This is an archive of past discussions with User:Epicgenius. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
My apologies, I'm afraid I saw and had to contest → Laisvės Alėja (move) – since Lonely Planet and some, not all, English sources do follow the local custom of small a for alleys. It may be that WP Geo MOS and WP Lithuania editors will have differences on this, I don't know. I'm actually neutral, but don't think it qualifies as a TechRequest. Good luck. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Epicgenius. Do you want to reply at WP:RM/TR? If a decision can't be reached there, and if the proponent doesn't change their mind, an admin will usually open a regular move discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rockaway Parkway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rockaway Avenue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I hope not to discourage continued good work, but I have quickfailed 63rd Street Line. It needs much broader citations. Please attempt to include an inline citation (WP:IC) directly following each fact. Do not leave any paragraphs without at least one citation. Please familiarize yourself with WP:WIAGA before renominating the article--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
What do you think you're doing to this article? You hid a link to Avenue D under a pipe to Lewis Street, a different street. You added a bizarre link to LowerManhattan, and you removed a WP:Red link to a notable building. If I didn't know that you're generally well meaning, I'd assume that you're vandalizing the article. Pburka (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I though Lewis Street was a continuation of Avenue D (it was Columbia Street.) The building's red link, were it a blue link, would not have been removed, but the building is not notable enough yet that it has its own Wikipedia article. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions)17:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Please review the WP:Red link essay you linked to. The absence of a Wikipedia article doesn't indicate a lack of notability. Red links are valuable as they help suggest notable topics for editors to write about. Wanton removal of red links does not improve the project. Pburka (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I meant to say, why did no one care to write it? If it's notable, then someone would have written about it already. This building has existed for decades and the article still doesn't exist, and not one person even tried to write the article. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions)19:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED. It's reasonable to assume that the number of red links increases faster than the number of articles, so Wikipedia will, in fact, never be finished. If we accepted your argument, we would need to block the creation of new articles completely, since new articles would be inherently non-notable (nobody's written that article before)! Until I wrote the Broome Street article last year it didn't exist either, but you wouldn't argue that Broome Street wasn't notable because it didn't have an article, would you? Pburka (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
You're missing the point of red links! Read WP:Red link: It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate…that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow.…Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished.Pburka (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Lewis Street probably isn't notable. Please feel free to remove that red link, but don't pipe it to a different street. Please don't make any of the the other changes that were in your first edit. Pburka (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Your changes look good, but they weren't minor edits. Please remember to use caution regarding the minor edit tag. Pburka (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hiya, I just asked a question over on WP:RED about personal names. As an editor of this guideline if you could help me find an answer I would much appreciate it. Thanks. --MisterShiney✉17:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Please stop edit warring. Consensus on the talk page is clear that "The Bowery" is the correct and common name. Feel free to discuss, but stop reverting. Pburka (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
So we're agreed that you'll stop changing the lead and will discuss any changes on the talk page. Thanks. Pburka (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Inclusion of non-notables
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Epicgenius, could you aid with a rationale for restoring this chart [1]. Per Wikipedia guidelines for schools, and more generally notability requirements, I wasn't aware that a discussion would be necessary to remove this section. The principal is already mentioned in the infobox. Thanks, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the section again, with an explanation in my edit summary. I've no intent to edit war, and welcome discussion at the article talk page. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and my deletions followed a recent spate of unsourced negative edits, not to mention an apparent history of those in a promotional vein. Makes one's head spin. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Locating ledes that need improving
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Epicgenius, and thank you first, for welcoming me as a registered user.
Up to now (as a non-registered user), I've always responded to Wiki appeals that say 'The lede may not adequately summarise the article', and I like to think I've done some useful work on these.
Is there any index of articles that carry this particular Wiki appeal? I think it would be a good use of me.
