Mluklu7

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Mluklu7. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philippine Army Air Corps, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Ryan and Far East Air Force. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 77th Sustainment Brigade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Alexander. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Escape to Athena

You're new to Wikipedia and seem unfamiliar with editing guidelines. Two of them concern the needlessness of additional information in the cast list (which is best kept to the plot summary) and the need for references. You have reverted corrections to the article made in line with these with no explanation, which also ignores editing guidelines. Please do not repeat your disruptive behaviour. It could get your account blocked. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I take issue with the message you left on my talk page earlier today, 16 June 2017 (USA Eastern Time). It reads thus, in regards to the film article Escape to Athena (a critical topic of discussion these days, eh?):

"You're new to Wikipedia and seem unfamiliar with editing guidelines. Two of them concern the needlessness of additional information in the cast list (which is best kept to the plot summary) and the need for references. You have reverted corrections to the article made in line with these with no explanation, which also ignores editing guidelines. Please do not repeat your disruptive behaviour. It could get your account blocked. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)"

You seem to be intently invested in this Article, since you have been pushing me around concerning a simple minor edit I tried to make twice last month. On the other hand, you have only been involved in that article since March 2017. So what is your problem? Other than mistaking me mostly for someone else, I cannot imagine.

I am old, I am trying to contribute every now and then to Wikipedia, and I have been a newspaper editor and professional writer for years. I am sorry for not being up to your standards, which, according to you, means that I am not able to quite understand some of the very specific guidelines of Wikipedia. However, your attitude does not make me very interested in doing much else for Wikipedia readers.

You reference "...the needlessness of additional information in the cast list" ? You have mistaken someone else's activities for mine. I made no edits to the cast list that I can recall. If my account is connected with THOSE edits, then someone has hacked my account and is using it somehow, or it was wrongly attributed to me. I did not make any such edits.

And "the need for references." Again, I did not do what you think I did.

I have only made two MINOR edit attempts to this article. They both had to do with adding a simple line about the motorcycle chase in this movie. The first time, I added it at the end of the introductory paragraph, and it was stricken as a POV problem. I then added it to the "Reception", since the motorcycle chase was well "received" as one of the fine action sequences in the movie, and one of the best scenes of that sort on film anywhere.

You are not the sole "guardian" of the information about this film. There should be no one, including you, complaining about this kind of mention of this chase, when similar car chase scenes in films such as Bullitt and The French Connection, and similar motorcycle chase scenes in The Great Escape are critically noted for their fine craftsmanship in action filming, and are highlighted or mentioned in their Wikipedia articles---and rightly so. Besides, I attempted to reference the sources for the acclaim or admiration of the motorcycle chase scene in Escape to Athena. I may have failed to understand how some websites can be used as references and others cannot. For that I apologize. Perhaps instead of knocking down my edits, you could have simply helped fix them...you know, in a spirit of cooperation.

I don't actually understand your criticism "You have reverted corrections to the article made in line with these with no explanation...." Again, unless you mean the motorcycle chase, you have me mistaken with someone else. I only made two attempts to simply mention the acclaim of the motorcycle chase scene.

You admit I am new, but you still chose to chew me out, to call my edits "disruptive behaviour", and then threaten me with blocking my account. "Disruptive" to who? YOU? So if I try to do something constructive and contributory, but it's not quite exactly done the right way, (by your reckoning) then I get accused and threatened? I am guessing that asking you to either explain yourself or retract your threat is also considered by you to be "disruptive behavior" and worthy of "getting [my] account blocked," eh?

I'm taking this to you directly this time, going on the possibility that you're just having a cranky, bad day, and it's also quite clear that you have most of your complaint applied to the wrong defendant. But if you don't like my edits, just say why or fix them yourself. But don't call it "disruptive behaviour" and threaten to block my account. If you take me up again in such a manner, I will report you in kind.

Perhaps from here on out, you can be a bit more civil, and we can be friends. Perhaps we can collaborate to improve the article in question. I never hold grudges. I accept your apology. Mluklu7 (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mluklu7 1. On age and experience, mine matches yours. I have a long experience of editing and writing (professionally, as well as on WP).

2. Among the many guidelines on WP, which admittedly take a long time to get to know, there's one called Assume Good Faith (AGF). When guidelines are pointed out to you, it would be more courteous to LOOK at them first, rather than bursting out in a diatribe of offended dignity.

