User talk:Anthony22/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

RE: Was Rocco Scuiletti fired by his trucking company after the Kerry Kennedy incident?

Citations belong in the article. For details see WP:CITE. Putting the sources on my talk page is OK but inadequate to include the information unsourced in the article. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Is Jim Leavelle to the left or right of Oswald in the iconic photograph?

The caption doesn't say "Oswald's right". And standard procedure is to identify the subject from the viewer's perspective (e.g., "the orange is to the right of the apple"). 107.15.200.87 (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bridge on the River Kwai

You've recently added over 200 words to a plot summary that was already too large. Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. Please consider trimming as much as you have added so that other editors don't have to do it. Thanks. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2013

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did to Tiger Woods, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ted Kennedy. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Battlement Terrace 02.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


Possibly unfree File:Merrill upload 800.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Merrill upload 800.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Please provide a source for anything you add to an article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Anthony, I'm sure you mean well, but please remember to provide citations to reliable sources when adding or changing content. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Independent contractor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social Security. 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) 09:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anthony22. You have new messages at Magnolia677's talk page.
Message added 00:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John from Idegon (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Hey Anthony, regarding this edit: they're helpful changes, but I see that the file itself refers to the player as Abdul-Jabbar, not Alcindor. I only bring this up because captioning the photo as Alcindor is confusing to me when the file itself states otherwise. I realize that this was the same year that he changed his name, but just wanted to point it out. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 20:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hugh Hefner 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:
  • 9333521 | deadurl=no}}</ref> the older of two sons (himself and brother Keith) of Grace Caroline (née Swanson (1895–1997) and Glenn Lucius Hefner (1896–1976), both teachers.<ref>[http://books.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ted Bundy, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Daniel Ek. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:MOSLQ

BMK (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, that the Heisman presentation is made in a theatre in Times Square (at least recently) does not have any part in making Times Square "famous". BMK (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Upper Manhattan

Nowhere in the source attached to the content at the Linda McCartney article does it say "Upper" when referring to Manhattan. Please change your addition of "Upper" to the article as incorrect and unsourced. What you've added - according to your edit summary - is original research. You've been here long enough and I know you know better than to try to add something unsourced like this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Your latest edit

At the Jackie Kennedy article, regarding your latest edit here, I'm going to request you revert it back. There is currently a discussion on the talk page about the usage of last names per MOS. You can take part there, but really shouldn't change anything in deference to the discussion and possible consensus reached there. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Fine Arts

You are incorrect in regard to this edit. When McCartney was college age, Fine Arts was a common major, especially for women. Please replace it in the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Sanctions Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Internet - internet

If you wish you had a dollar every time you may not make as much as you think. Are you sure it needs a capital every time, as opposed to when it is part of a company name or at the start of a sentence? Telephone doesn't have a capital all the time, for instance. Britmax (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It does indeed clarify matters; thank you. I thought the Prohibition example was a very good one, by the way. Britmax (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Death of JonBenét Ramsey

Great job editing, polishing, and clarifying items in the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article!--CaroleHenson (talk)

Again, great editing! I reverted the last edit because it was an attempt to limit close paraphrasing. Sometimes the facts in the case made that job pretty tough (only so many ways to word some sentences).--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Although we may not always see things the same way, it's clear to me that you want to make the Death of JonBenét Ramsey the best possible article. CaroleHenson (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Security cameras

Yes, they are commonly called this. More often than anything else, in my experience. Britmax (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:Child protection policy

Edits like this one and this one you made are unacceptable. Do keep your POV out of your edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Flyer22 Reborn: I was here to post something and just saw your comment. For what it's worth, I might have made the same changes for encyclopedic tone. It seems that often the more brief and dispassionate the better. And the article makes it quite clear that she committed and recommitted crimes, which caused her to be on the sex registry and serve jail time. I don't know anything about the addition of unsourced material, but of course, I agree that should not be done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
CaroleHenson, were you agreeing with the reverts to Anthony22's wording? If not, it seems you read the above links backwards. Changing "Fualaau" to "her child lover" and adding "for the illicit liaison" is not encyclopedic wording. It is POV wording. And Anthony22 has made other problematic edits to that article in the past, and those were reverted. SarekOfVulcan was right to revert. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, @Flyer22 Reborn:, Yes, I am agreeing to the reverts to Anthony22's wording - and are consistent with my experience working on the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article. Sorry that I wasn't clearer. I know that there are cupcakes that follow, but it was a way to smooth over the back-and-forth that we've had on the article. When I saw good edits, I pointed it out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Kennedy assassination

I noticed you changed the wording on the Kennedy assassination page (talking about Oswald) from "mortally wounded" to "mortally shot". I'd like you to reconsider that change for a couple of reasons: 1) "Mortally wounded" is a much more common phrase-Google turns up 575,000 results for it, while "mortally shot" brings up less than 8,000, and it drops to less than 7000 if you exclude "mortally wounded" from the search for "mortally shot". 2) A mortal wound, is, by definition, a fatal one, regardless of how it happened. In this case, "mortally" is a synonym for "fatally", and I don't think anyone would argue that "fatally wounded" implies the chance of recovery. Almostfm (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Anthony22. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Seeing color

I have no idea why the cop gets "black" assigned to his name and function. It is entirely possible that "white" is the transparent normal in Mountain Brook, an overwhelmingly white community, and the richest in Alabama--but perhaps you could consider adding "white" to every incidence of a white person in our article. Or are you inserting that term to suggest something? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard

Hi Anthony22. Thanks for your series of thoughtful edits. You'll notice I undid or modified a small number of the changes you made, and several of my edit summaries might be less than fully illuminating. I'm limited to typing with one hand at present, so long summaries are challenging. If anything isn't clear, please don't hesitate to ask. Hope you have a happy new year. RivertorchFIREWATER 08:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

RE: Do Robert and Charlene Spierer live in the Edgemont neighborhood of Scarsdale, New York?

