User talk:ATS/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

DYK for Forte Tenors

Materialscientist (talk) 02:12, 20 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) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:America's Got Talent contestants from Pennsylvania

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_28#Category:America.27s_Got_Talent. – Fayenatic London 09:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26

The image of the perpetrator is nominated as FFD. I invite you for commentary. --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Cite tags?

Do you mean in articles, or when I link stuff on talk pages? I can try to remember in articles, but not on talk. So many parameters to fill out, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if unclear, InedibleHulk, but my message was to Neutrality, who tends to replicate what the templates do by writing them out. There are of course reasons these templates are used beyond what we see, but damned if I can remember them ... —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 02:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I see now. I was just reading the diff to see what you'd said before our beer chat was deleted. Hadn't bothered to read the part about it having nothing to do with me. The word "Reaction" looks a bit like "Recent" sometimes. I should probably go home. Oh wait. I am home. That was fast. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome home. . —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 02:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

One reason I tend to neglect to use them is that I am absolutely terrible with them, and frequently break the tags ;) Neutrality^talk 02:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Neutrality, they do take some practice; occasionally, I still mess them up, even after all this time. Consider, though, that if you don't do it, someone else pretty much has to. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 02:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

My goof

Quick note - You're totally correct on the cite overkill over at the San Bernardino article. My edit somehow accidentally reinserted the two duplicative refs that you had (quite rightly) taken out. (I think I made some sort of copy-and-paste error?). Sorry about that - here's a cookie for you! Neutrality^talk 02:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Much obliged! Very kind of you. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I asked nicely

So again, I'm going to demand, please don't use my real name again. oknazevad (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Oknazevad, I must've missed it, sorry. That said, given your user name, how could it have been anything else? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You'd be amazed how many people don't get it until I explain it to them. oknazevad (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I probably would be—it was quite evident to me, anyway. And indeed I missed the request, having read the content and not the edit summary before replying. Won't happen again. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

S'ok. Just don't let it happen again. oknazevad (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yessir. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Rowspans

Hi. You said, "rowspans can break sortables; see FILMOGRAPHY". I just want to let you know that WP:FILMOGRAPHY no longer mentions rowspans. (Personally, it doesn't really matter to me either way.) –Musdan77 (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Musdan77. Much to my surprise, I knew this six months ago. I guess the memory is the second thing to go ... 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi ATS, I noted your removal of this issue from this user's talk page. Just wanted to mention that rowspans are still not ideal since they apparently make it difficult for visually impaired users who use screen readers to access the information easily. Please note WP:DTT and our general WP:ACCESSIBILITY guidelines. So I probably wouldn't encourage the use of rowspans. Here's an example of problematic rowspans (IMHO). Regards! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Cyphoidbomb. That's not problematic, it's just butt-ugly (and those aren't sortables, anyway). Cheers, 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Most kind, Winkelvi, thank you! May your 2016 be happy and prosperous. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Alan Rickman

You reverted my latest edit. His partner's page is clearly no longer available so why keep it there? Adrian Guildford (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Adrian, you say "no longer available", while I see no evidence it was ever created. Horton, "a Labour Party councillor on the Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council (1986–2006) and an economics lecturer at the nearby Kingston University", passes general notability guidelines; per WP:REDLINK, "it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic [emphasis mine] because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow." 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bowie

Thank you, very understandable, all us Bowie heads are reeling. Dickdock (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That much is certain, Dickdock. Cheers! 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Froid (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Point of grammar: RE: the statement "fan of Bowie's" - I agree that the last two words are unneeded ("fans" suffices). However, you are incorrect in stating that "of supplants the possessive". The possessive is as much needed when writing "fans of Bowie's" as it is when writing, "friends of mine" or "friends of his". - Cheers, Froid (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Froid, I'll have to look that up because I don't remember offhand where I'd learned that. Anyway, thanks for the note. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Froid, I just checked and you are correct: it's a fans-of-his-v-fans-of-him issue and the former is preferred. Cheers! 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

