the lesser known schools. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INITIALISM is very clear: "To save space, in "small spaces" (infoboxes, navboxes and tables), acronyms do not need to be written out in full." A infobox/navbox is not meant to be 100% comprehensive to everyone at first glance; by definition it is short, and meant to direct people who want more information to the articles themselves. AMDA, NYMC, SVA, etc. are appropriate abbreviations (and actually used in practice, in my experience) given the context, while frequently repeating "New York" is redundant. (And why would you put Cooper Union before Christie's?) Ylee (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I didn't put "Cooper Union" before "Christie's", as you can see in this edit, I put it after. Funandtrvl (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! You are right and I was wrong. Thank you for fixing that. Ylee (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Survivors (Godwin novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Alien (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Star Wars: X-Wing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Roberts. 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) 08:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Great Naval Battles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:

• 1939-1943'' was the first computer game to replicate "that 'joy of [miniature wargaming|miniatures]]'". He cited several flaws in the gameplay but concluded that "for all the problems ... there are a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, don't know if I have mentioned this before. If you come across a review for a game where the article has been deleted, let me know and as an admin I can restore it for you. BOZ (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've run into the situation but thank you for letting me know. How would that happen, anyway? A game that somehow failed WP:NOTABILITY? Ylee (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely. I did find a few like that back when I was initially adding the Dragon reviews. Let's say someone added an article on a game without adding any sources, so a new page patroller would speedy delete it. But you later find a review, so you could have added that - if you come across that situation, I can restore the article. BOZ (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		For all your work improving numerous video game articles by adding reception information from many legacy sources, I hereby award you this barnstar! Great work and thank you for your tireless effort! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The 7th Guest page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Rare Ltd. page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Ultimate Play the Game page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Knight Lore page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Jimmy Maher? Is there some reason why this blogger is a reliable source? As far as I can tell, his blog fails WP:SPS, and it is undue to give his opinions such prominence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maher is the author of, in rough order of importance,

* The Future was Here: The Commodore Amiga (MIT Press, 2012)

* a commercial text-adventure game

* a Windows Z-machine interpreter

Maher has stated that the postings at his site will be at some point collected into another book. Ylee (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It still strikes me as a bit iffy, but I can't honestly say there's anything controversial about the added material. Except maybe that Ultima IV directly inspired players to live better lives. That's a bit tough to swallow. I'd probably rewrite that to say something more along the lines of "Maher called it an inspirational message for players", but I won't push it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyber Empires, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giant Robot. 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) 09:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been noticing your work on oldschool video game Reception sections lately, and I have to say that I'm really grateful and impressed. It takes a lot of dedication to mass edit like that. You're doing WPVG a huge service. Thanks a ton. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. Ylee (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Sneakers (Apple II video game) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Ken Williams (game developer) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Pax Imperia

added a link pointing to Reach for the Stars

The 7th Guest

added a link pointing to Blue screen

Westwood Studios

added a link pointing to Online gaming

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ylee, I'm in the process of writing an article for the WikiProject Video Games Newsletter on the topic of "Refmining" (the positive counterpart to WP:REFSPAM). Your efforts with CGW have caught a lot of people's attention and I think they are rather inspirational. I was hoping to get some input from you on the upcoming article. Would you be interested in contributing to the article? If so, I'd ask you to insert your views where I've indicated in my draft here. Please feel free to review what I've written and give me feedback if you think I should change anything.

As you're aware, you're not the only one who has done such refmining. I've contacted User:BOZ for his fantastic work adding Dragon refs, and (perhaps a bit self-congratulatorily) I've also mentioned my own efforts with Famitsu review score citations. Do you know of any other editors who have taken similar actions and should be mentioned? -Thibbs (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey that looks great! Thanks so much for your help! -Thibbs (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gary Grigsby's Pacific War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Get a life. 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) 10:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your edits on Brokeback Mountain; you could see I had been playing around with placement, as both sections seemed awkward. Ending the article with "Fan fiction" seemed to trivialize it, but I don't think this topic deserves to be ahead of the primary parts of the "Influence" section. Will think of it as another type of individual engagement.Parkwells (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted my changes to your edits to this article. Please self revert and follow WP:BRD by Ddiscussing on the William Gibson talk page.

Since I disagree with your reasons as given in your edit summary:

• The publication date for the magazine is necessary because of the convoluted timeline for the quotes and comments in this last section. It is preceded and succeeded by out of time sequence statements and quotes.
• You reverted wholesale, evidently without reading my edit summaries; the web designer was not mentioned in the relevant cite
• the tenses needed to be changed, again because of the convoluted time line, by using 'had' as part of the verb phrases.
• Contrary to your assertion of 'extra verbiage', my edit was shorter than your edit.