3. When you make an edit on WP, it is customary to say what you are doing and, if necessary, cite the guideline(s) behind the changes. There's a box at the foot of the page for that purpose.

4. On 27 May you reverted (without explaining why) the changes I made on 25 May, in which I cited the policy for slimming down the cast list information. Your comments above provide no evidence that you read these first.

5. I also reverted your comment on the motorcycle chase because, without a reference provided, it expressed a personal opinion and that has no place in an encyclopedia. You will find the policy on that at WP:NPOV.

6. Another convention is that you can answer a comment left on your talk page by replying directly beneath and indenting it by placing a colon (:) at the head of each para. (as I have just done for you). There's no need to transfer the discussion to my talk page; I have ticked the box below and so will be informed when you reply.

7. Fortunately for us both I do not have the authority to block your account. Administrators do that if they judge the behavior of the editor to be disruptive, truculent and abusive. This is done, not as a punishment but for the good and stability of this encyclopedia.

8. I will grant that you wish to help improve WP, but you should try and familiarize yourself with its guidelines first - you'll find a summary at WP:PG. That's as much a matter of courtesy as learning something about the customs of a foreign country in order not to cause offense when visiting it. Allowances are made at first; persistence in error can be a cause of offense.

9. Thank you for your offer of friendship. I was very friendly some years back with someone who helped me get used to conventions here. I am repaying my debt by doing the same for you. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You still have me mistaken for someone else on the cast edits for this movie. I did not do them.

And I have not been in breach of "good faith". I am simply trying to get it right. I look stuff up. I read the guidelines. I am trying to accurately get the special programming characters right.

And yes, I am also glad that you do not have the ability to block my account. I am not the one erupting in a fit of pique (since my trying to add a single simple line to a movie article). I simply took issue with your mistaking me for someone else, and then accusing me of "disruptive behaviour" and threatening me with a blocked account. How was I to know you are not an administrator?

As for the motorcycle chase mention in Escape to Athena, I'm sorry, but there is no substantive difference between mentioning its cinematography value and mentioning the same thing from the other movies I referenced. It is not merely an individual point of view. And if you think so, why don't you go solve the same problems in those articles?

I do not have enough time left in life to mess with characters like you. I do appreciate guidance and help, but not from someone who acts as though they are grabbing me by the scruff of the neck and rubbing my face in it. I am way past that time in my life. So fare thee well. Mluklu7 (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Whoever was originally responsible for the composing the cast list, you were responsible for deleting my 25 May edit, as I pointed out in my point 4 above. Obviously you think you are above learning how to edit WP properly. I'll keep an eye on your edits from now on and will bring serious breaches of guidelines to the notice of relevant administrators. Then you can argue the issue with those who were responsible for drawing up the guidelines in the first place. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely did no such thing. I ONLY did TWO things to the Escape to Athena article: I put one sentence in at the end of the introduction. YOU deleted it, citing a POV issue. I THEN replaced my sentence about the motorcycle chase in a different location, AND I added references for my statement to demonstrate that it is not merely my own point of view. THAT IS ALL I DID. Any other edits that are being supposedly tracked to me are ERRONEOUSLY tracking to me. I repeat to you, that I did NOT delete your 25 May edit. I don't even know what your 25 May edit WAS. And I do not think I am above ANYTHING regarding learning how to properly edit in Wikipedia! And feel free to be my monitor. You may seek in vain any future edits of mine on any article! Mluklu7 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You know, on second thought, please do NOT feel free to be my monitor, sir. In fact, please get off my back and stay off, or else I will be reporting YOUR belligerence (or senility) to a an administrator, and they can argue with YOU about your attitude. And I am taking screen shots of this dialogue. Therefore, I hope you are a big fan of the movie Escape to Athena, because the high price you seem to place upon it may at some point be charged to your account, as it were. Mluklu7 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Go to Escape to Athena, click on View History on the bar above, and you will see your name credited on 27 May as reversing the edit we're discussing. Double check by clicking on this link. Others have complained about wrong electronic ascriptions and if this really is a wiki-error, please take it up with an administrator. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I am saying that absolutely 100% I did not mess with some edit of yours. In fact, I didn't delete anything from that article as far as I know. I only added...and only one sentence. You deleted that first edit, and I simply added it someplace else in the article---with references. You deleted that one as well. ANYTHING else attributed to me, tracked to me, credited to me, or pointing to me in any way, in THAT article, is genuinely IN ERROR. I did not do it. Period. If I had, I would have simply said "mea culpa" and took my lumps and moved on. Apparently, then, this is one of those genuine wiki-errors, and I will report it to an administrator.

