User talk:Plumber/Archive 1

Hmmm.

hi.

Hi, It's Bean. Beanbeanbean

Hi PLUMs. (From some MarioWiki member).

hi Plumb3r--Heciny 22:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

it's a me xzelion! --GG

Import

We have a template that says that the article was imported from Mariowiki. So make sum imports. Here is the template made by me and Smiddle. [[Template:MarioWiki] --Dummmmmmy 23:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Don Quixtote, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us a bit about yourself

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  16:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

SPA tag

Could you identify the account you previously used? Thanks. - auburnpilot talk 16:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:GeraldLKSmith.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:GeraldLKSmith.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pro-war Left

Hello. As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-war Left (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Presidency of Richard Nixon article

Just wanted to bring to your attention the existence of the Presidency of Richard Nixon article. The Richard Nixon article is a biographical article with limits on the amount of material that can be expanded into it. Mitchumch (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kamala Harris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Willie Brown (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal note

I'm glad we could reach a compromise on United States presidential election, 1968‎. Regarding Nixonland, this is purely my personal opinion, but I consider that book to be extremely unreliable. If you know anything about Cambodia, for example, you'll immediately see through Perlstein's propagandistic exaggerations. Perlstein claims that Operation Menu, just one of many U.S. and South Vietnamese bombing raids, killed 600,000 Cambodian civilians. Demographers Judith Banister and Paige Johnson, via modeling "the highest mortality [they] can justify", came out with 275,000 deaths in the 1970-5 period ("After the Nightmare: The Population of Cambodia"). Marek Sliwinski, in his demographic study, arrives at a comparable estimate of 240,000 war deaths out of which there were 40,000 deaths as a result of American bombings (Le Génocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Démographique, counting combatants and civilians). In any event, the estimate of 600,000 provided by Perlstein is simply ludicrous, and American bombing was only a minor factor in the civil war (the vast majority were killed by the communists). The memoirs of genocide survivors Chanrithy Him, Haing Ngor, Sam and Sokhary You, Someth May and Thida Mam, Vann Nath, Loung Ung, Sophal Leng Stagg, Paul Thai and Molyda Szymusiak all fail to mention a single death of friends or family due to American bombing. By contrast, every Cambodian alive lost family members under the Khmer Rouge. (Perlstein further claims that Operation Commando Hunt, a single bombing raid, killed 350,000 Laotian civilians, around ten times the civilian death toll of the entire Laotian civil war). As one reviewer noted, Perlstein's portrayal of Nixon as a demented sociopath simply does not ring true--unlike Herblock's caricatures, which had enough empathy to make them uncomfortably recognizable to Nixon's friends. But that's just my two cents. Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Party membership

I've reworded the CP and LP articles to reflect what Ballot News says. The CP seems to have lost a lot of members in the last few years. Take a look please and see if I've done something wrong. Maybe the CP article needs to have the 30 states bit added. And maybe there are other sources for figures. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Citizens for a Sound Economy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phillip Morris (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

If you check the talk page archives, you will find agreement that, for example, "Tobacco Control" has no relevant, accurate information which is not intentionally misleading. Would you please self-revert, per WP:BLP and WP:BRD, and discuss. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see also Talk:Tea Party movement#Alleged origin and Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Warning

As your edit was significant, I have removed it under the restrictions imposed on the article. Please be aware that this article is under ArbCom sanctions, and there is a moderated discussion taking place. If you wish the material to be in the article you need to raise the issue on this page. Be aware that if you reinstate the material without first getting consensus on the talkpage, you will be blocked and topic banned. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Newt Gingrich 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:

• of Georgia, [[Jimmy Carter]]. Carter won over two-thirds of the vote in his native Georgia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1976&fips=13&f=1&off=0&elect=0|
• three-marriages.html "Newt’s Three Marriages"], ''The Anglican Patrimony'', January 14, 2012 (Access date January 5 2013</ref>{{failed verification|date=March 2013}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 State of the Union Address 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:

• 1995 State of the Union Address|2011]]. Ros-Lehtinen also gave the Spanish response this year.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/196639-rep-ros-lehtinen-to-deliver-
• four Republican responses were interpreted as a sign of the party's ideological divisions. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/multiple-gop-responses-to-state-of-the-union-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cathy McMorris Rodgers 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:

• the Spanish response this year, which were largely a translation of McMorris Rogers' remarks.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/196639-rep-ros-lehtinen-to-deliver-
• 44ef-4b4e-b051-34b41c48179b&o=d0a04446-6b21-417f-a85e-8de44ac4245f |title=2004 General Election > Federal Offices > Results |accessdate=2011-12-07 |publisher=[[Washington Secretary of State]]}}</ref> of the vote in

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2011 State of the Union Address 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:

• on Foreign Affairs|House Foreign Affairs Committee]], gave a Spanish version of the response.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/196639-rep-ros-lehtinen-to-deliver-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Republican response to the State of the Union address 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:

• most recent Republican response, on January 28, 2014, in English and Spanish, respectively.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/196639-rep-ros-lehtinen-to-deliver-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 State of the Union Address, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Lee (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Crimean status referendum, 2014 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 turnout of 30-50%," suggesting that only 15-30% of Crimeans actually voted for annexation.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation 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 turnout of 30-50%," suggesting that only 15-30% of Crimeans actually voted for annexation.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terentii Shtykov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Military Council. 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) 10:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

North Korea

It is completely ludicrous to claim that someone else, not ‎Kim Il-sung, served as the first leader of North Korea. Terentii Shtykov represented Soviet Union there and held command over Soviet forces in the area, but he can not be labeled as de jure leader of the country. Just look at the Leadership of East Germany article - should we include there Soviet generals who were in charge of Soviet forces in East Germany? Of course not. Anyway, it will be really interesting to me to see what other users will say about your changes to North Korean articles. --Sundostund (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• That would make sense if Supreme Leader was a formal title. It isn't. A more apt comparison would be to List of leaders of the Soviet Union. I'm not sure how many of the other users know about Shtykov; English sources on him are rare. But just because one is unaware of Shtykov does not mean that he wasn't historically the leader of northern Korea from 1945-1950. Plumber (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC) 13:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• No, my comparison is the most correct in this case. Both North Korea and East Germany were Soviet-controlled territories (as Soviets took over those areas during the war). Eventually, those countries were formed under strict Soviet tutelage (with de facto Soviet rule in early years), and yet no one attempts to include Soviet generals to the list of East German leaders and other related articles. Your assumptions can not be correct, and I'm sure they will be reverted very soon. --Sundostund (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Supreme leader is a de facto title. There is no such analogue in East Germany. Shtykov was the effective Supreme leader of North Korea until the Korean War. The war allowed Kim Il-sung to achieve independence from the Soviet Union and become supreme leader in both image and name. Again, there is no analogue to East Germany here. Plumber (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There is such analogue - all leaders of East Germany, especially heads of the Socialist Unity Party, can be labeled as de facto supreme leaders of East Germany. All Soviet military commanders in the area were effective leaders right up until 1989, and no one would include them among East German leaders (because it would be completely ludicrous, in the same way as your ideas)... By your own words - I'm not sure how many of the other users know about Shtykov; English sources on him are rare. You need extremely strong English sources if you want to implement your changes in English Wikipedia. This way, all this stuff will be reverted. It is just a matter of time. Now, I'm withdrawing from this discussion because it is apparent that neither of us will change his mind about this issue, and I'm letting other users interested in North Korea to tell you what they think. --Sundostund (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears to me that the source itself says he was leader in everything but title...so he shouldn't have it here either. Also after reading the full piece he wasn't even really a leader but a governor of the state during it's transition until the soviets could find a suitable person to appoint. They would have never given him the title of leader and since all the choices he made had to defer to what Stalin wanted saying he was a leader is inaccurate. He was a steward or temporary governor similar to Paul Bremer's position during the period right after the Iraq war. Say he was the acting appointed head of state or something but I think leader implies more power than he had. Peachywink (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional note: the page in question here List of leaders of North Korea is only about people who controlled the country after it became independent. We don't list the former Japanese Governor-General of Korea there either.Peachywink (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The sources I have are all scholarly sources and are extremely reliable. The fact that there is a dearth of them on this site does not mean they are not reliable. Additionally, Shtykov was the most powerful man in North Korea even after its establishment. Did you read his article or the sources? That fact is made clear. Now, normally it would be contrary to Wikipedia policy to put a de facto ruler with no official title as leader of the country. However, there is no formal title of Supreme Leader in North Korea. It is a de facto title. Kim Il-sung had to defer all his decisions to Shtykov and/or Stalin until the Korean War freed him. The current setup reflects North Korean media's official line instead of the English scholarly historical consensus over who had the most power in North Korea from 1948-1950. Plumber (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Look the fact that for the first few years of the regime it was basically a puppet state doesn't matter, the power wielded by a position has no barring on titles otherwise England would have no kings anymore. The position of Supreme leader up to this point has been a political title of the DPRK. Shtykov was never a Korean politician, he was there acting as a steward during the building of the government. He only ever had military command post titles. To put him in the same timeline as the other heads of state of the DPRK is misleading as to what his position was, he was never recognized publicly as the leader of the DPRK. However I have a possible compromise to avoid the edit war we seem to be heading towards here. We take out the title from ALL pages leaving only the actual positions that were held and the list of past supreme leaders becomes the list of past Heads of State for the DPRK. We can add a note in Kim il-sungs article about Shtykov and in the North Korea article. Peachywink (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a short comment - Peachywink, I'm not sure whether I understood you correctly, but if you proposed the removal of "Supreme leaders" section from List of leaders of North Korea, I would never agree to that. It is a major part of that article, and I've spent a lot of time working on it in the past (as well as other editors, of course). I truly hope that I misunderstood you on this. --Sundostund (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