We should discuss this on the article talk page and, if necessary, get other editors involved. I think compromise is very possible, albeit with a general rewrite of section 4 to take into account the bouncing time frames. I assume that is a result from accretion rather than plan for section 4 Influence and recognition and its subsections. - Neonorange (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline is not convoluted; jumping between years as appropriate is not unusual for a Wikipedia biography. As long as dates are appropriately specified there should be no confusion. Similarly, tenses do not need to be changed because there is no "present" in an article like this; since all events are in the past, perfect tenses are unnecessary. There is no need to say "a September 1988 issue of Computer Gaming World interview"; "a 1988 interview" is sufficient (and I will add the year to clarify). And what is the point of verbiage like "on the side"? The physical placement of Gibson's modem to his Apple IIc is unimportant. Ylee (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though your recent edit has made an improvement over your just prior change, I'd still feel better if you discussed your edits on the Gibson talk page. In addition to my previous objections, let me add:

• 'modem on the side' because Gibson only used an Apple //c and Appleworks, not a modem for writing. Gibson did not use the modem at all; yet modem must remain in the sentence to go with his not having an email address - don't be so literal - 'modem on the side' is not the physical placement, but the lack of use
• 'Though the press stated that he used' is not supported by any cites; the source is an interview in CGM, and is part of the question asked Gibson, but not in any way the press in a collective sense, it was one magazine interviewer's phrasing of a question
• jumping around in time in paragraphs in close proximity is not a good practice, no matter what may or may not be unusual in Wikipedia biographies.

Please, again, I disagree with your reversions, and ask that you discuss on the article talk page. Please follow Wikipedia procedure, and discuss proposed at Talk:William Gibson - Neonorange (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CinemaScore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tweets. 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) 09:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about your revert of my edit at "Winter is Coming". In your edit summary, you stated "Elio Garcia is a recognized, published ASoIaF expert and collaborator with Martin on a book. Qualifies under WP:SPS." Westeros.Org is not just a self-published site, it is a fansite, and almost impossible to differentiate between what Garcia writes and what anyone else with privileges does. I am not arguing that Garcia may have some standing to be cited, but it would seem prudent to cite where he writes for a source that is not a cruft-laden fansite. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki of Ice and Fire and the forums are hosted on the site but are otherwise separate from "Westeros.org". As far as I know only Elio and Linda have authorship rights on Westeros.org per se, and the posts always state "I" and "We" referring to Elio or Elio and Linda. Ylee (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following that train of reasoning, how do we know who's posting what? I mean, we can't cite something if we cannot prove who's saying it. We should know that, at the very least, before determining that the source is usable. Let me reiterate: Elio and Linda did write a book about the world of Fire and Ice. As far as I know, they have zero connection to the series except as perhaps a source for writers about minute details. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that Elio and Linda are the only authors on Westeros.org (as opposed to the Wiki and the forums); that's why individual postings don't have credits; they use the authorial "we".

Reliable sources have discussed their expertise regarding ASoIaF. Martin acknowledges that he uses Elio as a reference for things about the books he can't remember/doesn't bother to track himself. As for the book, they are coauthors with Martin. Ylee (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of fictional Oxford colleges, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World Without End. 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) 09:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Warlords (game series) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

The CNN citation absolutely already was in the article before I moved it to first mention. Check the article history. So you are incorrect about that, and the personal dig saying something I never did was "not nice" was needlessly aggressive.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the CNN cite already existed in the article, but it was not associated with the text in question. Your edit comment ("The cited source") misleadingly implied that you were restoring the status quo, including the cite.

Another problem with using the CNN cite—and only that cite—in the lead was that it gave an incorrect summation of the article itself. Someone only reading the lead would come away believing that $800 was the entirely of the money Wayne received. The current version with your edits today is better, I agree—thank you for them—but I still believe that "a total of $2300" is both appropriately pithy for a short lead of a short article while accurately summing up the situation. No citation needed, given those already in the body.

Actually, the cites still aren't needed in the lead post your edits given that they duplicate those in the body. I'll remove them. Ylee (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be completely clear and accurate, I've adjusted the lead to reflect that the $2,300 are for two different things a year apart: "He soon, however, gave up his share of the new company for US$800,[1] and a year later accepted US$1,500 to forfeit any claims against the new company.[2]." I would hope and assume that this addresses both our concerns. And WP:LEAD allows for footnotes in lead for complex or contentious information.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:LEAD allows cites in leads; I'm saying that they aren't needed for such a short lead in a short article when the cites only dupicate those in the body. The topic is neither complex nor, relatively speaking, contentious. Ylee (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ylee,
HAPPY NEW YEAR! Thank you for being collaborative despite our rough start, and for the great care and attention to detail you show as an editor. With best wishes for a great 2015!
--Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to IBM Personal Computer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Demons to Diamonds

added a link pointing to Bill Kunkel

Jack Newfield

added a link pointing to Weathermen

Phoenix (video game)

added a link pointing to Bill Kunkel

Yars' Revenge

added a link pointing to Bill Kunkel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2014, the project has:

188 Featured Articles 67 Featured Lists 9 Featured Topics 20 Featured Pictures

42 A-Class Articles 749 Good Articles 13 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

Feature: Refmining – Another side of WikiGnoming Interview: Marasmusine

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ylee. I saw you going through and sourcing various early VGs to Electronic Games recently, and I want to say kudos! I remember in the past you have said that you don't like to add a review unless there is already an existing article. I can't access the archives you are linking to at the moment, although I probably will be able to later this evening - meanwhile, I created a few really basic stubs based on some of your edits that you can play around with however you like.

• Rescue (1982 video game) [3]
• Mole Attack [4]
• Quest for the Rings (Videopac game) [5]

Enjoy! Hope that helps, at least a little. BOZ (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They do help; thank you very much. I know I need to buckle down and start creating stubs one of these days. Ylee (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.  :) I will try to get some content on those today or tomorrow. If I see any more that I can do, I will add them as well. BOZ (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little more to each of them so that they would not be so bare. :) BOZ (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]