TPO

Regarding this and this: Poking in the first place was inappropriate and needless. Restoring the poke was really stupid and unnecessary needling. You don't have the right to restore something to someone else's talk page once they've removed it. None of us do. It's pretty much harassment. Precisely what did you think you were accomplishing other than irritating the editor by poking him repeatedly? Lecturing me on whether or not a chronic edit warrior should have a 3RR report filed on them and then you pull this kind of juvenile crap? Really? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, at that point, it was earned—and I was not restoring the removed, I was removing the repeated restoration of incivilities and/or attacks. Meantime, I didn't consider my suggestion to you to be a lecture—it was intended solely as a reminder that we don't always have to jump into a situation that's already (at the time) defused, especially if it gives the appearance of taking sides. I accept that you were not, but I hope you accept that the appearance was there. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Rumours (album)

User:Mistymountain546 removed citation and added back with other uncited genre. 123.136.107.133 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I neither patrol that article nor am I an administrator. My first suggestion would be to take it to the talk page if you haven't done so already. Cheers! 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A big thank you

A big thank you to you, Mr ATinySliver, for your excellent work on the Sexuality and Religion and spirituality sections of the David Bowie article. You are both a perfectionist and fair. Thank you. I wish you all the best in everything. Boscaswell talk 20:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boscaswell:and you are very kind. Thank you! 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Cremation

You appear to be making a fair number of edits in which you are removing "cremated" or "cremation" from "resting place" in person infoboxes. I understand your argument, although I do not agree with it. An entry such as the one of mine you just reverted, i.e. "(none: cremated)" satuifies the parameter suffficiently, in my view. It does not pretend to be a resting place -- the parentheses tell you that -- it explains why there is no resting place listed -- because there is none to list -- and it also tells you why there is no resting place to list -- because the person was cremated. This would appear to me to be completely kosher, and I do not believe you should revert it.

In any case, you are making these changes without - to my knowledge - having discussed it and gotten a consensus of editors to agree with you. Before you continue to make this kind of edits, please open a Request for Comments (see WP:RfC) and "advertise" it with neutrally-worded pointers to the RfC on WP:Centralized discussions and, presumably, on the talk page of Template:Infobox person. Please, however, do not continue to make these edits until you have a valid consensus to do so. Doing so could be construed as WP:Disruptive editing and can lead to being blocked from editing in the future.

I also request that you let me know when you open this RfC so that I can express my opinion on it. Thanks, BMK (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. The fact remains, cremation is not a resting place—and "none" certainly is not (by definition and template instructions, "none" means leave blank—indeed, the template instructions for this parameter are, "Place of burial, ash-scattering, etc." [emphasis mine]). I will not edit-war, but anyone reading "none" and asking, "Well, why is this parameter here, then?" would be utterly correct.

Meantime, my edits are complete. They should not ever be restored without a place—a location—unless the parameter itself is changed to read, say, "Buried/interred/cremated" or somesuch. We are an encyclopedia, and I removed factual inaccuracies; no consensus is required. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand how this place works., If another editor disagrees with you, they have a right to revert your edits, and if your edits were made without consensus, as you seem to be admitting they were, they are not necessarily legititmate. Wfat they represent is your opinion, and that is not sufficient. As a result, I will be reverting your edits until you hold an RfC and get a consensus for the, BMK (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I misunderstand nothing; plus, the template instructions specifically say, "Place of burial, ash-scattering, etc." Revert your reversions, or I will take this to ANI. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you have misunderstood a number of things, including the Wikipedia definition of vandalism and the process by which large-scale changes are made to Wikipedia articles. Such actions require a consensus, whether done by a bot or by an editor, and you do not have that consensus. That is why I have returned the articles to the status quo ante until you receive that consensus -- if you do. I recommend that you start the RfC I mentioned above. BMK (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The removal of factual errors is an encyclopedic requirement. You are a vandal. End of story. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• No, he is not a vandal. Note that ANY edit done in good faith is NOT vandalism. Full stop, no exceptions, end of line. Furthermore repeatedly accusing editors of being a vandal when they are not is considered a personal attack and can, if continued, result in you being blocked.