You may think your personal experiences are better than reliable sources on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia policy requires reliable sources. You have been told this repeatedly, and you have edited Wikipedia long enough to know these kinds of policies. Other editors and I have given you links to these policies. I suggest reading them. This is not a blog. This is not your personal website. This is an encyclopedia. You basically have three choices: start sourcing your additions to Wikipedia, continue adding unsourced information and get blocked for doing so, or stop editing. Thank you. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

White racist police who beat up blacks. But so many white kids in yonkers think they are hip hoppers. A jim crow like segregation still occurs. The poor communities are full of drug addicts, and their is little housing in Yonkers. Yonkers is not a place people should be proud of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.9.43 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Atomic bombs in Truman's article lead

Hi Anthony22, regarding your edit today of Harry S. Truman's article, mentioning the bombs in the lead: I don't know if you saw there was a recent discussion of that subject on the talk page under "Recent edits." Personally, I agree it should be there, and I wouldn't remove it, but it might need further discussion. However, I wouldn't say Truman is "best remembered for..." because that is subjective. I actually remember him best for being a fellow Missourian. RM2KX (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I see that the bombs are mentioned already in the fourth paragraph of the lead, and again in the text of the main article. So now I'm thinking it may be redundant in the first paragraph. Actually I'm thinking the whole lead is way too long, so whatever you want to do is appropriate enough, I guess. RM2KX (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Joe Kennedy's plane

Hello. Since someone fixed your errors, I'll not revert your edit to the JFK article. I will point out, however, that Gen. Doolittle said the plane exploded, so please don't try to "correct" that fact in other articles. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017, John F. Kennedy

Hi,
As I am impressed by your contributions; I really dont want to do this, but i have to do this. So here i go:
Kindly read Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#John_F._Kennedy. If further disruptive editing takes place, it will need to be reported to WP:ANEW.

This was mainly done because of two other editors (not you). But I thought you ought to know about the incident. Thanks, and I apologise again. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to thank you for your contributions related to JFK. Thanks a lot for your contributions. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ted Bundy

A page that you have edited in the past, Ted Bundy, has an active Request for Comment here. I'm pinging experienced editors who have worked on this page in the past to ask for their opinion. Thank you! Rockypedia (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Warning icon Please do not engage in disruptive editing as you did at Sean Spicer (see [1]). If you wish to experiment please use the SANDBOX. Continued disruptive editing may result in a block on editing privileges. Quis separabit? 12:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Emmett Till and Central Park jogger case

Your name appears on my Watchlist a lot today, but that's not a bad thing. Thank you very much for your relatively minor fixes that make big improvements to the readability of both articles. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Lewinsky scandal

Hi,
I am not sure if this edit should be reverted or not. Also, there has been many edits which need attention. Would you please take a look at the page history? I am not much familiar with Clinton, nor this particular article. My knowledge is limited to a few Kennedys, Eisenhower, and related persons to that era. Thanks a lot for the consideration of my request. Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 20:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

PS: I apologise on behalf of my firefox browser; because of a glitch, it blanked your entire talkpage, and saved one conversation. —usernamekiran(talk)

Trump

Good work improving the writing at Trump. That gets little attention since not many are good at it. I'm good at it, but I lack the motivation! I agree with pretty much everything you've done there. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong net worth

I'm sorry but you made the wrong net worth well if it wasn't you I apologize but the real and 100% accurate net worth is 85.7 billion dollars Bigman999 (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The net worth is wrong!!!!

Please change it to 85.7 billion. Bigman999 (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Farrah Fawcett sister

There's other coincidences too. (ie, Gregg Allman and David Bowie die of liver cancer at 69, David Bowie and Alan Rickman die of abdominal cancer at 69 in the same week, Gene Cernan dies the same day as a picture he took is on the main page (which admittedly made it into the article for a while), Walter Becker and Glenn Frey die at 67 of complications from surgery, etc) Will all of these be placed into the article too? Also, I google searched for something like "farrah fawcett sister death cancer 62" and didn't get any notableish results.

Versus: "Coincidentally, she died on the same day that American singer-songwriter Michael Jackson died."

"Media coverage of Lewis's death was almost completely overshadowed by news of the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, which occurred on the same day (approximately 55 minutes following Lewis's collapse), as did the death of English writer Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World."

"Coincidentally, he died on the same day as Airplane co-founder Signe Toly Anderson."

"She died on the same day as Airplane co-founder Paul Kantner, also aged 74." (okay, these two didn't overshadow each other, but still...)