The pleasure is all mine. There's a wikiproject about that; in case you didn't know, a Wikiproject is basically "a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia". This Wikiproject is focused on cleaning up lead sections of articles, which you may be interested in. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions)00:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hatnotes
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Epicgenius. Although many of your edits regarding disambiguation are very good, I notice you have been placing hatnotes on some articles where they are not needed, such as the two Victory Boulevard articles. These two articles are already disambiguated by their titles. The relevant guideline is at WP:NAMB. Admittedly this guideline can be a little difficult to follow. I saw you cite WP:HN#Ambiguous term that redirects to an unambiguously named article a couple of times, but that section applies to cases where, even though a title is not ambiguous (example: Southampton, Massachusetts or Victory Boulevard (Los Angeles)), some other ambiguous title redirects there. For example, if Southampton or Victory Boulevard were redirects that pointed to the Massachusetts or LA articles, then yes, a {{redirect}} hatnote would be required, becuase someone typing simply "Victory Boulevard" might be on the wrong article. However, in these cases, Southampton is a primary-topic article with its own hatnote to a dab page that contains the Massachusetts article, and Victory Boulevard is a dab page itself. So anyone on the Massachusetts or LA articles already got there through the dab page, or by directly typing or clicking on a link to the article they want. Therefore they don't need a hatnote to find any other article. I hope this explanation is helpful. 69.95.203.61 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi,
While I agree that I should have used the fuller name of the street for the disambiguator at Empire Theatre (41st Street), but you're going to have to find an administrator to fix the copy-and-paste move. Those aren't allowed as they don't preserve the edit history, which is needed for the licensing terms of Wikipedia. Remember that in the future you should use the move tab atop the page, as the new name wasn't in use already. oknazevad (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Follow up on a similar note. You recently moved Lyceum Theatre (Broadway) needlessly. "Broadway" was the correct disambiguator, as there have been other Lyceum Theatres in New York. I have attempted to fix it, but it's become even more of a hash. Please be more careful and ensure that a dismabiguator is actual incorrect before "fixing" it. If you see a disambiguator you don't like, take it to the talk page, or at least check the disambiguation page to see that the new disambiguator is not actually more ambiguous, as was the case here. Now I have to get administrator help to fix your mistake. This is not good collaborative behavior; WP:BEFORE is about nominating things for deletion, but the underlying principle of checking the previous efforts before taking unilateral action is a good one for any potentially contentious move. And that includes any and every page move! oknazevad (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Date pages
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please don't make scripted changes to the dashes on the date pages as you have done at September 25. The format of the date pages is intentional and shouldn't be changed without discussion at WT:DAYS. Thanks. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)21:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
Hello! Epicgenius,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
The page you linked to, says "With a few limited exceptions, there are no good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]." I am trying to eliminate [[target|redirect]]-type redirects. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions)14:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Probably for historical reasons. Perhaps New York, New York used to be the main article, and it was moved to New York City at some point. You could examine the history of the pages to find out. But that's why we have redirects. There's no need to "fix" them. If the community felt that it was important (presumably for some technical reason), the logical response would be to create a bot to replace all the redirects, just like we do for double redirects. What you're doing simply creates unnecessary change logs. A bot would also use edit comments, allowing other editors to see what's happening without resorting to examining every diff. Pburka (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Minor edits
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Just a reminder: please don't add new content as a minor edit as you did here. Edits which add content, change the meaning of the article, or change visible templates should not be tagged as WP:MINOR. Pburka (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
We've talked about this before. You MUST stop abusing the minor edit tag. This was not a minor edit. This is just your most egregious recent minor edit. You've also added many dubious user-visible templates tagged as minor edits. Please make an effort to work collaboratively. Masking your edits under minor edit tags gives the impression of deception, even if that's not your intent. Nobody will complain if you don't use the tag. Pburka (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
You need to read the above and understand what it means. When you make a Bold edit, and another editor Reverts is, the next step in the process is to Discuss the dispute, not to revert back, which you have a tendency to do. That reversion is the first step towards edit warring, and it is the wrong step. The article stays in the status quo ante (the condition it was in before the beginning of the dispute, which means before the "bold" edit) and discussion takes place on the article talk page. Please start following BRD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
