User talk:Kitchawan

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Problems with autoblocks fixed now :). Request handled by: Martinp23 22:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diane von Fuerstenberg

Egon's marriage with Diane was not approved and her children are not dynastic members of the princely house. As such, they are not styled Serene Highness and Alexandre is not in line to become head of the princely house. The House of Fürstenberg has no written house laws. All matters concerning dynastic unions are at the whim of the head of the house. Charles 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until you provide a source for that assertion, with all due respect, it is merely POV.67.142.130.31 14:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nam Phuong

I fixed the redirect problem with the Nam Phuong article. The problem wasn't with the Nguyen Thi Huu Lan page itself (with proper diacritics). It's just you redirected "nam phuong" to "nguyen thi huu lan" (with no diacritics), whereas the proper page has diacritics. It's fine now I think :)Annamite tonkinese 05:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for doing that.67.142.130.31 14:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted your requested move of Nam Phuong

Hello Kitchawan. I'm a novice at WP:RM but I noticed your Nam Phuong request had some extra brackets so I tried to fix it. Please take a look at Wp:rm#July_12.2C_2007 to see if your move request now looks right. Thanks, EdJohnston 03:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butler article

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Robert Olen Butler. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. RedSpruce 16:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Robert Olen Butler, you will be blocked from editing. Ds.mt 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added nothing promotional to the Butler article in any fashion, but am merely adding facts with proper citations. If you feel that any of these is in some way "promotional", please explain fully and succinctly.Kitchawan 17:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Nixon

Hi there. This is what I've found about Pat Nixon's name:

http://law.enotes.com/presidential-biography/nixon-administrations/family-life - Says she legally changed her name: "Born Thelma Catherine Ryan in 1912, Pat (who legally changed her name in 1930)..."
http://www.firstladies.org/curriculum/educational-biography.aspx?biography=38 - From the National First Ladies Library; says she changed her name: "Eventually, she changed her name to Patricia upon the death of her father in 1930."
page 34 of the book Pat Nixon: The Untold Story by Julie Nixon Eisenhower says she changed her name
http://simple.wiki.x.io/wiki/Pat_Nixon - a branch of WIkipedia says she "legally changed her name to Patricia"
http://books.google.com/books?id=Eo0xcLkycIwC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=pat+nixon+legally+changed+her+name&source=web&ots=DulpeC9xnr&sig=DYN4vh4Yb95-EhpD8QBrw64hzdg#PPA8,M1 - says she legally changed her name to "Patricia"
she enrolled in schools (including USC) under the name "Patricia"
it's on her tombstone.

After reading these, I have come to the conclusion that she legally changed her name to Patricia. There are many more cites that state her name was changed. Best, Happyme22 20:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I removed the information, because it seemed to be trivia, but will allow to add it back in for you seem to really want it. Anyway, you might want to take a look at WP:LEAD, and cite that she was a heavy smoker was well. Plus, "the besottled Nixon" is POV and df. needs a cite. Although your help with reomving trivia and naming conventions was good, you need cites for some stuff, and stay away from POV. Thanks. Happyme22 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that your not helping the article; you have. But the thing about her being a heavy smoker needs a cite. Happyme22 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been copyediting what you wrote, as some of it might not be completely encyclopedic. A quote about Pat Nixon by her friend which states: "a good example to the women of this country, if they're not part of those Women's Liberation groups," takes a shot at the women's liberation groups and women in general. Now I am a man; it's not me taking a shot, it's Pat Nixon's friend but that part of the quote is not encyclopedic nor does that part pertain to Pat Nixon (and the article is about Pat Nixon). In case you didn't know, not everything you write on the page will stay in the exact form you authored it in, as some of it is POV a lot of it needs a copyedit. Plus, if she didn't dress well, or if it didn't seem that she dressed well, why is there an entire section devoted to her fashions which says, "Many fashion observers concluded that Pat Nixon had little impact on the wardrobes of American women and did not greatly advance the cause of American fashion." - !?!? I'm not trying to get into a fight with you, although I expect a heated response, but it's time we settle our differences: you, that not everything you write stay and that I have just as much right to alter your version as you do mine, and me, that I should think twice before changing and about your original intent. I would like to thank you, however, for giving me the definition of a personal shopper; now it makes sense. Thanks. Happyme22 (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to know more about this than I, just go ahead and put it back. Happyme22 (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion: Oh boy do I remember the Nancy Reagan fashion issues; they were all over. And I do remember it back in the early '70s with Mrs. Nixon. I do not remember all the negative coverage, however. Perhaps we could try to find some good reviews of her fashion and incorporate those as well to balance out the text, but still have the general feel that she didn't dress exceptionally well. Happyme22 (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good plan, and if you need assistance just let me know. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madame Nhu and "collaborated"