The Michael Jackson coincidence was mentioned because it diverted media attention quite significantly (ie, a google search, I figure anything there mentions Farrah Fawcett) while I can't find single source with anything on her sister. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of quotation marks

Please don't remove these from song titles; they're supposed to go in quotation marks per WP:Manual of Style/Titles#Minor works. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

boarding schools

RE your summary on Donald Trump: There are indeed public boarding schools. See Canadian Indian residential school system or Residential treatment center for example. Meters (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Youth detention center would be another example, perhaps one which some would wish had been used in this case. I have no commenton your edit (didn't bother looking at it), I'm just commenting on the content of your edit summary. Meters (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to educational institutions, not reform schools or drug rehabilitation facilities.

Anthony22 (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The native residential schools are nothing but educational institutions, and the other institutions must function as schools when they hold children. No big deal, I just thought that your edit summary was a bit too definitive onteh point. Meters (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Bottom line, the wording of that caption is the product of consensus at the talk page, see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 65#His faux military uniform. It should not be altered without consensus, and I have reverted your second attempt at rewording it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Kaepernick

Please don't make Wikipedia make value judgments in her own voice. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting

Anthony, please slow down with your editing at 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. If you change something and someone reverts the change, go to the talk page and talk about it. SHOUTING your opinion in an edit summary[2] does not count as talking about it. Repeatedly changing the lede sentence when other people are changing it back calls for discussion, not simply changing it again. [3] I have seen your work on other pages, and I appreciate your methodical approach, doing many small edits that mostly do improve the article. But: trying to impose your own version over the objections of other people does NOT improve the article and is not the Wikipedia way. Please don't revert these things again, and please do come to the talk page and see if you can reach consensus about them. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

...and you are still edit warring - this time over the word "standoff". There is a discussion at the talk page about that very phrase, see "the opening section doesnt match with the chronology below". Please help at that discussion, where we are still deciding how to handle the real problem: the fact that the existing sentence (the one you restored) implies that his dead body was found 11 minutes after he started shooting. Now THAT is inaccurate. This article is still under development, and highly experienced editors are working on it; please become part of that process. You do not get to just keep imposing your own preference and ignoring the community. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Melanie:

I did not initiate the use of the word "standoff" in the article. I don't even know if there was a standoff. He might have committed suicide before the police arrived at his hotel room. As I said, there are a lot of inaccuracies and false statements in this article.--Anthony22 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

And I asked you there and I ask you again here: please identify specific inaccuracies and false statements, so that we can correct them. --MelanieN (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Anthony22 and MelanieN: - Related to this [4] in what style guide are you referring to where "Room" is always capitalized like this? -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: AFAIK I wasn't involved in capitalizing the word "room" and I don't think it should be capitalized. And Anthony, there you go again: you made a change (room --> Room); somebody undid it; and you immediately reinserted it, citing only your own opinion. You need to STOP THIS. Your behavior, insisting on your own edits even after someone else has undone them, is in danger of becoming disruptive - and I don't use that word lightly. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: - Apologies for the mixup, I meant to just inform you of the situation, not to put any blame on you. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Anthony22: - As MelanieN said, your editing is veering into the area of disruption. We've tried to assume good faith but if you're not working cooperatively after repeated warnings, then perhaps you should find another article to edit. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Joachim von Ribbentrop

Anthony: As opposed to GA and FA rated articles that have already been vetted, I would suggest "sinking your teeth" into some lower rated articles. There are plenty that need copy edit and grammar work. Here is one for a suggestion, which could also use some edits for concision. Kierzek (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Leavelle interrogating Oswald on 22?

I just noticed that the LHO article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. The article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest: "At about 2 p.m., Oswald arrived at the Police Department building, where homicide detective Jim Leavelle (1920–) questioned him about the shooting of Officer Tippit". But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time.

This is also on the Oswald talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.17.68 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits at the Dinosaur page

Given your extensive editing history, I am sure you can understand the fact that featured articles have gone through the collaborative revision of many editors.

This means that, being a featured article, there is a reason the intro of Dinosaur is written the way it is.

Please do not change it without discussing on the talk page.

Thanks. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Jack Ruby calling Oswald "good looking" and resembling Paul Newman(lol)

  • laughs* I was surprised when I read that on the article. I actually hunted Knight's testimony down just now, thinking to myself “there is no way that Ruby would have said that” and.. well.. I am still questioning how on earth he pulled that Paul Newman comparison, as they don’t really look alike to me at all? But I cracked up when I read this because it actually made me imagine Oswald as a movie star for a second. Just look it up.

And I’m just going “if you thought he was goodlooking, why on earth did you shoot him and rob the planet of his pretty face?” at Ruby non-stop right now, sorry. xD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.155 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard

Hi Anthony22. That's a lot of edits in succession. I hope to get a chance to go over them individually sometime over the next day or two, but I don't want to conflict with you if you're planning on making more. Re the out-of-state hospital (I happened to mouse over that diff on my watchlist), I really don't suppose that needs to be said unless you can find a source that makes something of it. It's pretty routine to transport gravely ill patients to larger hospitals farther away. I can check, but my guess is that the Ft. Collins hospital was better equipped than the Laramie hospital, probably a mid- or high-level trauma center. If he'd been taken to the local hospital initially, they'd probably have transferred him to Ft. Collins anyway, and precious time would have been wasted. RivertorchFIREWATER 07:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch, you can also temporarily revert all of the edits in one go, like I recently did, to look at all of the changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I might do that. I've been waiting for a good time when I have a free hour or so and am not fatigued, because I'm quite sure that some of the recent changes are not improvements—and there are so many to go through. I'll see if I can get to it tonight. I'm always a bit disappointed when I try to engage another user in conversation and fail, especially a user whose edits I often agree with, but I guess it's slightly weird mentioning it on that editor's talk page. :-p RivertorchFIREWATER 04:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What new information? If it's unsolved it can't be called a murder

