User talk:Rebbing

Eden English School Btl

If you disagree with the result of an AfD, you don't simply over-ride it. First, you should talk to the closing admin; then, if you are not happy, there is DRV. I have listed this at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 21#Eden English School Btl. JohnCD (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Thank you for the note. Please take a look at our verifiability policy, which clearly states: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Yet that is precisely what you did. There is no exception to the verifiaiblity policy for articles that have survived AFD, and I urge you to comply with that policy either by reverting to the redirected version or by providing the required citations. Thank you. Rebbing 20:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rebbing

Hi Rebbing, I am wondering if you could help me with getting references formatted correctly. I am working on an article. I have a full book type citation. But I also need to add the URL of the website where others could click and go there too. Can you give me an idea on how to put all that in one citation. I want to use it as an online citation. Thank you for the time Rebbing. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Maybeparaphrased: Assuming you are using {{cite book}}, you can simply use the |url= parameter for that. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Katrina Pierson

Yes, I care so much about your ownership of all time.... The video may possibly be a copyright violation but I saw the interview live on Fox News television. It was July 20th, she is wished happy birthday, accepts the birthday wish saying there's no place she'd rather be, and then goes on to say she is a Cancer at the end, fuckin indicating that she is in fact born in July. The video was dated July 20th. At any rate, the Politico source confirms she is born in 1976. Obviously you professional Wikipediers with no better time on your hands won't accept the "Famous Birthdays" website as a source so I didn't even go there. Google "Katrina Pierson birthday" and July 20, 1976 shows up followed by the birthday of Donald Trump and people professionally or personally related to him.Trillfendi (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: Stop. It doesn't matter what you saw on television. What matters is what you can cite using reliable sources. The video you provided is unsuitable for several reasons: First, it's a copyright violation. Second, nowhere in the video does anyone say what day Ms. Pierson's birthday is; the video title includes the day, but anyone can upload a video to YouTube with whatever title he likes, so that's not useful. Third, the fact that Ms. Pierson confirms she's a Capricorn doesn't put her birthday on July 20. As for your other sources, Google is not a reliable source.

Now, before you respond or edit the article further, go look at the birthdate. I did your homework for you: I found a reliable source for her birthday (her Twitter page, citable per ABOUTSELF) and wrote an explanatory footnote that cites that along with a reliable source for her age as of a particular date. Leave it, please.

Your sarcasm misses the mark. Wikipedia may be open to editing by anyone, but that doesn't mean we have no standards. Rebbing 15:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I said she said she's a CANCER, duh. Capricorns are born in December and January. If she is wished happy birthday, accepts the wish, accepts that the day is her birthday on that day, not saying something such as "thanks in advance, my birthday is actually on another day", then it only makes sense that the day is her birthday. In the Politico source it says she was 39 at that time, which indicates she was born in 1976. You're not going to find a so-called reliable source on this, unless you accept a tweet from 2012 where she's talking about her birthday dinner. SMH.Trillfendi (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: Fine, I misspoke, but it doesn't matter: Cancer covers June 22 to July 22, so Ms. Pierson's saying that she's a Cancer does not establish which day in that range is her birthday. And, as I've explained, the title on the third-party YouTube video cannot be used to establish the day that the video was recorded. However, you're still missing what I'm telling you: I found a reliable source for her birthday, and I added it to the article along with her full birthdate and an explanatory footnote. The source is her Twitter page, which is a reliable source for her birthday per ABOUTSELF. Rebbing 18:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

References

hello

please leave wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:62 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I volunteer as tribute. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 02:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done Rebbing 02:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Outcomes

Hi Rebbibg. 'SCHOOLOUTCOMES is indeed an essay, not a guideline' - correct, but only in so far tat that 'essay' is the only available (or nearest} Wikipedia page type for classifying it. It does however not express any opinions and draws its content from clearly identifiable facts. It is a neutral documentation of the way the community has chosen to handle the notability of a few special kinds of topics. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, SCHOOLOUTCOMES only reports the typical outcomes from debates involving schools. It says nothing about what ought to occur in future debates. It is not appropriate to infer from SCHOOLOUTCOMES observation that "[m]ost independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept" a consensus that all schools are inherently notable. The more straightforward reading is that most schools are found to meet the appropriate notability guidelines. (Similarly, most porn star biographies are kept: not because the community believes porn stars are inherently notable but because most meet PORNBIO. It would be erroneous to cite a hypothetical PORNOUTCOMES to short-circuit AFD debates about them rather than continuing to look to PORNBIO and GNG in each case.)