In addition, you misunderstand Wikipedia's policy on consensus. Wikipedia works on a system called "Bold, Revert, Discuss". In this particular case, you were bold in removing "cremated" from the infobox parameter in question. You were then reverted by BMK. At this point, the correct course of action is not to go to AIV and ANI with accusations of bad faith and vandalism. At this point, the correct course of action is to go the relevant talk page - Template talk:Infobox person, in this case - to open a discussion on whether or not there is a consensus for the editing action you wish to take. This is how Wikipedia manages to remain a (mostly) collegial and productive project despite the vast number of people working on it - by establishing solid consensus and then maintaining it. Now, if your edits had not been reverted, they would have become a consensus through editing without the necessity of discussion - but the moment they became controversial, with "controversial" in this sense meaning "somebody contests them", appropriate discussion with the contesting editor(s) must take place. In some cases, consensus will form around your proposal, and things will move on. In others, consensus will be against it, and no matter how silly, wrong, or even "factually erronious" you believe that consensus might be, it must be accepted as to do otherwise is disruptive. (Note also, of course, that not having good grace when consensus is on your side can be equally problematic.)

Please keep these facts in mind when editing in the future - Discuss first. Don't mistakenly accuse vandalism (and absolutely don't double down on it, as you did in the ANI discussion about this). And when you feel yourself getting heated over something, step back, get a nice cup of tea, and think about the matter before starting a debate - in many cases you'll find the debate isn't necessary at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the late hit. You are hereby penalized 15 yards for the personal foul and assessed a US$100,000 fine; the commissioner will review your case for possible additional sanctions. Meantime, I stand by my assessment. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

My interest lies much more in getting dirty than in the No Fun League. But you really should bear in mind that if you "stand by [your] assessment[s]" that blatantly and absolutely contradict policy, you should not be surprised when you're the one whistled for a penalty. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia did not ever, does not now, and will not ever require consensus to remove factual errors. Period. Restoration of factual errors—and particularly en masse—damages the encyclopedia. Period. It seems I know policy better than do you—and I will have the mop and keys of anyone who blocks me for nothing more than saying so. Period. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 11:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

David Bowie

Sorry, I keep forgetting this one. Thanx for the reminder. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't have time, maybe you do?

I just came upon this award just given to Bowie. [1] giving David Bowie the 2016 BRIT award. I didn't have time to check through all the text, and saw you had contributed to the article recently. Please would you check, and follow through? Thanks, --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Leahtwosaints: looks like someone beat me to it. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

iTunes is not a chart

I just cleaned-up Something Beautiful (Jordan Smith album) and would like to point you to WP:BADCHARTS where it states that "Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used." Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged, Walter Görlitz. Still, some of your edits to Smith's own article unnecessarily deleted data and incorrectly changed Jake's Take (Jacob Elyachar's website). I'll be doing a partial restoration. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to correct my errors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz I should have done this much earlier—my apologies, it slipped my mind—but I felt it was incumbent upon me to explain why I reverted the majority of your changes. Upon reading BADCHARTS and several talk-page discussions, it struck me that the guideline seemed to indicate that iTunes has been deprecated as a source of chart listings per, as you note, being "one specific retailer". However, when one (or more) of numerous reliable, secondary sources mentions iTunes sales (and particularly in the context of why they matter), and those sources are cited rather than iTunes itself, the data is pertinent and encyclopedic. (In Something Beautiful (Jordan Smith album), for example, the primary source cites only the release date and iTunes' "Editors' Notes".) That said, I've deferred to BADCHARTS in that I've kept out all reference to the sales figures as being a "chart". Feel free to comment. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not looked at the edits but your description appears to hold the intention of BADCHARTS and that of the authors you're quoting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Meantime, Ss112, I would request that you read the above, and BADCHARTS and any of the numerous discussions on point in its talk archives. It is not the intent of this guideline to squelch any mention of iTunes sales figures; just that they not be treated as a "chart". Specific to Something Beautiful (Jordan Smith album), the cited sources comprise a sampling of reliable, secondary news sources which, as I note above, makes the data pertinent and encyclopedic. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, exactly where is it explained why iTunes positions matter? Because a news source reported it? News sources also report celebrities unfollowing each other on Twitter; not everything they report on is relevant. I really don't intend to keep editing the page but my issue is that you're intending to contravene Wikipedia policy to retain text relating to Jordan Smith topping one retailer's fleeting, transitory "top albums" list. But my real issue is that you're now trying to put references next to the number instead of the chart name because otherwise it looks like it's "proving the existence of the chart". No; that's reading a little too much into it. It's following Wikipedia standard for a cleaner look and sortability (per my edit summary), which you're now attempting to say you know better than. Please stop acting like all changes to the article have to go through you. I'd say the same to any editor. Ss112 07:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ss112, all respect, you've got BADCHARTS and its intent backward: that iTunes sales matter because it is the single largest purveyor of digital music, and myriad news sources believe their numbers relevant, is really peripheral. The guideline (it is not policy) says iTunes is deprecated as a chart; nowhere does it say or even suggest that those sales numbers should not be included—or removed if they were. If data is properly sourced and encyclopedic, it is incumbent upon anyone who removes it to adequately explain why, not the other way around. I would again ask you to read the guideline and the discussions on point.