I'm telling you that we don't know, and that it cannot just be tossed in unsourced. Britmax (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on Meghan Markle

There have been questionable edits on this article today, and many were reverted. But so far I have agreed with every single edit you have made, Anthony. Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Anthony22. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

Please take better care with what citations you insert and don't use subpar quality sources in articles, especially for contentious personal claims, even if the person is long dead. What we need are publications that overall are known for fact-checking rather than those that often fabricate things. We want articles to be accurate instead of filled with questionable content. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with SNUGGUMS; if needed, please refresh your recollection by reading: WP:RS. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Oswald’s whereabouts?

The article currently says that Marrion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor, but JFK historian Stan Dane has pointed out in his book and research, “Prayer Man”, that Baker originally said he saw a man walking away from a stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor, a man who doesn’t match Oswald’s description, and that original interrogation reports say Oswald was on the first floor, at the entrance, (not in the first floor room or second floor lunchroom) and may have captured on film outside, and is the figure called “Prayer Man”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.62 (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Up the down upcase

At least we are on the same page. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Edits at Chapter 27

Given your extensive editing history, I am sure you can understand the fact that good articles have gone through the collaborative revision of many editors. This means that, being a good article, there is a reason the page Chapter 27 is written the way it is. Please do not change it without discussing on the talk page, seek consensus before editing again. Thank you.--Earthh (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Scott Peterson

Hi. Thanks for the work you did on the Scott Peterson article. I think that most of the changes in wording you made may have been for the better. However, I reverted some of your edits for the following reasons:

  • Per WP:SURNAME, Wikipedia generally does not refer to the subject of an article by their given name. Aside from those instances when their first name is given (or when it's an exceptional case like the entertainer Madonna), we use their surname.
  • notice that you've been warned more than once on this talk page for adding material to articles that is not supported by cited sources, and I noticed that you did this in the S.P. article. For example:
    • You added years of birth and death to Jacqueline "Jackie" Helen Latham, even though that is not found in the citation that follows that information
    • You changed multiple mentions of Peterson reporting his wife missing to read that Laci's father reported her missing. This is also not found in the cited sources, which state that Peterson made the report.

Even though you may not edit as often as I do, you've been editing Wikipedia for almost as long as I have, so you should know by now that you should not add information to articles that is not supported by inline citations of reliable sources. Nonetheless, I appreciate all the tweaks of wording you made that improve how the article reads. Thanks again! :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tonya Harding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boxed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Charles Lindbergh and federal law

Thanks for helping out with Charles Lindbergh! Anyway I found this edit the statement "upgrade kidnapping from a state crime to a federal crime." IMO this "upgrade" wording isn't accurate, because in the US state law and federal law are in "separate sovereigns" or separate realms. Congress established kidnapping across state lines as a federal crime on top of kidnapping already being state crimes. Since they are separate realms, a person may be prosecuted under both state and federal law for the same criminal act, and this does not violate the double jeopardy clause. http://volokh.com/2013/06/13/cert-petition-asks-court-to-overturn-dual-sovereignty-doctrine-in-double-jeopardy-law WhisperToMe (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Leavelle interrogating Oswald on 22?

I just noticed that the Lee Harvey Oswald article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. This article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest. But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.17.72 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Donald trump

Hey, I reverted some of your edits - apologies. I'd like to point out that, while in this case it doesn't matter so much, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses., and thus not Selective Service System registration card either. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

DS

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I see you received a similar notice on May 3, 2016 but they need to be given once per year to have effect. Please be especially aware of the WP:1RR requirement at the Donald Trump BLP. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Anthony Weiner, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. He did not resign from Congress because of sexting with minors. REad the article more closely. Meters (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Anthony Weiner, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Per WP:BRD take this to talk or leave it alone. Your source does not say that there was more than one minor, and it does not say that he resigned from congress because of the case involving the minor. Meters (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you possess the self-awareness of how bad your edits are?

Judging by the numerous people who have tried to raise this issue with you on your talk page, the fact that you actually did a revert and not just steamroll your atrocious grammar and overlinking back in is some sort of progress, I guess. TheValeyard (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you've made a total of five edits to your user talk page. 240 edits to talk pages overall. Not a talkative one are ya? It'd be nice if you responded more to some concerns. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Monroe

Hi,

Once again, please be very careful not to introduce mistakes to the article. It's very tiring having to correct them. Remember that this article has gone through a thorough review before. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I have to agree with TrueHeartSusie3. As I suggested above, as opposed to GA and FA rated articles that have already been vetted, I would suggest editing some lower rated articles that actually need improvement; also, please use discernment when making changes and "re-working" text. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oswald's behavior when shot

When he was shot, Oswald didn’t went out right away, because you hear him moan a few times.