Escape to Athena

Hello Mluklu7. Sorry to see you've been having some problems arising from your edits to this article. It was wrongly reverted without any adequate explanation, especially as you had sourced some of the information, so I've restored it. I have made a few improvements, though, mainly around how we format citations and you might care to look at those. If you have any questions and you think I might be able to help, just drop me a line. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Jack. I couldn't figure out which administrator to report this problem to, and didn't even know what to call it. After looking at the guideline pages on reporting different types of problems, I went round and round until I got a headache and just had enough. In addition, after looking at the history page on that silly movie for about the 10th time, it looked more to me like THAT guy was just deleting MY stuff, rather than me messing with his AT ALL---which is what I had told him all along. Well, I hope you have more time than I do to mess with the guy. When he finds out you messed with the article on what is apparently his favorite movie of all time, he's gonna blow his stack again. (Insert smiley faces.) Thanks again for your help----truly. Mluklu7 (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Unfortunately, there are some people on here who know everything and understand nothing. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

WWII Philippine Divisions

Jack, I have another problem----this time a purely technical one. I would welcome your help or simply ask you to fix one item and I could use your solution to fix the other examples. I think it is a template that I am dealing with. I could tell you what it is, but a more succinct way of revealing it to you is by sending you to view a page with this problem on it. Then we can discuss it wherever you wish, for whatever discussion is warranted.

Check out the page 51st Division (Philippines)

Earlier this year I added several new pages of the WWII Philippine Divisions. These pages are still in a fairly nascent condition (regrettably, but unavoidably). (These topics appear to be fairly quiet, so I had hoped to be able to take my time developing them, or welcoming others to do so.) They are numbered 1st, 2nd, 11th, 21st, 31st, 41st, 51st, 61st, 71st, 81st, 91st, 101st, and 102nd, plus a couple other division-sized units.

HERE'S THE TECH PROBLEM: A feature I appreciate in the pages of United States Army Infantry Regiments is a little device that lets one forward directly to the page of the next numbered Regiment or drop to the page of the previous numbered Regiment. It provides a convenience that is appreciated by researchers who wish to use it. If you look on the right-hand side of the page, you will see this little template or engine, or whatever it's called. I copied it from one of the Army Regiments edit page that it appears on, and tried to credit it properly. PROBLEM IS---I do not know how to change the wording of this template to no longer read "U.S. Infantry Regiments", but to read "WWII Philippine Army Divisions". NOR do I know enough to create a new device that looks and operates like this, but with the proper wording for its title. I would gladly discard a locked-up or unusable template in exchange for the creation of a new one that functioned the same way. I simply enjoy this feature, and might use it with more pages of these types if I could figure it out. Military historians like myself really do like features like this that ties things together this way.

Jack, can you help? Immediately is soon enough, but completely unnecessary. I am tied up working on a published biography this week. Doing this was just taking a break, and thinking of unfinished Wikipedia business. Thanks! Mluklu7 (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Mluklu7. You can't use the existing template because of the different title so I've created a new one called Template:WWII Philippine Army Divisions which you add into each infobox in the same way, using {{WWII Philippine Army Divisions}}. I've done it in the 51st so you can see what it looks like. If you need it to be changed in any way, just let me know. Actually, my time's up for this evening so I'll say good night. Back tomorrow sometime. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much, Jack. That was exactly what I needed. (Signing off as you did, you must be in the Eastern Hemisphere---I am in Kentucky. But no need for you to disclose anything further. My military time gives me appreciation of Vanessa Redgrave's quote, as "Max" in Mission Impossible: "I don't need to tell you what a comfort anonymity can be in my profession.... it feels like a warm blanket!")

I will try to study the new template you created and see if I can figure out what you did differently than the other one I was using. Maybe when I grow up I can create my own. When I have a break later this month or early next---a few hours to mess with it---I hope to link pages for other military units with the right titles on this or similar template. "U.S. Artillery Battalions"; "WWI U.S. Army Divisions"; "WWII U.S. Army Infantry Divisions"; "WWII U.S. Army Cavalry Divisions"; "WWII U.S. Army Armored Divisions"; "WWII U.S. Marine Divisions"; "WWI U.S. Air Service Squadrons"; "WWII Australian Army Divisions"; "WWII British Army Divisions"; "WWII Indian Army Divisions"; "WWII U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers"; "WWII U.S. Navy Battleships"; "WWII U.S. Navy Cruisers"; "WWII U.S. Navy Destroyers"; "WWII U.S. Navy Submarines"; etc., etc.; ad militarium.