Moreover, your reading of SCHOOLOUTCOMES as holding that schools are inherently notable qua schools is contradicted by the essay's plain text:

The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N), Wikipedia:Notability (geography) (WP:NGEO) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG).

OUTCOMES § Citing this page in AfD drives this point home: "all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability . . . . All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as [V] and [NPOV]."

So, even on its own terms, your essay doesn't support your position. More importantly, were the community to decide to disregard our core guidelines and policies to create an affirmative action program for educational institutions, one would expect a clear statement to that effect in a guideline or policy. None exists. Similarly, current talks at WT:N merely to relax—not abrogate—the notability guideline for women and other minority subjects in an effort to compensate for systemic bias appear destined to fail. If we aren't going to give biographies about women a small concession in light of the well-documented systemic bias against women (both in external coverage as well as in terms of editor interest), there's no way we should be giving schools a total exception to notability. Rebbing 22:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think almost everyone who cites WP:OUTCOMES does so in a way that does the history of the page an injustice. Most demand it be treated as a set of subject-specific notability criteria, or argue that descriptions of the past are prescriptive for the future (or, sometimes, just dogmatically insist "it's how we do things"). Personally, I'm not a fan of the page, but I appreciate that there's some important history behind it. I would probably weakly support promoting the schools part of it (if care is taken in the wording) to a guideline, but until that happens it's problematic. You may or may not have a good handle on the background already, but I'll recommend reading User_talk:DGG#WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES_compromise, a section from a few months ago, during one of the more recent flare ups about this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

And that's not al, Rhododendrites. There us also this from DGG from over 7 years ago, not to mention his many consistent comments in between times. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure. And I'm sure there have been others who have articulated it along similar lines. I just wanted to point to the particular thread that I personally found helpful, as explaining the historical context in a way that I had not seen (or, at least, which had not resonated). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung: Thank you for the background. However, that doesn't answer my objection. DGG asserts that SCHOOLOUTCOMES represents a compromise that high schools will be kept, and you seem to believe that SCHOOLOUTCOMES establishes that high schools are per se notable, but SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not support either view:

1. The introduction to the essay says: "Avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as . . . 'We always keep these articles.'"
2. The introduction to SCHOOLOUTCOMES affirms that "all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability," and SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that N, NGEO, and ORG are the relevant notability guidelines.
3. These notability guidelines all require (1) significant coverage (2) in multiple reliable sources (3) that are independent of the subject.
4. NORG, a consensus-based guideline, states: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." It further stresses that "[a]ll universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both."
5. Additionally, SCHOOLOUTCOMES only says what typically happens; if doesn't say what should happen. If DGG's view were correct, one would expect it to say something like: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools should be kept." But it doesn't. Instead, it refers the reader to the notability guidelines as outlined above.

If you, DGG, and the other proponents of this supposed compromise want it to be respected, you ought to start an RFC at ORG to modify NSCHOOL to say that high schools are notable if they can be shown to exist and to be independently-accredited. My suspicion is that the community would not go along with that, but I would be happy to be proved wrong. However, what's currently being done is dishonest and undermines both SCHOOLOUTCOMES' clear text and the broader community's consensus as expressed in our guidelines. Rebbing 19:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

and with respect to women, less-developed areas, etc., how strictly to apply the standards is a matter of judgement in individual articles--I would certainly not want to make a formal guideline of it, but many thousand afds have been closed as keep on that basis--some with my support, some against my opposition, most where I was uncertain. But, fundamentally, variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encyclopedia--which is exactly why we have these debates, because there can be more than one valid opinion in many cases. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC) .