Jim Leavelle’s article crites an interview by Doctor Robert McClelland, in which he says Leavelle spoke of having "leaned over Oswald and said, 'Son, you're hurt real bad. Do you wanna say anything?' He looked at me for a second. He waited like he was thinking. Then he shook his head back and forth just as wide as he could. Then he closed his eyes."

Should it be possible for you to add any reference be made to Oswald’s last moments, or can you find any more information to the story?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.90 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.12 (talk)

Stoneman Douglas High School shooting

Why did you deleted the link for "Mass shootings in the United States" from the "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting" article? The "Mass shootings in the United States" article lists the "Stoneman Douglas High School shooting". They have an important connection. Doug4 18:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug4 (talk • contribs)

I did not delete the link. Somebody else deleted it. Anthony22 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit [5] is not helpful as we have to keep WP:NPOV in mind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Police hearsay

Police generally don't show up to any crime scene until after someone calls them, which happens after the crime. This doesn't mean they don't investigate it to learn what happened. They pass their account onto reporters, who pass it onto us. When we pass it on to readers, it makes sense to tell them where it came from. So this edit doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's not particularly bad or anything, just a bit confusing. How does it make sense to you? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, February 17, 2018 (UTC)

I learned a long time ago not to pay any attention to hearsay, no matter WHERE it came from. Initial accounts of crime scene activity or any other activity are usually riddled with inaccurate information. Police officers dole out false information just like anyone else. If you want the truth, go directly to the source.

While we're on the subject of the police, I have made the observation that nobody breaks more laws or regulations than the police themselves. While they're on patrol, they go through red lights and stop signs in non-emergency situations. They also use police identification badges to park their private vehicles in no-standing zones when they're off duty.

I try to stay away from anyone who is in possession of a gun, the police included. A long time ago, somebody cracked a joke about the police: "What's the difference between cops and crooks? They wear a uniform and get a pension!"

I wouldn't try to count the number of times that off-duty cops have been involved in DWI crashes.

This is the reason why I deleted "According to the police" from the beginning of the sentence. Anthony22 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And this is exactly why I think it belongs. You're far from alone in distrusting police, especially in America. If we told readers where we learned the story we're selling them, they can choose to take it with (or without) a grain of salt. When Wikipedia uses its own voice, people trust us more. If what we heard from police turns out to be false, people will feel Wikipedia lied to them and our institution takes a knock it didn't deserve. If they know the police say these things, it's on the police, good or bad.
A good rule for veryone. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, February 17, 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Anthony. The facts stated in that sentence are entirely uncontroversial. How about taking a brief look at a random sampling of other shooting articles, and let me know if you see any that attribute the date and location. If we need attribution there, we also need it for about 90% of the other wiki voice in that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed this was 6 days stale and probably settled, but I'm leaving my comment just in case. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
(If Hulk intended the "According to police" to apply to the entire section, (1) that isn't how attribution works, and (2) again, see similar articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Bare URLs

In regards to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting Its fine if you want to add additional 2nd sources to things, but could you not use bare URLs? Not only for preventing link rot, but to follow the already established citing methods being used in the article. Thanks WikiVirusC(talk) 16:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I second this request. You can quickly generate well-formatted citation templates by using the "cite" menu in Edit toolbar or VisualEditor, and pasting a URL, DOI or ISBN. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Good advice in general. At that particular article, at least as long as I'm around it, I'm going to clean up virtually any cite created by automated means for cite consistency within the article (and some automated means don't even conform to all cite guidelines). That being the case, it's little additional effort for me to go get the cite parameter values using the URL. Any bare URL won't be in the article for more than about 24 hours. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

12 years of editing

Hey, Anthony22. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Today you did 24 edits at Hillary Clinton, introducing (in the most generous analysis possible) three clear typos[6][7][8]—how can an editor who presents as a stickler for good copy editing, very often using a lecturing tone in their edit summaries, be so careless about copy editing?—and one factual error[9]—in a high-visibility BLP article. If you had corrected more errors than you created, those 24 edits would be a net positive, but most of the improvements were not error corrections but rather marginal improvements in wording. I don't think I saw a single correction to a clear error. Therefore your editing session was a net negative.

I am not going to follow you around to clean up after you. I worry that few other editors will examine your edits closely, so many of the errors you leave in your wake will remain in articles for an unacceptably long time.