Kintetsubuffalo, I have deleted the word "collaborated" again from the Madame Nhu article, re her paternal grandfather. Without detail or further explanation, "collaborated" is a POV term per Wiki definitions. If you believe strongly that her paternal grandfather was a "collaborator" then you will have to explain this more fully and provide a citation. To call him a collaborator adds a criminal implication, given the popular usage of the term since World War II.Kitchawan 17:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the wrong guy, wasn't me-you're not reading the edit histories closely enough. Chris 18:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Astor photograph

Haven't a frickin clue why do you think I raised the issue on the article talk page? See Talk:Brooke Astor.Genisock2 16:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Giada De Laurentiis. Thank you. MBK004 18:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Mills

Hi - do you have a reliable source for her parents' names? If so, please confirm and add the source. Tvoz |talk 18:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help Desk

Just to let you know, I've replied to your question on the help desk. I think WP:BLACKLIST should provide information about the problem you're having, but I've included more details at the HD. Happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutto cause of death

Such details as exact cause of death are not very important. What is important is that the assassin somehow got her and the details belong on the separate assassination page.--Cokeabout (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is important in terms of today's news, but a few weeks from now, it will no longer have so much ink spilled about it (because it does not really matter in the long run and because the news is supposed to find something to blab on about for hours today).--Cokeabout (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even a free-flowing encyclopedia should ask itself: will anyone care about this factual detail a month from now? Again, please take it to the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and examine it in detail there. If consensus ever emerges there about what really happened, then maybe we should state it that way in her biography.--Cokeabout (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

An article that you have been involved in editing, Assassination of Benazir Bhutto, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Aiken Article

Apart from whether this should be mentioned in the article (and please take a look at Talk:Clay Aiken for a discussion I'm starting about that), why did you put in a reference to britishcampaignfurniture.com???? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put in any such reference.Kitchawan (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin and WP:BLP

Hi, a single WP:RS reporting that a rumor is completely unfounded doesn't make it any less a WP:BLP violation. If reliable sources report on any actual "controversy" (as opposed to "Internet rumors") it may be something to discuss at that point, in the meantime, this is an encyclopedia, not a chat room or a tabloid. user:j (aka justen) 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justen, I did not add it to the article; I added it to the discussion page. You should legitimately place your concerns there rather than deleting, which, as I stated, appears partisan.Kitchawan (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies as equally to talk pages as it does articles. In any event, as a lifelong Democrat (who is certainly as intrigued by Palin as he is by Obama), I find your assertion that I'm somehow being partisan here to be a sad violation of WP:AGF and just plain wrong. When the Sarah Palin article was being fluffed, I pointed that out and reverted as necessary. As to the WP:BLP non-article space violation, it is still a violation, and it will be removed. user:j (aka justen) 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it equally sad that a mere observation, politely put and I believe quite politely discussed, is so often considered in violation of WP:AGF. There seems so often to be a fine line between WP:AGF and what might appear to the uninitiated as defensiveness. You might assume that my mere question to be WP:AGF rather than anything else, which would have been the politest reaction. But that doesn't not seem to be the case ie a summary deletion of an innocent discussion topic. And I am a Republican by the way. Lifelong.Kitchawan (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary deletion without discussion appears to be not in the spirit of Wiki. Which is equally disappointing.Kitchawan (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You alleged that my actions were "partisan or appear[ed] so." That's not polite, and it's not an "observation." It's an accusation that is quite clearly a violation of WP:AGF. You'll notice I didn't call your political affiliation into question, and you had no need to disclose it. Please, address your concerns without resorting to bad faith. user:j (aka justen) 21:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Justen, You might pay closer attention to this section re Talk/Discussion pages. "Repeated questionable claims with BLP issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached." I cannot find where you made such a reference in your deletion. If you have, please feel free to inform me as to its location. Since you felt free to disclose your political affiliation, without needing to, I saw no reason not to reveal mine. As to my politeness, I believed sincerely that my comment was politely delivered and intended in that light rather than otherwise; it was an observation, ie what one observes based on the only evidence available. This is neither pro nor con, merely an observation. If one cannot have a polite (virtual) discussion about what is or is not in error or assuming BF by our understanding of certain words or terminology, then what is the point?Kitchawan (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Todd Palin's grandmother