Thanks again!

That's fine, Mluklu7. I'm in Yorkshire, btw, so five or six hours ahead of you timewise. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Langley battle credits

Thanks for your message about this. It sounds like you're very much on top of the situation. I think you can feel free to make appropriate changes to the article, with cited reference, when the information becomes available at the reliable online source. Let me know if you need any help. DonFB (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much DonFB! I may call upon your expertise when the time comes! Thanks again. Mluklu7 (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mluklu7. 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)

102nd Division

Hello, I'd like to thank you for creating these articles. While cleaning up vandalism I decided to expand this article and fully reference it, so I wondered if you have a source or page number for the statement "These units had been initially not equipped and only partially manned while in their previous divisional assignments; therefore they had been left behind when their respective divisions had moved into action." I was unable to find it in Morton and don't have access to Whitman. Kges1901 (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Howdy! It's nice to hear from someone else who appreciates the great sacrifice of the men who defended the Philippines in 1941-42, and who takes interest in the actual units and order of battle. This was a real army, not just some nebulous blob of men, although they're hardly remembered as either by anyone these days.

I will see if I can figure out where I got that quote, or if that was a summary that I made from several lines of data that explained it all more elaborately.

I have neglected to finish my work on these articles over this past year. I wanted to get the foundation laid for them---a skeletal structure at least---and part of how I did it was to copy and paste the basics of an article structure for all of the ones I added so as to give them some uniformity, then to go back and change the individual details and (theoretically) start fleshing out the known organizational and combat narratives, all with the appropriate citations. One drawback for me is that much of the P.O.W. material is copyrighted and the website owner and assembler of all the stuff (a lot of very hard work) is now deceased. This material informs me of officers' names and units and commands---details otherwise difficult to know or organize.

I have managed to find ways around this and other challenges, but I have been doing this "homework" for years now---in-between having 2 strokes---and sometimes I only have a day or so every few months to tinker with it, and it goes slow. I have been working on a master name and unit index for the book "Bataan: Our Last Ditch", with the goal in mind to be able to fill out battalion, regiment, division, and corps officer's rosters, and thereby help present a historical framework for all other combat narratives involving these units, but which often only mention the name of an officer. If you like, send me an email to link back to, and I may be able to help you with Whitman. MLUKLU at yahoo dot com. I would welcome ANY and all help on these articles. Make them your own.

And the 102nd Division is almost a mystery to me in a large way. I have occasionally searched for any basic unit emblem or insignia for the 102nd, but to no avail. Obviously, they had plenty of more important things to concern themselves with. My only thought was that in some of the down time these men of the 102nd had, that perhaps to boost morale, SOMEONE in their unit may have drawn or proposed an emblem or insignia, likely unofficial. I have not attempted to recruit any help yet from the Philippines on this matter. Mluklu7 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and I wish you success in compiling the index. You can email me by clicking the 'Email the user' button under the 'Tools' tab to the left of my user page. Kges1901 (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mluklu7. 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Trivia on Sazerac

Wikipedia has clear policies about the addition of WP:TRIVIA into articles. MOS:POPCULT states clearly the results of a lengthy discussion: "The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases." Extrapolations from references that do not say things that are in the edit constitute original research. Invoking "prime sources"[1] does not change this. Copies of scripts are primary sources, and links to repositories may constitute a copyright violation. Additionally, Wikipedia is not censored, and requiring edits match with policy is not censorship. Calling an editor a "censor"[2] is a personal attack. Find a secondary or tertiary source (I didn't succeed, but it's not my job) or find support on Talk:Sazerac. Those are the best options. BiologicalMe (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