My read of the current discussion is that the community is firmly opposed to relaxing the guidelines not because there shouldn't be a formal guideline about it but because it would undermine our editorial policies. It's difficult, if not impossible, to write a balanced, verifiable, useful article without multiple independent RSes, and Wikipedia is not an affirmative action program. What's happening with SCHOOLOUTCOMES goes much further than a little leniency. Rebbing 19:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

What we actually do is the effective guideline, and the community has the right to interpret each AfD as the consensus may have it. In the last year, when such a stretching has been proposed at AfD, the article has been kept about half the time. As I said, for some of these I think it's stretching too far, and I opposed, or even proposed the deletion, but they were kept nonetheless. In some fields I've stopped even nominating them, because they all get kept. Whatever rule get's passed or not passed, IAR supersedes it; the community makes the rules, and can make the exceptions . But yes, this is different from SCHOOLOUTCOMES, where it is not variable from AfD to AfD, but a matter of consistent decisions. Personally, I'd rather we kept elementary schools also, but I'd rather have a rule than argue each one of them. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how the community is firmly opposed to anything. As we have repeatedly pointed out, every single one of the many RfC and less formal discussions on the subject over the last 10 years has ended in 'no consensus'. THe actual consensus is the tacit one evidenced by the way literally 1,000s of school AfD have been closed. That's a concrete fact - stats like tat don't lie and no in dividual opinion can change the numbers. We need to stop criticising the OUTCOMES page -or should we be pasting a list of 4,000 AfD closures to every AfD to substantiate our 'keep' votes? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Three things, Kudpung:

1. Have a look at WT:N § Systemic Bias: Proposing a separate standard of notability; it now stands at 7 and 21, which I think is a clear opposition to the rather modest suggestion that the notability guidelines be "relax[ed] . . . in cases of subjects affected by systemic bias."
2. Past closures tell us nothing. You infer from them that the community believes schools are per se notable. It's also possible that most challenged schools have actually received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. The essay doesn't say which it is, it doesn't say what should happen in future debates, and it explicitly rejects your use of SCHOOLOUTCOMES to mean that all high schools are kept ("Avoid . . . illogical arguments, such as . . . 'We always keep these articles.'"). "No consensus" RFCs notwithstanding, the formal, explicit consensus of the community laid out in ORG—that every school should be considered by ORG's standard—trumps what you are reading into past outcomes, and I am disappointed that you refuse to show any respect for it—or even acknowledge what it says.
3. You still haven't answered my objection that SCHOOLOUTCOMES undermines what you say it does: it points to ORG, and ORG—again, actual evidence of the formal consensus of the broader community—clearly states that schools are kept only if they have received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.

Thank you. Rebbing 00:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll repeat: I fail to see how the community is firmly opposed to anything. As we have repeatedly pointed out, every single one of the many RfC and less formal discussions on the subject over the last 10 years has ended in 'no consensus'. The vast majority of school article AfD are apparently concluded in a manner contrary to the way you appear to prefer to see them closed. The initiative therefore to start an RfC should not come from me at all, but from someone who would like the current practice to be changed (or confirmed). And I do mean an RfC - not the manner in which some users simply use AfC as a vehicle for their own deletionist campaigns. I'm sorry but that is my last comment here. I'll happily discuss the matter elsewhere in a venue where the broader community will participate.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You're still not hearing me, Kudpung. The existing guideline says very clearly: "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools . . . must satisfy either [WP:ORG] or the general notability guideline, or both." You're suggesting I start an RFC asking if our guidelines need to be followed? If I did start an RFC, and if it closed affirming that all schools must meet the normal notability criteria, would you actually respect that outcome when you've clearly chosen to disregard the guideline in its current state? Rebbing 03:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that was my last comment here. I do not appreciate your tone. I'll happily discuss the matter elsewhere in a venue where the broader community will participate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The feeling is mutual. You came to me, and yet you have failed to engage with anything I've said to you; you've refused even to acknowledge that your stance appears to be in direct conflict with the text of our guidelines. Respect for the broader consensus of the community embodied in policies and guidelines is an important part of how we do business here; we don't get to disregard it just because we disagree with it. I expect better than this from an established editor. Rebbing 03:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Digital Anthropology research

Hello Rebbing,

My name is Stephanie Barker and I am a student at the University of Colorado Boulder. I am currently enrolled in a Digital Anthropology class, which attempts to answer how the digital world affects culture and how culture affects the digital world. For my final project I am doing an ethnography on women Wikipedia users and as a member of the WikiProject Women page I was hoping I could ask you some questions about your experiences editing Wikipedia pages.