The writer's "credentials" seem to be that of a neighbour who's known the family for many years. That makes her more reliable than most newspaper reporters who first heard of Todd Palin last week, and get all their information from asking neighbours and staff! Given the uncontroversial nature of the claim, the source seems plenty reliable. -- Zsero (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that an opinion piece written by a neighbor can be considered sufficient evidence as per Wiki guidelines.Kitchawan (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Lamkin

Kitchawan, I was wondering if you had a picture of Speed Lamkin anywhere that you could share with me, even if it's not acceptable for his article? I've been looking everywhere. That article linked to in his page you wrote is now gone. Algabal (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norman E. Brinker

When adding citations to article, please use the {{cite}} button in the tool bar above the edit box. The various citations you added were already in the article, you only needed to use the named reference to duplicate references already in the article.

Example:

For the New York Times reference you would use <ref name="nyt-obit"/>.

Furthermore you only need one reference to confirm a point, adding four when one will do is overkill. Lastly, citations go after punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence. --Jeremy (blah blah) 03:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian Russell

Thanks for your additions to the Russell article. Would you kindly also add WP:citations to the sources that you used to verify the dates and other new information that you added? Thanks! - Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rosamond Bernier

A tag has been placed on Rosamond Bernier requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Palace

You've put a lot of good work into National Palace (Haiti), expanding it significantly from the few paragraphs I started it out with. As another editor pointed out to me here, as a new article it might be a good candidate for the main page in the form of a did you know? article. I might also have suggested trying to get it in the in the news section of the main page, but it's actually there already as part of the bullet about the earthquake. I'm not sure if a DYK nomination would be accepted since the article has already been on the main page, but it might be worth a shot. I've already nominated Cincinnatus Leconte for DYK (thanks for the additional info on that by the way), so if you want you can go ahead and do the honors in terms of nominating the article on the Palace. It's up to you but I figured I'd make the suggestion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bigtimepeace. I'll try to figure out how to nominate it. Right now I'm waiting for a book to arrive. I want to take the history of the site back to the FIRST structure on the property, which presumably was constructed for the Governor General of Saint-Domergue.Kitchawan (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, but just be aware that articles nominated for DYK must be less than 5 days old, so you only have a couple of days to nominate it if you choose to do so. It's up to you, but let me know if you need any help. Also I've replied to your note on my talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. How do I go about nominating it?Kitchawan (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The overall process is described here, but basically you just need to go to Template talk:Did you know and follow the instructions. It's pretty easy, and the article definitely qualifies, but you just need to think of a good "hook." Everyone knows the palace has been damaged in the earthquake, so I would think an interesting historical tidbit would be best as far as a hook. Like I said it's possible that it won't be accepted since it's "newsy" and has already been linked to the main page, but it doesn't take long to nominate the article so it might be worth a shot. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leconte source