What in blazes is your problem, BiologicalMe? Do you realize how ridiculous the standard is that you're trying to claim applies here? You are basically saying that if a group of knuckleheads put together a website and discuss how often this drink is mentioned on this TV show, that THAT can be satisfactorily referenced, but other stuff CAN'T, because it constitutes "primary sources" and/or "original research"??? Who's to know what's being made up on a "secondary source" web page? However, if you checked carefully, the script web pages I cited ARE fan pages of the "secondary" nature you apparently need to satisfy all the demands you think Wikipedia requires of you to LEAVE ME ALONE. I am not personally attacking you, but I think you ARE being censorious to me by applying a harsher standard to my stupid little comment than to others. Are you having a bad day? What is YOUR interest in Sazerac? I detest liquor and could care less about this New Orleans cocktail or any other. However, I simply thought because it's mentioned a lot in a top rated TV show, that it would nicely fit the definition of "In Popular Culture". This kind of round and round nonsense is EXACTLY why contributing to Wikipedia is mostly a big fat waste of time. So much for trying to be helpful. Mluklu7 (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add material to sourced text that is not in the source

See WP:VERIFY - and of course since the text you added would appear to the reader to be in the source, it was a misrepresentation of the source. Doug Weller talk 06:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:Christian Academy of Louisville are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. I agree that the school should not be called a segregation academy, and your discussion of that is fine. Your discussion of the school system however does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia and I have removed it. Doug Weller talk 07:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 07:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, please help!

"If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Doug Weller talk"

Doug Weller, please help me. I looked at the article in question and its talk page and edit history just now. I see here where you welcomed me, gently scolded me, partially agreed with me, warned me about Wiki's post-1992 political bias, said my stuff wasn't properly verified, said part of my discussion had no place on Wikipedia (which discussion was in a Talk page, which I thought was the whole purpose of a Talk page, rather than it being in the Article itself), and claimed to have removed something from whatever I had previously contributed, claiming it to be an attack on a "school system". The purpose of the discussion was to assist in explaining the formation of various private schools, and that they were formed for reasons other than the reasons claimed by the local public school system and their advocates in the local newspaper, both of whose bias contributes to the misinformation and false characterizations of many of the private schools who are their competitors. I have seen far worse on Wiki Talk pages. My discussion was very generous, as it was both factual and reasoned. In any event, where else may I assist? Mluklu7 (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC) 14:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Basically the talk page is to discuss issues of content as related to our policy and guidelines - discuss sources, WP:NPOV issues, etc. That section wasn't at all relevant and wouldn't be anywhere. Arguing about it is for a forum. We simply reflect reliable sourcesDoug Weller talk 15:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC).

Oops. Looks like you're following me around, undoing my edits. Well thanks a million. My edit for Joe Nickell is sourced. It is the obituary for his brother, as seen on Find-A-Grave, which should be "secondary" enough of a source even for Wikipedia. It's my own fault for trying once again to "contribute" to this mess. Mluklu7 (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No, you're new and like many new editors don't yet understand how we work. See WP:RSNP on Find a Grave - if you can find the original ob, we can use it. I reverted you there because the source didn't back your edit and you didn't add a new source. Btw, see Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to add references. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, you sure gutted the entire article on Sayers Academy in Louisville. Interesting how if I had a website that had all the local schools' brochures on it, with their own history, emphases, etc., that my website could be sourced on a Wiki page and the whole data dump could me made and kept on Wiki simply because my website would be considered a secondary source, even though I would have let the schools describe themselves and speak for themselves. Or if a local newspaper did a review of all these local schools, that their review, however accurate or not or biased or not (given the sorry state of today's American "journalism") would also be acceptable by Wiki. But the school describing its own reason for existing, its own unique niche, etc., is too "primary" for Wiki. I can appreciate the need for objectivity in descriptions, but to effectively eliminate all contact from the entity itself? It is almost nonsensical for Wiki to ask "contributors" for help expanding articles under Wiki's foolish standards. Then again, I read articles on persons, which are essentially public biographies, filled with slander and misinformation, and the person or their family have no way to refute the errors be,cause they are considered too "primary". Again, sheer nonsense. Again, all the rest of us waste our time and effort. Mluklu7 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