I have asked you to slow down, and you removed that without responding. I'm asking again. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I will take your advice and slow down. I will state, however, that the majority of Wikipedia articles are very poorly written. Everyone makes editing mistakes, but I think that the majority of my edits are constructive. Anthony22 (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said, your editing session at Clinton was a net negative. In other words, the article was better before it. I could have made a good case for rolling back all 24, but I didn't. If most of your sessions are better than that one, good for you, but I don't know why that would be the case. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It would have been wrong to roll back all 24 edits, because not every edit was counter-productive. Many sentences are too long for easy reading, and people in photographs are often identified from right-to-left instead of left-to-right. A couple of months ago, I made several edits to the article on Adolph Hitler. A number of errors were corrected by my edits, and I even received a few "Thank you" notifications on those edits. Yet somebody came along and rolled back all of the edits, and the prior mistakes were reinstated. Does that make sense? Certainly not. Also, over the years I have uploaded many interesting photographs into Wikipedia articles. A number of those photographs have mysteriously disappeared FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON. Anybody can edit Wikipedia articles. The editor could be grade school dropout, a convicted felon, a terrorist, a spy, a child molester, or a serial killer still on the loose. An article is not necessarily improved by a revert. You can take that from somebody who knows. Anthony22 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to speak to other cases about which I know nothing. If you corrected actual errors, they shouldn't have been rolled back. In this case, the case for rollback would have been that (1) the article was better before, (2) there were no error corrections, most of it was improving wording beyond what most editors expect and most readers need, (3) four errors were introduced, and (4) why should I or any other editor spend our limited time correcting errors made by editors who don't have inexperience as an excuse?
Anyway, as you know, I didn't roll back. Instead, I spent about 35 minutes of my limited time reviewing your edits and quietly fixing your mistakes, and I did you the courtesy of saving my criticism for the relative privacy of your talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I can assure you of the fact that I corrected more mistakes than I made. This is the reason why all of my edits should not have been rolled back. Also, what makes you think that a talk page involves relative privacy? An editor's talk page is open and available to ANYONE who has access to the Internet, and that includes most of the people on the planet. A talk page is not like email, which IS private. Anthony22 (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice the word "relative"? I suspect a language maven such as yourself knows what that means. My point is that I didn't lecture in my edit summaries for all to see (as you do so often and so annoyingly) or start an article talk thread about your editing.
I can assure you of the fact that I corrected more mistakes than I made. - As I've said, you didn't correct any mistakes per se. If you don't know what I mean by that, simply compare what you changed to the four errors I linked above. You made some copy editing changes that were tangible improvements, some that we didn't really need, and four errors that could have very easily been avoided. But you didn't correct any mistakes. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

In reference to the FBI director, what makes you think that "embattled" is an unnecessary word and a mistake. Use of this word as a descriptor is strictly a matter of opinion and not necessarily a mistake. A person who is fired is usually embattled.

On the issue of "relative" privacy, an edit summary is also relative privacy. A lot of people read articles without going into the edit section to make edits. Also, many people who do make edits do not bother to peruse the edit summaries of other people. A user's talk page and the edit section both involve "relative" privacy. The theory of relativity applies to journalism as well as physics. Also, no matter where you go, it's impossible to avoid mudslinging. Anthony22 (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one who reverted "embattled"—and that's a different article from what we're discussing here—but I did think the word was unnecessary when you added it and I support the revert on that basis. That's literary tone, not encyclopedic tone.
Since you're intent on debating a minor point about relative privacy while ignoring the main thrust of my comments, I'll leave it with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for accusing you of the "embattled" revert. I thought all of the reverts were done by you. You have to understand, however, that there's a distinction between a "mistake" and an edit that involves judgment or opinion. "Mistake" and "judgment" are two completely different things. It's a mistake to say that Trump did not fire the FBI director. It's judgment or opinion, not a mistake, to say that the FBI director was embattled when he was fired. Anthony22 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with my comments, which were limited to your editing today at Hillary Clinton. Have a good day. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Odssf.com as a source

Hi Anthony22 . I noticed that you used odssf.com as a source for information in a biography article, Jeanine Pirro. I had hoped you might join the RSN discussion a while back about it, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#odssf.com. I'm going ahead and removing it from all articles. Let me know if you think this could be problematic in any way. Thanks.--Ronz (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you think the word "born" needs to be there twice? 32.218.35.124 (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice use of the word "born" at the beginning of the sentence. Thanks for calling that to my attention. I made the fix. Anthony22 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Usain Bolt

Hi Anthony 22. I just wanted to take you up on your edits to the Usain Bolt article.

You changed, 'The rush of medals continued as he won four golds...' to 'The rush of medals continued when he won four golds...'

You changed 'Bolt had become the school's fastest runner over the 100 metres distance.' to Bolt had become the school's fastest runner in the 100 metres distance.

You changed 'Speaks with' to 'talks to'

I am a qualified EF/SL teacher and I'm passionate about grammar. Indeed, I often make minor edits myself, but only when I believe that a mistake has been made or the sentence is not as clear as it could be. The changes you have made above simply cannot be seen as corrections; they seem really just to be alternative ways of saying the same thing. The only reasoning I can imagine that lies behind them is that your preference is for what you changed them to. I don't think that's particularly helpful. Everything in English can be rewritten and keep its meaning, but that is not to say that it should.

Overall, I believe that respect should be given to the original author. This means not changing copy for the sake of it, but rather to correct mistakes, remove ambiguity or, perhaps in certain cases, to increase readability and (rarely) elegance. None of these applies to the few edits I have highlighted above. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't find your edits helpful