Quick question—from which source did you get the quote from the foreign minister about the Syrians? I'm going to add a little bit to that section (from Plummer's article) and maybe move a couple of things around and want to make sure that quote remains accurately sourced. I know its either the Caribbean Societies book or the A Haiti Anthology so just let me know, and maybe let me know what the other one is citing as well (I'm guessing maybe the population statistic). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It came from A Haiti Anthology. I was surprised, re the virulent anti-Syrian prejudice of the time, but felt it should be part of the larger discussion (Leconte, et cetera) since it is on record as legislation.Kitchawan (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Lebanon was subsumed into the French Mandate of Syria at the time. So the immigrants against whom Leconte and his followers raged would have been Syrians legally. I only mention this because friends of mine are Lebanese but their grandparents' and greatgrandparents' passports and ocean-liner manifest listings call them Syrian by race and nationality because the country they were born in and citizens of was the French Mandate of Syria.Kitchawan (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied re the French mandate bit on my talk page so you can pick that discussion up there. One thing I'm going to do with the Syrian section later is to bring in a bit of context, already evident from the quote I added. There seems to have been an impression (and apparently one with a grounding in reality) that the Syrian business community was connected to American economic imperialism, and indeed that's what Plummer's article is in large part about. That does not excuse prejudice (a lot of which was clearly tied to simply not liking these outsiders from the "East" and their strange ways) or discriminatory policies, but a bit of background is needed so I'm going to add a couple of sentences. I'd actually thought about adding that info when I started the article but did not think it would get big enough to warrant that kind of detail, so thanks for including it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to New York Times reports of the day, the Syrian community took their grievances to the American consulate and threw themselves, as a community, under its protection.Kitchawan (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Kitchawan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Anne Hearst - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Kitchawan (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Billingsley

Hello. You recently added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [1]).

I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. A lot of similar references have been removed as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 00:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looking for a url adress for Fannie Ward

Good morning! i'm lookinf for a url adress for my translation of Fannie Ward into French. I apologize for my bad English, by the way. I found here that you added an information about ancestry.com and i tried to find it on my own but i didn't achieve! Could you help me, please ? It would be very nice. To make sure that I recieve your answer in the best times, you'll be redirected on my French user talk. With hope to read you very soon. Louxema - 兔Talk with me - Angers 09:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! Your French isn't so bad ! I found your delated message on my talk page. In fact, i'm looking for a web address, in pecui=liar the one that show information about Fannie Ward on the web site ancestry.com. Thanks for trying, but if you don't it's not problem. ++ Louxema - 兔Talk with me on my French talk page - Angers 13:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Tyringhambackwell.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tyringhambackwell.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Astley

Hi

While I appreciate the amount of work you have done on the article I would nonetheless appreciate you restoring the quote from Gainsborough and fix the cite error on the page. There is also the matter of the missing refd sentence on the values of paintings sold.

It is said that after painting her picture she told him "that if he is pleased with the portrait he might have the original"[2] and soon after their meeting they were married. Astley became the owner of the Dukinfield estates when Lady Dukinfield-Daniel passed away. Astley purchased a house in Pall Mall and Max Rothschild is quoted as saying of him in his book Gainsborough

"He (Gainsborough) very soon removed to Schomberg House in Pall Mall. This house, which was built by the Duke of Schomberg towards the end of the seventeenth century, was at this time the property of the eccentric and mediocre painter John Astley, a fellow pupil with Reynolds under Hudson. He was a portrait artist of some reknown, and mainly painted portraits."[1]

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and the re-addition. The point of the quote is that it establishes four things: he was considered a mediocre painter, mainly known for portraits, was eccentric and studied with Reynolds under Hudson. This sets the scene with regard to a contemporary opinion of him. I would appreciate it being replaced. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Bassey

Hi, thanks for your additions to the Shirley Bassey article. I formatted some of your cites, if you just put the URL between brackets [URL] it will not number properly. And just a quick caution about "semi" tabloids like the Daily Mail (a full-fledged tabloid being more like The National Enquirer). They often do good reporting, but when it comes to celebrities they tend to err on the side of sensationalism. Just a note of caution about using them. "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and notable, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." WP:BLPSOURCES----Nyctc7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Magda Gabor, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Riverside, Franklin and Riverhead (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) 10:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE Magda and Jolie Gabor