In your edit summary, you pointed out that it's "BRD" not "BRRR", and that is correct - which is why your next step after YOU have made the BOLD edit, and I have REVERTED it is to DISCUSS. The next "R" in that sequence is the first step in an edit war, and violates BRD. MY "R" simplt restores the edit to the status quo ante, where it is supposed to be while discussion takes place. YOUR next "R", which you just did today, is again edit warring -- you see the problem? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Differences in opinion are quite normal. Please take it to the talk page and see what you have in common and the basis for the differences. If you can't work it out there, see the dispute resolution process. —EncMstr (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Can you please explain your edit comment? I don't understand how it relates to WP:REDLINK. Do you believe that the links aren't notable? If so, please explain that on the talk page! -- don't just revert! (See WP:BRD). If you believe that they are notable, but won't be created soon, then please restore them. As we've discussed before, there is no time limit on Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Some redlinks are linked, even though they probably won't be created in the near future. It's probably an issue of editors linking things that they personally believe should have an article, even if that article does not exist. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions)12:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
There's no requirement that articles be created in the near future. Do you believe that the links aren't notable? Google News has many links for "Ping Yuen"; is it not notable? Pburka (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand why you think it's useful to remove the WP:REDLINKs. If the red links are to a notable topic, we leave them in the articles. If they're non-notable (or to a personal name; a special case) we remove them. Do you believe that the links you removed are non-notable? Pburka (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that both of the topics you unlinked may be notable, but they're marginal. It looked to me like you were removing the links because they were red, thus my revert. Pburka (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 14
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coney Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taconic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Epicgenius, I don't know what your intention was, but it is perfectly legitimate to have a redirect so that normal sentence case can be used, in the same way that we also have New York Times redirecting to The New York Times so that one can link without the "The". And while the NY subway may be well known, it's not so terribly overkill to link to it, especially in an article about a borough other than Manhattan, where awareness outside NYC is likely lower. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know that the redirect is fine. However, many of the pages that have these links also have incorrect information. For example, on the GEM Hotel, the text (before I edited it) said, "It is accessible via the New York City subway, on the C and E lines, stopping at 23rd St." On the contrary, according to the subway's nomenclature, the IND Eighth Avenue Line is the line, and the C and E were the services. I assumed that all of the other pages had the same problem. Anyway, thank you for your concern about my overuse of unlinking. --Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions)11:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, then, your concern was that the link should be to the specific line? I'm not sure I see the issue, since "New York city subway" is the whole system and the article then specifies which lines - I suspect that would be the case in many of the articles - but in any case that's not what your edit summary said: the edit summary said it should be capital "s" Subway, and I still don't see that as a reason for delinking (rather than substitution of the case that is the title of the article). So unless I'm misunderstanding something, it looks as though you also need to make sure the edit summaries clearly state your reason when you do something a massive number of times like this. But ... please don't just assume an error you identified in one article is shared by all other articles. I hope you've now reverted the unlinking, but as I say, I may not be completely understanding your reasoning - all I know is that Beverley Squares quite reasonably linked to "the New York City subway" and then specified the line - in the manner you say you prefer, in fact. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
But that is indeed a separate concern; when you do a mass edit you need to be particularly careful the edit summaries reflect your purpose, since all a watcher of each article will automatically see is what you did to that one. On this point, however, it's the difference between a name and a noun - New York City Subway is what the MTA uses as the system name, but in normal usage it's "the subway in New York". Yes, technically the PATH is a subway, but it's owned by the Port Authority (unless there's been a recent change) and simply comes into NYC - hence Port Authority Trans-Hudson Railway. (Also it was historically known as the "Hudson tubes", never, so far as I know, the Hudson "subway".) The Staten Island Railway apparently has one tunnel - I had to look that up, I had thought it was entirely surface. In any case, specifying the station, line, or other context should always make it clear that yes, it's the system usually called the New York City subway that's being referred to, and I doubt many articles are really ambiguous in this respect. (You also need to look at the whole context within an article; at Beverley Squares you were injecting information into the present-tense geographical description that was relevant only to the history, and is actually there in the following paragraph, which was about the history.) I respect your ability to use automated editing tools, and your willingness to use them to fix nitty-gritty problems in large numbers of articles, but please make sure it's actually a problem and actually analogous between all the articles; it's now looking clear to me that this was not such a case and needed careful judgment on a case by case basis. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
With all due respect I'd like to ask you to reconsider this renaming. Over at WP:NRHP we generally use the name the Register lists the property under if there is no other official or common name (which in this case is indeed "Houses at ..." since the buildings aren't officially named after their address, unlike, say, One Penn Plaza. I have seen no evidence that making a change like this is backed by consensus at WT:NRHP or anywhere else. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the inconvienence, I thought that "Houses at" was not part of the official title (and I wanted to name this article after its subjects' addresses, as in other building articles), but it looks like I am wrong. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions)00:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "deadmaus, deadmau5".