That was added by the school and we ask editors with a conflict of interest not to do that. It was purely promotional and we don't want articles that look like the subject's website. We couldn't use the hypothetical website you use either, see WP:RS. A review might be used, but not automatically. We are an encyclopedia - would you expect people to write their own biographies for an encyclopedia? Or organisations or or people to be objective about themselves? Doug Weller talk 15:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Doug, I thank you for your responses. They really are appreciated, and I accept them in the generous spirit in which you wrote them. I must briefly respond to a couple of comments. First, I contend that my experience shows that Wiki does, in fact, use all kinds of websites like I hypothesized---fan sites, critics' sites, and other sites, all over its content pages. Second, I do expect people to be able to correct or remove slanderous stuff about themselves, or else Wiki turns into the gossip rags we now know as once great newspapers. And yes, they used to write their own biographies, it was called Who's Who and for a hundred years both the British and American versions relied on solicited data from the subjects themselves---again, subject to editing standards afterward for both style conformity as well as potential content. Granted, it was more skeletal data than storied narrative, but Wiki is apparently open to using a "journalist's" published interview with a person of note to milk personal narratives or anecdotes of the type that fill Wiki's pages. And at that point I ask, "What, of that, is 'self-promoting?'", "What was originally subject to libel if the journalist mischaracterized the person in their original article?", and "What is the kind of material an Encyclopedia Britannica or World Book entry might contain?". Oxford's Biographies also used primary resources, and all were subject to editing standards by editors. The job that editors saw for themselves was to help shape submitted material into their unique format, not necessarily be functional erasers; although in their limited print format, they did that as well. But the tragic thing about Wikipedia is that, in its almost unlimited data capacity, it throws away so much material in its quest for some sort of perfection, and in doing so, robs its readers from much coveted information that they will undoubtedly find elsewhere. I understand some of the methodology behind this, but a lot of it is illogical. For example, encyclopedias of all kinds utilized articles from all sorts of experts in whatever field was the article's subject matter, and critical editorial standards and peer review was part of the process---often beforehand in the fact that the authors had already published papers on the same subjects. Wiki would reject these as being "original research," and may I say, to Wiki's own detriment. In any event, thank you, Doug Weller Mluklu7 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

We use primary sources at times. For living people, we don't use blogs and we have strict rules about content, see WP:BLP and the noticeboard at WP:BLPN. Paper encyclopedias are prone to give only one expert's view and we try to avoid this through WP:NPOV among other things and I think that makes many of our articles better than those in paper encyclopedias (and often more accurate according to surveys). Who's who certainly didn't try to give a rounded picture of its subjects thus our article on it says " the playwright John Osborne did not acknowledge an estranged daughter in his entry; Carole Jordan does not mention any marriage in her article, although her ex-husband, Richard Peckover, did in his." On the plus side it contains interesting titbits. On another subject, mission statements are almost always promotional which is why they rarely belong in an article - being the subject of discussion in reliable secondary sources might be an exception. If you want my attention, ping me, ie {{ping|Doug Weller}} Doug Weller talk 16:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I must (rhetorically) ask the source for John Osborne's daughter and her estrangement, and why that might be germane to his biography? Was it his daughter? Was it a friend of hers? I submit that most of these kinds of anecdotes may provide some insight into his psyche and maybe they don't, but what interest do strained family relationships have with Wiki's goals of being "better"? And again, what is the source of that data? My ultimate contention is that Wikipedia is thoroughly inconsistent as to sources. I am not "new" to Wikipedia as much as I am "infrequent", and much of that infrequency is due NOT to a lack of understanding about how Wiki operates, but the fact that it is so inconsistent in those operations as to make reasonable contributions to be mostly a waste of time and effort. The permeating theme of an enormous number of articles is a plea from Wikipedia for help to expand or clean up or better source articles. Fine. Then adopt a policy of leaving insufficient submissions alone for a period, while simultaneously asking for better sourcing. For example, the obit that appeared on the Find-A-Grave page for Joe Nickell's brother Bob not only contained the full names of their parents, Joe's middle name Herman, and the fact that Bob served as a Captain in the Marines in Vietnam, but it was also obviously written by his own family. I could not find a newspaper source, but there is a Kentucky Senate Bill which contains all of the text of that same obituary, and is found here . But it is also obviously based entirely upon data submitted by the family. I repeat my concern that Wiki is grossly inconsistent in what it accepts as "secondary" versus "primary", and what it defines as acceptable source material in the first place. I know you don't make the rules, but you are the 157th most important Wikian, and as such you must have some input in how those rules are applied. Please pass it up the food chain. Thank you very much. Mluklu7 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Shining (film), 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. DonIago (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

List of The Flintstones episodes

added a link pointing to Frank Nelson

The Flintstones

added a link pointing to Frank Nelson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

THANK YOU for helping out on this! I had forgotten that there might be more than one Frank Nelson article on Wiki. Your correction on both my links is greatly appreciated! Mluklu7 (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2024

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Ilhan Omar. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)