Hey. Just wanted to acknowledge your great work and thank you for your efforts. I may have a quibble here and there, and I really don't trust Cindy Adams, an anglophobic dilettante, too much, but you really did yeoman work. Happy New Year! Quis separabit? 14:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either but I do trust Jolie to get her own name correct.Kitchawan (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a) "I do trust Jolie to get her own name correct" -- normally I would too but not necessarily with a superannuated socialite who apparently was mostly quite reticent about her own life pre-arrival in the United States. Quis separabit? 21:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

b) "Author Dominick Dunne stated, in 1995, that Jolie Gabor was believed to be 109" -- quite amusing and no doubt facetious. Quis separabit? 21:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to have been entirely compos mentis until the very end, if interviews are anything to go by. FYI even earlier interviews with her in the 1940s and 1950s she seems well aware and states that her name was Jancsi at birth. I think you are perhaps being unnecessarily severe in this respect.Kitchawan (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, she would be 75 at the time of the book's publication; at the most, conceivably, 85; neither is necessarily superannuated enough to have forgotten her name. Subsequent interviews, through 1975 and 1976, regarding the book, indicate a woman of sharp mind and lively conversation.Kitchawan (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As regards Mr Dunne's comment re JG thought to be 109 years of age, note that in 1975, in an interview with Jolie Gabor, a reporter stated the entrepreneur was reputed to be in her 80s ... 20 years later, Dunne made his comment ... so a guess of 109 not that far-fetched.Kitchawan (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, any ideas what happened to Jolie's sisters, Janette, Dora and Rozsika? Did they survive the Holocaust? Quis separabit? 20:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to determine this information.Kitchawan (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Still wondering about Jolie's sisters, Janette, Dora and Rozsika surviving the war. Any info? Thanks. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Francis Lederer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mexican (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) 10:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. When you recently edited Curzio Malaparte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luigi Barzini (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) 10:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:George Maharis#Arrest

You have replies. Also, the info you added does not meet WP:BLP. If unsure, go to the noticeboard. --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maurice FitzGerald, 6th Duke of Leinster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craig House (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, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicolas de Gunzburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Screen name (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) 11:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mae Murray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hoboken (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) 12:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:George Maharis#Re-add "arrest"?

I wonder if you can join in to improve consensus. After all, you were interested in the arrest of this person. --George Ho (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

...on my talk page. Span (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mavis Gallant

The article is about Mavis Gallant herself, not about her parents. Even if you can find news coverage that directly names her parents as participants, the information is not relevant to a biography of Gallant unless she herself is also named in the story. Also, references must be nested inside <ref></ref> tags, and cannot be left as bare URLs sitting directly in the body text itself — and finally, you may never cite anything on Wikipedia to a primary source that you retrieved directly from ancestry.com; birth and marriage records must be cited to newspaper and magazine articles, not to original birth and marriage documents themselves. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, and I hope the corrected graph meets with your approval. However, I do believe that citing ancestry.com in this instance, would be correct, since (a) it is available to anyone, and (b) since it shows the correct spelling of Gallant's parents' names, which would seem to be crucial, meaning to provide correct information rather than incorrect.Kitchawan (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ancestry.com isn't necessarily "available to anyone"; many of the records can only be seen if you actually register for a paid account, so the average user can't actually see them without paying for the privilege. And at any rate, our policy specifically precludes digging out people's birth or death or marriage records as biographical sourcing no matter where you're digging them out from — so even if ancestry.com were genuinely "available to anyone", it still wouldn't be an admissible source. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, But New York Times articles from the past, as well the Washington Post, and other publications, such the London Times, et cetera, are not available for public viewing without an online subscription; should those and other publications be disallowed also?Kitchawan (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a requirement that our sources be accessible on the web; if there isn't a freely-accessible web version of an NYT or Washington Post article, then you can still cite it as an unweblinked print citation, so the fact that an article might be accessible on the web only in a paid archive rather than a freely accessible one is irrelevant. But that's a secondary issue. The main issue is still that primary birth, marriage or death records are always inadmissible sources regardless of where you're digging them out from. Even if you had Mavis Gallant's paper birth certificate in your hands, it would still be an inadmissible source — not because it's on paper, but because it's a private primary source. We cite the information to media coverage about her, not to original church documents.