Meantime, "you're now attempting to say you know better than" either you or "Wikipedia standard" is an incorrect assumption—the change appeared proper to me, nothing more. "Please stop acting like all changes to the article have to go through you. I'd say the same to any editor"? Again, you'd be incorrect. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

While I'm at it, you find iTunes sales lists to be "fleeting" and "transitory" because, what, they're tracked in real time? Is a weekly chart, à la Billboard, somehow less "fleeting" and "transitory"? Billboard wouldn't include those numbers in its methodology if they were somehow less valid—and which, therefore, "matter". 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't an assumption; your edits spoke for you in that you wouldn't have edited if you didn't think you knew better. Also thanks, I know they're guidelines and not policies, but those guidelines represent consensus and standards of many more users than one instance on one article.

Yes, I do believe Billboard is less transitory, because it represents a week's worth of sales data from multiple sources, not a flavour of the day (as it appears Smith was, because he was number one for a day, and probably actually less than that considering itunescharts.net tracks cumulative sales on iTunes for the day). Nowhere did I intend to say iTunes figures don't matter at all; I just take BADCHARTS to mean that if including reference to them as "charts" is frowned upon, mention of them at all should equally be frowned upon. Truly though, I'm really not that concerned that I'd edit the page again to alter the content in question. I'm only replying because you're addressing me and what you think I meant. Ss112 08:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

... because you're addressing what you think I meant—which, your assertions notwithstanding, is incorrect. (Also, I initially addressed your edit, not what I perceived as its intent.) iTunes as "flavour of the day" might've been an acceptable assumption prior to 2005 (when Billboard included its figures), but not in 2016. And "I just take BADCHARTS to mean that if including reference to them as 'charts' is frowned upon, mention of them at all should equally be frowned upon" is nothing short of a quantum leap—how does "don't treat it as a chart" equate to "remove it altogether"? 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe perhaps you should read it again. The lead paragraph: "This guideline provides guidance about the suitability of music charts for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, both in article prose and in the standard tables of charts." (emphasis added) Also, the section Single-vendor/single-network charts lists several exceptions, none of which this album seems to be. Ss112 09:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

... and, again, the quantum leap—"the suitability of music charts for inclusion" says literally nothing about the suitability of sales figures as compiled by the world's premier digital purveyor—and presented by reliable, secondary news sources in the context of why they matter—for inclusion. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, mobile app saved my reply as a removal of yours at the same time. I wrote: "This "not calling it a chart" deal is really just splitting hairs and trying to find a reason for its inclusion. You could call any albums chart an "album sales list". BADCHARTS also doesn't say "if you don't want to use the word 'chart', ignore everything written here."" Ss112 09:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My edit also doesn't refer to iTunes as flavour of the day. I said Jordan Smith was. Please read again. I understand that was unclear, but that would contradict my saying I don't think iTunes doesn't matter at all. Also, you're saying "sales figures" but you're only referring to its peak on an "album sales list". That article doesn't talk about how many units it sold through the retailer, merely "it was number 2 then 1". Ss112 09:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, I must argue every point—not only do I not ignore anything written at BADCHARTS, I do not postulate anything from that which is not. The "reason for its inclusion" is self-evident; any reason for its removal is not. iTunes' unit sales are irrelevant—Billboard doesn't track unit sales, the RIAA does.