1. Have you ever been locked into an intense editing war? If yes, please explain the situation to me.
2. How did you become interested in editing Wikipedia pages and did you have any initial fears/hesitations when you started editing pages?
3. Have you ever been a victim of a mass deletion or other vandalism on Wikipedia? If yes, please explain the situation to me.
4. How would you describe your gender?
5. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experiences as a Wikipedia editor?

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I would like you to know that I am only sharing my research with my professor and the other students in my class. If you would like me to send you a copy of my final project, I would be more than happy to!

Sincerely,

Stelba90 (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Replied via email. Rebbing 04:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Island Avenue station

I was bold and went ahead and redirected this stub that you had prodded. It's a likely search term. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Bearian: Even better! Why didn't I think of that? Thank you.

I notice the author has made many similar stubs, for example, Richmond and Westmoreland Street station, 34th Street station (SEPTA Route 15), 63rd Street station (SEPTA Route 15), 40th Street station (SEPTA Route 15), and Frankford and Delaware Avenue station. Do you think it would be appropriate to redirect these as well? I'm not looking to crush anyone's dreams, but these are not the sorts of things that ordinarily merit standalone articles. Rebbing 23:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UP Diliman Department of Geodetic Engineering

Hey Rebbing! Just saw this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UP Diliman Department of Geodetic Engineering. If I am not wrong, a nominator withdrawal (in favour of Speedy Keep) is valid only when all other !votes have advocated for keeping the article. Shouldn't this have been a "SNOW Redirect" instead of a "speedy keep" per WP:SK#NOT? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Lemongirl942! Thank you for your note. Funny story for you: I actually had closed this as "redirect." A few minutes later, I happened to double-check my work, and I noticed I'd closed it nearly three days early, not a few hours, as I'd thought. (Clearly, I hadn't had my coffee that morning. Ha ha.) Since the nominator had withdrawn and nobody had voted "delete," speedy keep seemed to be a good fit, so I changed my close.

Under a literal reading of Speedy Keep Criterion 1, I believe my close was correct. Criterion 1 applies when "[t]he nominator withdraws the nomination . . . and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." I relied on that in making my close, and I don't think SK#NOT undermines that rationale. That said, I'm skeptical that a literal reading is in keeping with the intent of the rule: a vote for redirect is essentially a vote for deletion with a convenience redirect left behind. The rule should probably be changed to say it applies only when no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Were I to do this over again, I would have left it to run its full seven days so it could have an ordinary "redirect" close.

Thoughts? Should I revert to my previous close? Overturn and relist? I have no personal hangups about overturning my close; I just want to make sure I'm complying with our rules and, more importantly, not causing any unnecessary hassle for the participants over such a straightforward discussion. Rebbing 07:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that was a perfectly appropriate close. It's what I would have done, and as an admin I would have more to lose by getting it wrong than a non-admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Kudpung. Rebbing 01:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Lol, I didn't notice that previous close! Actually deletion and redirection are almost similar and in practice a redirect is more like deletion. The redirect is mentioned at WP:SKCRIT but not very clearly "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection as a reason for speedy keep." I added your suggestion here ;)

I think a revert to your previous close should be sufficient. This is a pretty uncontroversial close anyway and per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY your earlier close is fine. With so many AfD nominations floating around, I don't mind if we get rid of a few ones early ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I've decided to leave my close intact. At the time I made it, it was unassailable: the nominator had withdrawn, and no one else had advanced an argument for deletion, thus satisfying the explicit wording of Criterion 1. In addition to being technically correct, my close doesn't prejudice anyone: should the redirect be reverted, it would be no trouble to bring a second nomination.

On the other hand, a three-day-early non-speedy close with only two participants would be questionable at best. The only alternative I see is overturning and relisting, which seems like needless bureaucracy since the article is unlikely to be restored. Between a technically correct close, a dubious close, and a relist, I think the technically correct close is the best option in this particular situation.