I reverted many of your edits at Audie Murphy. Generally, featured articles don't benefit from continued wordsmithing. Further, I get the distinct impression that you're editing just bend Wikipedia to your preferences, not to improve the encyclopedia. This sort of arrogance will not do. You show contempt for our community by editing in this fashion. Please stop. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I would agree, once again. As another editor stated in relation to your changes to the FA rated Marilyn Monroe article: "we really do seem to go one step forward and two steps back with many of these post-FAC edits". Please keep that in mind. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Chris Troutman and Kierzek: I'll third that, and I've said as much - in detail - on at least two occasions on this page. I'd estimate that about a quarter of these edits are clear improvements, and the rest range from annoying changes from one acceptable wording to another acceptable wording to clearly worse wording.
At Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, for a typical example, Anthony22 feels strongly that "transparent book bags" is unacceptably ambiguous because "transparent" has multiple senses. As if the meaning isn't clear enough from the context that the school wants to make it harder for students to bring prohibited items to school.
I sought the advice of a respected admin and they advised an elaborate, multi-step course of action that would have required an unreasonable amount of my time and introduced undue stress into my life (I don't care to make this a personal project). I would strongly support a proposal for TBAN from copy editing, if such a thing exists. Clearly Anthony22 is not going to respond in a significant positive way to complaints from others. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Retry botched ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, "thru" will probably be the correct spelling in 30 to 50 years. It just isn't quite yet. GMGtalk 00:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree that the user's changes to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting are less than useful. Insisting on changing from "transparent" to "see-through" is not really an improvement (the original source actually used "clear"), but at least it's better than his or her subsequent attempt to change it to read "see-thru". Meters (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Anthony, I'm forced to agree with the other editors here. Your edits have caused problems in multiple articles that I've seen so far: this is a partial listing of the issues I've seen with your work, in the limited variety of articles (namely sports-related ones) that I have an interest in. Bearing in mind that I don't edit politics articles or numerous other pages where you are active, the volume of concerns in a limited sample size raises alarm bells for me:
  • This edit to the Monroe article mentioned above introduced Find a Grave as a reference. This is a user-generated resource, not unlike Wikipedia, and is the very opposite of a reliable source. It shouldn't be used in any article, much less an FA.
  • This edit, this one, and this one introduced bare reference links into the Monroe article. These edits require time-consuming cleanup from others after the fact, not to mention that the references likely aren't as good as the books that article relies on for the bulk of its sourcing.
  • This edit to Babe Ruth again introduces a bare link, which I had to clean up after. Again, this is time-consuming for others. If you're going to add references, please take the time to format them properly so others don't have to spend valuable editing time doing so themselves.
  • Going back a little farther, in the edit summary here you state, "I guess that the score and the numbers told the story". This strongly implies that you didn't check the given source before adding this bit. There's no reason not to have done so, because the source is available online. It would have taken only a quick read to show that the information was not in the reference, but you didn't do that and I had to spend time taking out the unverified addition.
  • For a copy-editor, leaving "when they started season at 41–3" in an article is really sloppy. Please take the time to review your work in preview mode and prevent these kinds of glitches from sneaking into articles. We all make mistakes, of course, but why not try to make sure your edits are polished so the readers don't see errors such as this?
  • Most concerningly, this is a totally unsourced addition that introduces jargon that many readers won't understand. The "one and done" concept didn't even exist in the subject's day, so there's no reason to even bring it up in the first place. Even if it did, the fact that you're putting jargony content in without citation is highly worrying. Someone who has been here for 12 years shouldn't be making edits like this.
I don't know what should be done here. This editing is clearly problematic, but I don't see how a topic ban against copy-editing could possibly work. All of us who edit Wikipedia copy-edit on some level when working in mainspace. Nothing short of an indef block or full ban is going to solve this, I'm afraid. That is unless you, Anthony, can stop making these questionable edits altogether and stick to simple typo fixes and the like. I must confess that your lack of a response here makes me more amenable to supporting a block or ban should it come to that, but I sincerely hope that your editing improves so that things don't reach that point. No one likes having their work criticized, but please do take what we're saying to heart. It will make your experience on Wikipedia better, as well as ours. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
There are tons of ways to contribute to the encyclopedia that don't involve copy editing. Many important things are no less important because they are "under the covers" where their effect is not immediately apparent to readers in the prose.
For just one example, I'm currently working my way through a long list of the most-viewed articles, changing "px" values in thumbnails to the equivalent |upright= parameters per WP:IMGSIZE. This conversion is necessary for the user preference for thumbnail size to have any effect, and I consider that important to the encyclopedia. This is something that has been neglected for years and I felt it was time somebody actually implemented the community consensus rather than leaving it on the WP:WIP pile indefinitely.
For another example, citations are fundamental to the encyclopedia, sloppy or incomplete citations are a widespread problem, and one could make a career of cite cleanup.
Starting perhaps at Wikipedia:Maintenance, any intelligent editor should be able to find some type of work that (1) the encyclopedia needs, (2) they find rewarding, and (3) they are good at. I'm sorry but copy editing is not your forte, and if you continue on your current path you are probably approaching an involuntary retirement. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm another editor who finds Anthony22's edits problematic. One particular issue I keep seeing is his insistence that "-ing" verbs indicate that the present tense is being used and that they have to be reworded to the past tense. See recent examples here, here, here, and here but there are dozens of other instances. I tried to explain to him at User talk:Anthony22#Mistaken "changed present tense to past tense" edits above that "-ing" verbs are tenseless and that they take on the tense of the main verb of the phrase or sentence. But as usual with this editor, there was no response and he keeps on doing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
If the past tense is incorrect, then revert it back to the present tense. When I first began editing in Wikipedia, I was informed that the past tense usually supersedes the present tense in articles. It's OK to use the present tense for breaking news. Mickey Rooney performed a long time ago. It's rather silly to think of him in the present tense. Anthony22 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
You're not understanding. Yes, most WP articles are supposed to be written in the past tense, and certainly ones like Mickey Rooney. But the sentence In a career spanning nine decades and continuing until shortly before his death, he appeared in more than 300 films and was one of the last surviving stars of the silent film era. is not written in the present tense. Here "spanning" and "continuing" are tenseless. The tense of the sentence comes from "appeared" and "was", which are in the past tense. Thus the sentence was correctly in the past tense and there was no need to change it. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see I'm not the only one. Mickey Rooney: 'In a career spanning nine decades and continuing until shortly before his death, he appeared in more than 300 films and was one of the last surviving stars of the silent film era.' You have 'replaced present tense with the past tense' and changed it to 'In a career that spanned nine decades and continued until shortly before his death, he appeared in more than 300 films and was one of the last surviving stars of the silent film era.' The first sentence is already in the past tense- as one can readily tell by the verbs 'appeared' and 'was'. I can only assume you wrongly believe 'spanning' and 'continuing' to be verbs in the present continuous, which they're not. These are gerunds, and they are without tense, as they function as nouns.