You are correct in that I misinterpreted "flavour of the day", but that too is inaccurate per the entire remainder of his article—not to mention WP:CRYSTAL. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"Flavour of the day" here means his being number one on one retailer, regardless of it being the biggest music retailer or not, not his entire relevance. Yes, I know what Billboard does, but your argument is partially that you're not referring to it as a chart. Well, you're not talking about actual sales figures, rather unspecified sales leading to the top position on something you don't want to call a chart but for all intents and purposes is. Ss112 09:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, your argument might've been relevant in 2004; not today. And "being number one on one retailer, regardless of it being the biggest music retailer or not"? That's the equivalent of saying sales of books at Amazon are irrelevant because it's not the only bookseller and it doesn't list units sold. It's non sequitur. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 10:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't specify anywhere editors have to provide reasons for the removal of content; rather that editors wishing to add content have to prove its relevance for inclusion. I understand you've tried to do that, but you're trying to get around all of that by not calling the "iTunes albums sales list" a chart, which it is. This is going around in circles. Ss112 09:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right in re Wiki's specifications; however, the inclusion of demonstrably relevant data (and, it is) does not constitute "trying to get around" anything—it constitutes the correct way to build (as opposed to, say, tear down) an encyclopedia, and exclusionism as much as inclusionism requires adequate explanation. The articles present facts from news sources reporting on an iTunes list and what it means; BADCHARTS deprecates the charts as the ends to their own means. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 10:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Meantime, it's 03:02 on the US west coast and I'm off to bed. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 10:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I do want to stress that I'm not saying iTunes is irrelevant. I understand it's the biggest retailer of digital music, so your comment about my argument being "relevant in 2004" is a complete misunderstanding of what I was even arguing. You took my rebuttal of your point that iTunes is not a chart as an apparent attempt at trying to say charts are only relevant if they cite sales figures and that's absolutely not what I was implying or saying, so I'm done with this mistaken argument. Ss112 10:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My point is and only ever was that BADCHARTS does not mean "remove iTunes from articles". In any event, cheers to you, and happy editing. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for (unitentionally) vandalising Alan Rickman's page

Dear ATinySilver,

I apologise with utmost sincerity for my accidental vandalism to Alan Rickman's page. My only intention was to add to it, not ruin it. I added the "People who were cremated" category (which I created myself) since Rickman was apparently cremated, as a few of his fans told me. I knew that asking fans was an unreliable source, but since there was no information about his funeral online, I had to resort to asking some fans. I knew what the told me may not be true, but it felt true to me because they were fans and one of them sent me a picture of the invite to his funeral (see attached). I get that his family most likely wanted a private funeral, but I just wanted to add an interesting fact to his page and make it more complete. I deeply regret my actions and apologise for any trouble or rule breaches I may have caused. promise to use more reliable sources (and cite them) in the future, as part of being a better Wikipedian.

File:Alan Rickman funeral invite.jpg

Yours truly,

Lembowman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lembowman (talk • contribs) 21:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Rima Horton

Dear ATinySliver,

Again I apologise for accidental vandalism of Wikipedia. As I admitted before, I got the supposed information about Alan Rickman's funeral from some fans I asked. Since Rima apparently retained Alan's ashes, I though I might add that onto her page. I feel deeply regretful for posting an unbacked claim onto Wikipedia. As I promised before, I will cite more reputable sources in the future when editing Wikipedia.

Yours truly,

Lembowman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lembowman (talk • contribs) 22:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Kensal Green Cemetery (last apology)

Dear ATinySliver,

This will be my last apology of the night. I know I've said it before, but I am sorry for accidentally vandalising Wikipedia over the subject of Alan Rickman's funeral. According to the funeral invite I showed you, he was cremated in the West London Crematorium, so I thought I might add that to the section on the Kensal Green Cemetery page about said crematorium. Yes, I will keep my promise to add more reputable, backed-up information to Wikipedia in the future. I also promise to never ask fans for information about celebrities (especially their funerals) again.

Yours truly,

Lembowman

P.S. I will try to keep my promise not to bug you anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lembowman (talk • contribs) 22:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Lembowman, thanks for the gesture, and don't worry about "bugging" me.

Do understand that an edit made in good faith and intended for the betterment of the encyclopedia is not vandalism, so don't worry about that. The photograph you've included here is original research, but the good news is it contains enough data that a published, reliable source is more likely to be found and added to the article when available.