here's the thing though the articles are starting to look really confusing to me. Is supreme leader an actual title or simply something they like to call people in power like Your highness? Because I have heard the term and always thought I knew what it was but if actual sources on it can't be found I don't think it should be in the info box. What I think is being argued at this point is the semantics of if it is an actual position. It has up to this point always been a word associted with the leaders of the DPRK but for all I know since I don't speak Korean, it could be the same as calling someone "his eminence" you can still use it to describe the person as long as it is clear it is title the public uses to refer to it's leader rather than an actual position. Unless there are sources that can document any of these people ever obtaining the office of "supreme leader" I don't see why it should be listed in the info box as a position when it should be listed as an additional alias the person had.Peachywink (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Its the same thing as List of leaders of the Soviet Union and Paramount leader in China - the most powerful political leader in the country, who held most important positions (head of the party, commander-in-chief of the army, in some cases head of state, head of government, etc). It can also be compared to Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution in Libya... As for sources that can document any of these people ever obtaining the office of "supreme leader", here it is - In April 2009, North Korean constitution was amended to officially refer to Kim Jong-il (and his later successors) as the "Supreme Leader of the DPRK".. --Sundostund (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

so...Plumber , since it seems that there is a constituional amendment that gives the title of Supreme Leader to these people and not to Shtykov is that enough for you to accept he does not belong on the list and can not claim that title? Peachywink (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

A compromise could certainly made to the List of leaders of North Korea page to include a separate section encompassing the "Soviet era" of 1945-1950 with Shtykov and Kim, followed by a "Korean War - present" era with the three Kims. But using the 2009 constitution to nullify Shtykov's influence over the DPRK is a different matter. By that logic, Kim Il-sung was never Supreme Leader (Suryŏng in Korean, by the way) either. It was always used as an honorific before 2009, and even afterwards it is still just an official title, not an actual office. Additionally, grandfathering in Kim Il-sung as the first Suryŏng of the DPRK since 1948 is silly since the Suryŏng system itself dates to 1967.

I continued this at Talk:Kim Il-sung. Plumber (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

May 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at United States presidential election, 2016. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been or will be undone. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LL212W (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In no way was that vandalism. This is ridiculous. Plumber (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't vandalize

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at United States presidential election, 2016, you may be blocked from editing. Tc-99 (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, it´s that John Oliver filter innit. Whoops. Plumber (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

December 2016

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Please do not use the minor edit check box. Rather, use an edit summary to explain why you are making particular changes. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Problem with your Alt-right editing