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Although they are related projects, Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town are different. They were built at different times, and have different characters. That we have only one article makes sense because they are related, but in the context of talking about the grid, it makes sense to mention them seprarately, since they were built seperately and therefore broke the grid at different times. That each redirects to the same article is irrelevant. Please don't revert again, and please stop your very bad habit of reverting instead of discussing. Once again, I point you to WP:BRD. You rarely move to a discussion stage until you have reverted several times, but your BOLD edit was REVERTED by me, and the next step is for you to DISCUSS your edit with other editors. If you don't get that, sooner or later you're going to be dinged for edit-warring, so it would be better to learn it now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the clarification. I put them together only because PCV/ST were in the same article. It doesn't make sense to have 2 redirects when you could have 1 direct link, in my view. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions)12:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Categories
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Your account has been granted the "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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I wanted to let you know that your platform layouts were a great addition to the New York City Subway station articles. However, I was a little concerned about the ordering of some of the terminals. For example, here you have the E services layout saying "Toward Jamaica-179 Street or Jamaica Center." Although it is true that the E terminates at both stations, since the primary terminal of the E service is Jamaica Center with only a few rush hour trips terminating at Jamiaca-179 Street, I was thinking that the two terminals should be flipped-flopped. Since you were the one who added these layouts to the articles, I wanted see your opinion on this. Mysteryman557 (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Mysteryman557
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi I note we have a difference of opinion about what should be in the See Also section. Can we please take it to the talk page if you disagree with my reasoning as per articles which are relevant? Thanks.
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Please read WP:SEEALSO rather than reverting. See also entries should be used sparingly. They should not be long laundry lists of articles that have no direct link to the article in question. See also sections are not the same as categories.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I know that, but the topic of the linked articles in question, is generally very similar to the topic of the article from which I am editing. 21:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
a rather enigmatic edit that you made on my talk page. Was there more?, Was there less? Is it just started? Or is it a done deal? Or was I in error, you did nothing there at all?
Life is supposed to be interesting. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Per the page above, it is not necessary to change links simply because they point to a redirect. If you insist of doing it, however, please leave a link behind, i.e. you're changing "Bowery" to "Bowery" instead of the proper "Bowery". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to 2013 Southeast Asian haze, 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. Thank you. Please note that a haze is not a heat wave. They are two widely different things. Thanks.Oliverlyc07:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elisa Izquierdo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puerto Rican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
death of Joe Boy Felix Huey, who was killed in a shootout with Wah Ching members at the Ping Yuen]housing projects earlier that year.<ref>[http://www.brockmorris.com/btigers/btigers07-2.html Bamboo
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Todd James may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"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:
**Beautiful Losers, [[Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center]], March 13 - May 15, ]]Cincinnati]], Ohio
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mosaic may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Avenue Line)|Museum of Natural History]] station of the [[New York City Subway]] (there are many [[New York City Subway tiles|such works of art scattered throughout the NYC subway system.)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mind the gap may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
** It is also used on the [[[[Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York)|MTA]]-operated [[New York City Subway]] and the [
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lotta Faust 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:
the cast of ''The White Hen'' (1907), staged by Louis Mann at the Casino Theatre,<ref name=birth/> [roadway at 39th Street.<ref>[http://www.musicals101.com/bwaypast1b.htm#Casino Casino Theatre],
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Louis B. Brodsky 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:
a policeman for indecency while performing before an audience of 101 men at a waiters' club at 80[Greenwich Street. Brodsky dismissed the women from court, saying "nudity is no longer considered
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John R. Williams 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:
Williams served in the Territorial Militia from 1796 to 1799 at Fort Marsac]in [[Tennessee]].<ref name = "hod"/> Upon leaving the army, he returned to Detroit and joined his
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brooklyn streets 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:
//www.nycgovparks.org/parks/paerdegatbasinpark/history Paerdegat Basin Park Highlights] — NYC Parks]</ref>
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Deadmaus#Requested_move_3_.28to_.22Joel_Zimmerman.22.29. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Speed of light does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