Also, do please remember that your signature each time you edit a talk page (article or user talk) helps other editors keep track of who is taking part here; type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your addition and the signature is added automatically.

Again, we hope you like it here and will continue your growth as a contributor. As we say, happy editing! 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Something Beautiful (Jordan Smith album)

On 7 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Something Beautiful (Jordan Smith album), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Something Beautiful by Jordan Smith had the highest Billboard debut and best sales week of any album by a contestant on The Voice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Something Beautiful (Jordan Smith album). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello ATS. Thanks for making this report. I notice that this troll is also listed in the bot reporting section so, hopefully, the block will happen soon. Thanks for your vigilance and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Image

Per your blank edit question - if the newly cropped image is distorted in your browser you may need to reload at the direct source, this tends to happen sometimes with Wiki images. Anyone loading the image for the first time won't see the distortion.

• Link: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Christina_Grimmie_2014.jpg Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that did it, thank you, Crumpled Fire. 🖖ATS / Talk 19:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Thinking 50 civilians got killed in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting instead of 49. Parsley Man (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

RM !vote

What an odd !vote, on multiple counts. 1. It seems to say, essentially, "I'm currently in the minority so I surrender". If it's going to "happen anyway", what's the point of one more Support? 2. As I read it, excluding the neutrals, 57% of the !votes before yours are Opposes.
And, btw, 75% of the !votes following yours, as of this moment, are Opposes. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Now, AGF, you ... Seriously, it was an honest opinion reached not so much in concession of anything as in a belief that my expected result is ultimately likely. 🖖ATS / Talk 09:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Bet you one Template:The Original Barnstar the RM fails, despite your odd !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not taking that bet—but I'd probably give you one anyway. My belief is in the eventual result, not that of the RM. Of course, I've been wrong before ... 🖖ATS / Talk 09:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Orlando shooting

Islamic state is listed as the "Assailant" in Orlando, and Omar Mateen the "perpetrator". I think we need to be swapping them around. Both are sourced reliably, just the wrong way around. I would change it but no permission. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Darkside Of Aquarius dunno how long it will last (some people can be quite militant, if you'll excuse the expression), but done. 🖖ATS / Talk 19:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't ISIS be listed as perpetrator? They have claimed responsibility and the Florida governor has said the FBI have said he has "links to ISIS"?

My request was more to put Islamic State as the "perpetrator", and Omar as the "Assailant". The issue was they were the wrong way around. ✌ Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No Darkside Of Aquarius; the perpetrator is the perpetrator, period. By whom he was inspired is his inspiration. We have no indications that I can find that he was directed by anyone to commit this specific crime, so IS as a perpetrator is inaccurate on two fronts. Cheers! 🖖ATS / Talk 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"The armed attack that targeted a gay night club in the city of Orlando in the American state of Florida which left over 100 people dead or injured was carried out by an Islamic State fighter,” Amaq News Agency reported. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Thank you for reverting my edit on Christina Grimmie's page; I kept seeing the Orlando Police's twitter status saying 11:51 PM on June 10th, but I just realized that my twitter time was set to Pacific instead of Eastern where I actually live. I feel stupid that I kept changing her death date now. I just wanted to make sure everything was accurate. Again, thank you for your help with the time zone problem I was having. Costello628 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, Costello628. If it means anything, you were not nearly the first. Cheers! 🖖ATS / Talk 20:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the barnstar! ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Aw! Thanks so much! 🖖ATS / Talk 20:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. œ^™ 10:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Grimmie final performance.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Driver's license photo of Kevin James Loibl.jpg

I uploaded the image as free in Commons because of the photo of Omar Mateen. It's not unfree. How is the image neither clear [nor] central? --George Ho (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

George Ho, it's not the licensing to which I object; it's the usage. No similar article (single shooter, single victim—regardless of fame) that I've yet found includes a photo of the perp. Loibl doesn't rise to the level of, say, a mass killer or a terrorist, where inclusion within such an incident's article is appropriate. 🖖ATS / Talk 06:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