The first paragraph of your reedited lead is still a bit of a mess, reference-wise. The main problem is that you're combining isms, creating excessively long reference strings. You should go back and reorganize the isms into an individualized list (i.e., a-ism, b-ism, c-ism, … , and z-ism), with references attached to each individual ism. That will allow for shorter reference strings and simply the lives of readers interested in verifying particular isms. Also, the end of the paragraph could benefit from attaching the final references to their individual claims, rather than the current terminal and excessive lumping of references. These changes in reference placement would render the paragraph more pleasing and useful. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Deaths of Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Deaths of Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have pages – Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Carrie Fisher – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Carrie Fisher

Hello Plumber. There is a thread on the Carrie Fisher talkpage regarding the addition of info on her mother's death to the lead; as per WP:BRD, please contribute there rather than re-adding your changes. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that was already controversial. Plumber (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect capital

Hello. Please not that the capitalization of the "L" in this edit is incorrect under WP:MOS and inconsistent with the general usage here. I fixed it. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Jesus

Just to let you know: Muslims regard Jesus as an important prophet, but they do not recognise him as the Messiah. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 13:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That was on the page before; I simply rearranged information. Plumber (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see that now. Please ignore my comment. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 14:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Jesus. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have been here for ten years but thank you. Plumber (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Your having been here for almost 10 years doesn't exempt you from policies concerning edit warring. It just means you have been here long enough to know better. General Ization ^Talk 16:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I never claimed otherwise. Plumber (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Deportation of the Crimean Tatars. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MPS1992 (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

One compromise edit does not an edit war make. Plumber (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but two do. MPS1992 (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Rearranging images and templates? AFAIK edit wars are typically three back-and-forth reverts in under 24 hours, not one. Plumber (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that you were unable to understand the template I left for you. You have clearly missed the emboldened parts. I shall leave it here for you again. MPS1992 (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MPS1992 (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Baseless accusation of personal attacks

Today on the Jesus talk page you wrote ""with Smeat75...using ad-hominem attacks both now and in the archived discussion, instead of commenting on the merit of the changes."[1]. I have no idea what you are talking about. Accusing another editor of personal attacks without evidence is itself a personal attack, see NPA "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." Either supply some diffs to justify your outrageous and insulting statement (I am sure there aren't any) or strike it through.Smeat75 (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize; the editor who made that attack was 209.182.115.214, not Smeat75. Plumber (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

DRN notice: Jesus

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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrevor99 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I wondered why I never heard back from you regarding the "Sockpuppet" thing. I accidentally stuck my reply on the Talk:Plumber page. Whoops. Anywhere, here's what you wrote, followed by my response. Bit of a moot point now that the DRN is closed.

A sockpuppet investigation into six users who disagreed with your viewpoints was found to have no factual basis. I would highly recommend you retract such a damaging and misleading opening claim in a RfC, lest you be hit with a warning. Plumber (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You need to take that up with Jeppiz. They were the one who made that claim in the RfC, not I. I simply posted the RfC so we could work together on the lead. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

My bad, wrong page. Plumber (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Plumber. 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)

"Western world" and actual "Huntington" map

At Western world the map that matches Huntington's book (page 26-27) is Clash of Civilizations mapn2.png:

Clash of Civilizations mapn2.png

not the various versions (particularly "23 December" and "12 November" of Western world Samuel P Huntington.svg:

"23 December" map = Western world Samuel P Huntington.svg

which distort Huntington's example at French Guiana (see "African" missing) and the Philippines ("Islamic" missing from Mindanao and "Sinic" missing from Luzon, generally). There has been various attempts from various editor to point-out the error of altering accurate representation of Huntington map (1.3)

I will change this map back to an accurate representation from Huntington's book: "Clash of Civilizations mapn2.png". X1\ (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC) 👌 Plumber (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"Kachin peoples"

May I ask why you changed the name of the Kachin people page to "Kachin peoples"?. Kachin People or just Kachin are normally the preferred terms, I have never heard the phrase "Kachin Peoples" before. Where did you come across this term?

You've also redirected Kachin people to Jingpo, despite an ongoing discussion about the issue. Please could you revert this change until a consensus has been reached. I don't believe this is a suitable redirect as Jinghpaw and Kachin are not the same concept. Though if you are willing to provide some evidence that they are then I'm happy to look it over. However, given that the request for move was relisted only a few days ago, the discussion must be allowed to be had before action is taken. So i would be very grateful if you could revert the changes you made.

Egaoblai (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Herbert Hoover, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Californian and Mexican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lebanese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)