That said, I strongly support your addition to Criterion 1, and I also appreciate your taking the time to question this. Rebbing 01:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote hatnote

Thanks for fixing the hatnote hatnote, here. Very meta, and helpful too. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome! I actually hadn't realize how funny that was! Rebbing 13:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

snooze

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hi Rebbing, sorry about the delay in responding at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelley Webb, but i was sleeping Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Aw, so cute! And no worries—I didn't expect an instant reply. Confession: I spent my entire afternoon napping on my couch, and now it's dark. Boo. Rebbing 01:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy birthday

This thread concerns these edits to Katrina Pierson about an unconventional method of sourcing a subject's full birth date.

Now I understand what the note meant, it was confusing when I read it, so I tweaked it a bit, please take a look. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): No worries! It's fairly unusual to derive age that way, and, with the "as of" language, I can easily see how it looks like a case for {{age as of date}}. Your added sentence clarifies all this for the reader, so thank you—I'll be using it next time I need a similar footnote.

With most subjects, I'd be concerned about BLPPRIVACY by piecing together a birth date in that way, but Ms. Pierson's is widely publicized (unfortunately, not in reliable sources). One very persistent new editor was intent on adding her full birth date (citing, among other things, a reposted YouTube clip of someone wishing her a happy birthday), so I figured an idiosyncratic construction that still used reliable sources was a serious improvement. Cheers. Rebbing 20:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit on article Marlo Meekins

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution to the article Marlo Meekins. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. The reason is the subject does not demonstrate notability, please see the talk page for article Marlo Meekins. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.173.220 (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2016‎ (UTC)

Ahhh! the pungent smell of rank condescension served with a greasy dressing of overconfidence and ignorance. No, thank you. Rebbing 03:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Is the IP running some sort of an automated script? After looking at some other edits, this doesn't seem like a real person and more like a templated message placed automatically. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you! It looks to me less like a script and more like someone pretending to be using a script. The headings are unconventional; the capitalization is off; the boilerplate components of the messages are poorly written; the suggestions lack links where most user templates would have them; and they all lack signatures. The earlier messages appear to have been placed simply as new sections, but, for this one, the edit summary was altered to claim to be a notification from "Pyscript.50." The comment demanding that I not remove CSD tags without proving notability is more of the same half-cocked pretentiousness. I smell socks, but I'm confident the laundry will get washed when the hamper's full enough. Rebbing 04:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I now realise had overlooked this. :D --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Food for thought...

This is in reply to an FFD discussion.

*LOL* That image does date me a little, doesn't it? Ok, so we can say rather frankly that it has "historic significance". ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha—yes!! I was sad to read recently that Brittanica stopped printing, but it makes sense. I was visiting law schools earlier this month, and a tour guide showing me through a massive library joked that the books are only there to absorb sound because their content is all available much faster and with current cross-references through digital subscription services.

Also, I love your hair. Rebbing 08:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

pageswap script for convenience

Hi Rebbing, I've noticed that you performed round-robin page moves at some point. Thought I'd share a new script here (js) that semi-automates page swaps for convenience, if you ever encounter the scenario. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)

Anyway, just an FYI, feel free to adapt this script as you see fit, cheers :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Revert of "Religious views and practices" section in "Same-sex marriage" article

You provide no proper justification for reverting my extensively explained edit (on talk page). Explain yourself. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Antinoos69: Your edit was disruptive, in violation of WP:3RR (you're now at five reverts in less than five hours). Also, filibustering—what you're doing on the talk page—is widely considered to be gaming the system. I don't need to file a twenty-page reply brief before I'm allowed to revert you. Rebbing 13:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This is absurd. One is supposed to explain one's edits, including on the talk page when not feasible in an edit summary, as here. And I did so before making the edit, not after. Now, seriously, are you telling me that you can look at my edit, the talk page explanation of it, and honestly declare it is proper to revert the whole entire thing? So, now you actually like OR, improper sourcing, and mischaracterization of secondary sources? I don't think you're being very objective here. You certainly don't seem concerned about the state of the article in question. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)