... All right. I know he was some... killer guy. I'll... try not to push you to switch sides. Honest. However, I feel that he is central to the subject, so I added it. Shall we discuss this at Talk:Christina Grimmie instead? I don't know whether I should insert it at Death of Christina Grimmie, which is still under AFD. The majority of votes there is delete or merge or redirect, which isn't a good sign. George Ho (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Death of is and should be history. Feel free to start a discussion at Talk:Christina Grimmie if you wish. Cheers! 🖖ATS / Talk 06:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Pasteboard Animations

Hello, ATS. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Pasteboard Animations".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I still have absolutely no memory of this ... 🖖ATS / Talk 10:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Detective Barnstar
		For your great investigative work into correcting Christina Grimmies article by contacting OPD and other sources to correct the information requested on the article, for this I am awarding you the Detective Barnstar! Happy editing! :D Adog104 Talk to me 23:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow—most kind of you, Adog104! 🖖ATS / Talk 00:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC closed

Greetings, ATS: an RfC that you initiated at Talk:Emma_Watson#Emma_Watson_and_the_Panama_Papers has been closed. Thank you and happy editing. --Neutrality^talk 04:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

ike

Bibliography not in alpha order; some books in footnotes instead of bibliography; no explanation why Ike didn't believe Warren Commission.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Lingzhi. Bibl is chrono-order, is it supposed to be alph? Which books in the fns are not in the bibl? Where does it say Ike didn't believe the WC? 🖖ATS / Talk 03:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's guidelines don't say that the bibliography must be in alpha order, but where on earth have you ever seen one in chrono order? "Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy" & "The Torch Is Passed". (Noun not needed, but I won't argue).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I have seen it, Lingzhi, but I couldn't tell you where. I'll check on the bibl, thanks. (Yes it was. ) —ATS 🖖 Talk 07:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing (spamming)

I created a section genealogy.euweb.cz and geneall.net on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I was surprised to see that you had created a section immediately after mine with an earlier time stamp. When I Checked the history of the page I realised that the date in the signature and the posting did not match (diff). At first I was puzzled by this and thought that there might be a bug in the software. However on checking you user history I realised this difference had been created because you had initiated several similar conversations and in some case cut and pasted the message time stamp and all. [2][3][4][5]

This is a breach of Wikipedia:Canvassing (spamming). It is disruptive because you have given no indication that the discussion has been initiated in various places. This means that if two different editors reply on two different pages with counter opinions then they will not necessarily be aware that others are expressing contrary options and will not be able engage in a constructive conversation to build a consensus. If you were acting in bad faith (and I am assuming good faith otherwise I would not mention it), if one of the places you posed the questions supported you stance while the other did not, then you can use the one that supports you position and ignore the other to justify the changes you wished to make to a page.

The way to handle the issue is to start a conversion on one page and then place a neutral statement on the others linking to your conversation. If you decide for example that the page where you initially posted, is not the appropriate place (eg Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) then post there and add an appropriate link to that page from the others which you on consideration do not think is appropriate. If however you delay in deciding this and you have already had several replies to your initial post, then you may have to simply add links in a section Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard asking for further input on the initial page, or if the other editors do not object HAT the conversation on the initial talk page, copy all the conversation to the more widely read page (with an appropriate header and indentation) and place a link on the original talk page to the new section.

-- PBS (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

PBS The c+p with the timestamp was my error. The intent was to create a neutral introduction leading to a single discussion. Apparently my wording could have been better. —ATS 🖖 Talk 07:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

On rereading what you wrote I can see that in writing "input on a discussion at Talk:Blink of an Eye (Tori Kelly song)" you meant "...input to a discussion..." rather than commenting about the discussion on the page where you posted the invitation. So my apologies for misunderstanding what you wrote. -- PBS (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

NP. Thanks for your response. —ATS 🖖 Talk 19:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

"Criminal investigation"

What's this about? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: well, that's up to his ISP(s). A poor attempt to get this cunning stunt to stop, maybe? (FWIW, a legal threat was not my intent; it was, rather, to advise the vandal of a potential outcome of any review by his ISPs of months of disruptive vandalism.) —ATS 🖖 Talk 00:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just be careful - "criminal investigation" is going to raise a few eyebrows. You may want to drop the "criminal". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Already done. Thanks. —ATS 🖖 Talk 02:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)