I would politely suggest that an inability to understand how gerunds work in a sentence should perhaps result in fewer copy edits, as this is, frankly, very basic grammar indeed. It's quite worrying to think that you're madly changing Wikipedia articles as you believe that gerunds cannot be used in an article about anything that took place in the past.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Audie Murphy. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, you have a dozen other editors above telling you that you're being disruptive by wordsmithing featured articles. If you want to be useful, join WP:GOCE. If I see you make a problematic edit again, I'm dragging you to a drama board and you'll face consequences. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
FTR, my complaints have not been limited to featured articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Anthony22. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Anthony22. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

February 2019

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Lee Radziwill. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

In the case of Lee Radziwill, if the information on her place of birth (New York City) was poorly referenced or controversial, you should have reverted the edit back to Southampton. The sources that give her place of birth as Southampton are also poorly referenced and unreliable. Just out of curiosity, how do you determine what source is truthful, reliable, and worthy of inclusion into the article?

In my edit summary, I explained that New York City was a better choice over Southampton because Radziwill was born on March 3, which is winter. I don't think that the Bouviers spent winter in Southampton.Anthony22 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That's original research. Sources are required, not optional. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Oswald’s whereabouts?

The article currently says that Marrion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor, but JFK historian Stan Dane has suggested in his book and research, “Prayer Man”, that Baker originally said he saw a man walking away from a stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor, a man who doesn’t match Oswald’s description, and that original interrogation reports say Oswald was on the first floor, at the entrance, (not in the first floor room or second floor lunchroom) and may have captured on film outside, and is the figure called “Prayer Man” (a very blurry image of a man in the TSBD doorway in the Couch film who, the author and others claim, was Oswald). Plus, it's a new original theory, and it does put Baker's claims into question and seems to suggest that Oswald's claims of where he was at the time Kennedy was shot have been misinterpreted. I am aware it is a "fringe" theory as it dismisses, out of hand, positive, corroborating evidence in order to accept flimsy evidence placing Oswald elsewhere. If it cannot go here, then it more properly resides on the conspiracy theory page, If realible sources for this research can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.220.81 (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Leavelle interrogating Oswald on 22?

I just noticed that the LHO article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. This article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest with the words, "Oswald was taken to the Police Department building, where homicide detective Jim Leavelle questioned him about the shooting of Officer Tippit". But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time. When Leavelle testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that the first time he had ever sat in on an interrogation with Oswald was on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963. When Counsel Joseph Ball asked Leavelle if he had ever spoken to Oswald before this interrogation, he stated; "No, I had never talked to him before". Leavelle then stated during his testimony that "the only time I had connections with Oswald was this Sunday morning [November 24, 1963]. I never had [the] occasion to talk with him at any time..." In various interview since the 1970s and up to the mid 2010s, Leavelle said that he was the first to interrogate Oswald after his arrest (contrary to his Warren Commission testimony).

In the course of my research into the JFK case, I encountered a number of examples where I had testimony or accounts by people from 1963/64 as well as from years or decades later. It became apparent that the testimony and writings from 63/64 were superior. These were obtained when the events was still fresh in their memories, and as a result were clearer, usually more detailed, and consistent with what other people wrote or recalled at the time. Whenever I had conflicting accounts by a person to deal with, I would use the earlier of the two. As Jim Leavelle’s interview testimony to the Warren Commission were so specific that the first time he had ever sat in on an interrogation with Oswald was on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963, and that he had never talked to him before. I would place no value on second-hand information based upon various interviews with Leavelle which had occurred over two/three/four decades after the event.

Bart Kemp has done an article looking at the differing accounts, called "Anatomy of Lee Harvey Oswald's interrogations" that can be found on the internet. Kemp is pro-conspiracy, so be warned if you want to read it. :)

Should the words "homicide detective Jim Leavelle questioned him about the shooting of Officer Tippit" be removed and/or Leavelle's warren commission testimony used instead? I read his WC testimony again; Leavelle never "interrogated" Oswald about the JFK assassination or Tippit murder on Sunday morning, Nov. 24th, or any other day. He merely "spoke" to Oswald about the upcoming transfer while Oswald was changing clothes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.220.81 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anthony22/Archive_2&oldid=1141638039"