Also, please be aware that when you're adding footnotes to an article, you do not add the same link to the article repeatedly as multiple distinct footnote tags; you add the link once and then use the "ref name" function so that subsequent uses of that same link connect back to one common footnote instead of seven or eight separate ones. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I have read over the relevant Wikipedia article about sources and see nothing that would render a wedding license, that can be accessed on the internet via a membership, null and void. It seems to be that it is a primary source, per Wiki's own definition of such. There is no notation stating that a pay-to-access source is inappropriate. [Citation states: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.] I would think that a marriage license or banns indeed is covered by "original materials that are close to an event ... often accounts written by people who are directly involved", such a subjects' parents' own signatures, of their own names, et cetera. If this is somehow incorrect, would you please direct me to the relevant policy? Many thanksKitchawan (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rule on primary sources isn't that they're always acceptable. Some types of primary sources are admissible under certain circumstances, but many other types are not admissible at all — and digging out people's birth, marriage or death certificates is of the latter type, especially if the same information has already been published in a reliable secondary source anyway. (And for the record, I didn't say that the fact that ancestry.com is a paid source had anything to do with why it's an inadmissible one; I said that it's a paid source in response to your assertion that the fact that "anybody can view it" had anything to do with its citability or lack thereof. It's not citable because of the type of document it is, not because of where it's stored. Just as another example, you're also not allowed to dig into court records as primary source proof that an article subject has legally changed their name; if you can't find a secondary source that already documents the name change, then you're not allowed to even try to "prove" it yourself.) If you need further information about this, please also see WP:USEPRIMARY#You are allowed to use primary sources... carefully (subsection "An article about a person").

Our original research policy also means that you cannot dig into sources about her mother that publish anything which sources about Gallant haven't specifically published in relation to Gallant herself — because until a secondary source about Gallant has published the same information, you're engaging in original research by trying to construct a new biography of a person who isn't otherwise a figure of public interest. (And at any rate, we don't use ref tags to encompass extended biographical sketches of other people named in an article, either; we use them to embed the citation info, and only the citation info, of our sources themselves.) If you want to try to construct a detailed biographical sketch of Benedictine Weissman, then the place for that would be a separate biographical article about her — not that she'd actually qualify for one, given that notability is not inherited, but Gallant's article is not the place to add any information about Weissman beyond that which already exists in sources about Gallant. If you're researching Weissman as a separate topic to add new information about her beyond that which can be derived from sources that are primarily about Gallant, then you're engaging in original research. Bearcat (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dorothea Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jet (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) 09:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Masten Gregory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles James (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) 08:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Francis Hughes-Hallett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ellingham Hall. 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) 11:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kitchawan. 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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ilka Chase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair. 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) 09:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kitchawan. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kitchawan. 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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oei Hui-lan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bassano (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) 09:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oei Hui-lan

Thank you so much for including details on Oei's first husband. I had difficulties finding any reliable information on him. 2 points:

I rephrased the intro to refocus it on Oei Hui-lan. She was the 1st wife of Caulfield-Stoker, and the 3rd wife of Wellington Koo. But they were HER 1st and 2nd husbands. You've included information in the main body of the article that she was the 1st wife of her 1st husband, and the 3rd wife of her 2nd husband, so I think the intro should just focus on Oei herself.
In the intro, you said she was a "Java-born Chinese". I've reverted it to "Chinese-Indonesian". She was born in colonial Indonesia to a 2nd-generation Chinese-Indonesian father and a maternal family with over a century of history in Indonesia. Both of her parents, as Peranakans, had indigenous Indonesian blood. And Dutch nationality law at the time recognised her as a citizen of the Dutch East Indies (colonial Indonesia). She also, of course, had Chinese nationality as Chinese nationality at the time followed jus sanguinis. I think "Chinese-Indonesian" reflects this mixed, creole heritage better than a "Java-born Chinese", which implies that her family was some kind of expatriate Chinese family in Indonesia.

Clara dari Semarang (talk)

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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]