User talk:June w

Notability of Gwendolen Terasaki

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Gwendolen Terasaki, by NatureBoyMD, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Gwendolen Terasaki seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Gwendolen Terasaki, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Gwendolen Terasaki itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gwendolen Terasaki has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -Pilotguy hold short 20:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not write an article about her husband, who is certainly notable? DGG 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardigan

Hi and, as nobody else has mentioned it yet, welcome to Wikipedia.

I'm in the process of changing the citation attached to your recent edit to James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan from an inline web citation to a footnote, partly for consistency of style between editors and partly to cite from an original source, rather than a report from an original source. A guideline here. Please, if you have any observations about this, follow on from the explanation on the article talk page. Any general points: please leave a note for me here. All the best. --Old Moonraker 11:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding reply, and for your interest in the "homicidal earl". You can give a name-and-date "timestamp" to your talk page posts by typing four tildes: ~~~~, or by clicking on the squiggly "signature" tab above the text box. It saves typing! --Old Moonraker 11:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Churches of Christ

This is in regard to your December 30 edit of Churches of Christ, wherein you used the "minor edit" option with the. Usually, an edit should only be labeled "minor" if it reverts obvious vandalism (like page blanking or the insertion of profanity) or if it makes a non-content change to the page (like fixing a dropped period or correcting messed-up code). It should not be used if the edit changes or adds to the meaning of the article, as was the case with your edit. I just thought I would notify you of this. As always, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! standonbible^Talk! 15:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey June, you didn't do anything wrong - not with regard to the hand clapping statement. I just placed the message on your Talk page regarding the nature of the "minor" edit - you shouldn't mark an edit as "minor" if it actually affects the meaning of the article. The "minor edit" option is for superficial changes that are mostly cleanup issues. See the minor edit page for more info there. From that page:

The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them. If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please, do not mark it as minor.

As to the inclusion of the hand-clapping reference ... it was removed about nine hours later by Ichabod here. In his edit summary, he explained "hand clapping is permitted in some progressive CoC's...." While I am well aware that most Churches of Christ do not allow any hand-clapping (ostensibly because Paul never told Timothy to "clap thy palms one to another"), it is true that a few congregations do allow or even encourage this. So instead of making the blanket statement "not even hand-clapping is permitted" (especially since it doesn't fit well in that paragraph and seems a bit surprising to a casual reader), it might be better to add a paragraph underneath saying something like, "It is for the same reasons that most Churches of Christ discourage hand-clapping, raised hands, or similar actions of worship." Mess around with it and see what you come up with! Thanks for editing. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough with my earlier post. standonbible^Talk! 20:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Death of Christine Collins

I am curious where you found information to support the statement: "She continued to search for him, unsuccessfully, until the end of her life; she died in 1935 without ever knowing her son's fate.". Wineville Chicken Murders#cite_note-15 has no mention of this information concerning Christine Collin's death.

There is a Los Angeles Times article that indicates that Christine Collins was still alive in 1941. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/410782961.html?dids=410782961:410782961&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Jan+29%2C+1941&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Suit+to+Renew+Old+Judgment+Recalls+Northcott+Murders

Suit to Renew Old Judgment Recalls Northcott Murders
Mother of Supposed Victim Who Was Imprisoned as Insane in Imposter Mixup Tries to Collect Damages

Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File) - Los Angeles, Calif.
Date: Jan 29, 1941
Start Page: 1A
Pages: 1
Text Word Count: 361

Abstract (Document Summary)

Recalled to mind yesterday was one of the strangest cases in the annals of police history When Mrs. Christine Collins filed suit for renewal of her $15,562 judgment against Capt. J. J. Jones, retired police officer, in Superior Court.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dan! The "Changeling" movie folks (probably Straczynski) came up with the date of her death. Quote: "Although Collins died in 1935 not knowing what happened to her son,..."
http://www.universalpicturesawards.com/pdfs/notes/Changeling_Notes.pdf

I didn't purchase the Los Angeles Times article from 1941, so I'd be very interested in hearing what it said.

June w (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

James Russell Lowell

Hello! Just wanted to let you know: I reverted a content deletion you made to James Russell Lowell. Yes, the info was duplicated - and it's supposed to be. Are you aware of the policy on leads? The intro to an article summarizes the info to come and, because of that, it will certainly have repetition. Especially since JRL is a featured article, we have to make sure the lead is ample and useful. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Collins

June,

Unfortunately, the Changeling production notes are in error concerning Christine Collins dying in 1935. In J. Michael Straczynski's defense, a lot of the information concerning Christine Collins has only recently become available.

Both the LA Times Daily Mirror and Frank Girardot have ongoing articles related to the events told in Changeling.

The LA Times Daily Mirror has an image of the LA Times article related to Christine Collins last known public appearance.

Suit to Renew Old Judgment
Recalls Northcott Murders
January 29, 1941

Mother of Supposed Victim Who was Imprisoned as
Insane in Imposter Mixup Tries to Collect Damages

Article image:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/images/2008/11/05/1941_0129_collins.jpg

This is a link to the LA Times abstract
Suit to Renew Old Judgment Recalls Northcott Murders: Mother of Supposed Victim Who Was Imprisoned as Insane in Imposter Mixup Tries to Collect Damages

--Dan Dassow (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Single Man

I would like to inform you of Wikipedia's policy on 'Spoilers' in relation to you latest edit in the A Single Man (film) entry. This can be found at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoilers

Also, please read Wikipedia's guide to 'Plot Summaries' here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary

I would suggest you read this before editing further entries of films which have not been released in Europe or the rest of the world. I would also like to inform you that you have released key information regarding the protagonist's fate, which has not been mentioned in any news articles published in relation to A Single Man (film) (Please see: http://news.google.co.uk/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=a+single+man ). This has ruined the ending for me and my acquaintances who frequent the page. Thank you.

I would like to recommend that you follow what you have written on your User page in which you "try to stay out of trouble and keep a low profile around [Wikipedia]".

Thanks, --Make It New Ezra 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Pay no attention to the above complainer. They've totally twisted what the spoilers guidelines are, and if they didn't want to know details they should not have been reading the page. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 98.248.33.198! I read the Wikipedia article on spoilers before I added the ending, which is why I was puzzled about "Ezra" being so upset. The Wikipedia article says, in part:

Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.

Eh, I try to stay out of trouble... --June w (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Ferguson

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Lynn Ferguson. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a reasonable response - the main concern was that the reference to usage of her married name was added without explanation or references (per WP:BLP, WP:V). If you're adding this back, another reliable source such as a newspaper article would help support this; IMDB can sometimes be challenged as an unreliable source. The Late Late Show... episode should be OK though, as long as the broadcast date is specified, although caution should be taken to ensure YouTube links are from official/authorised sources. Dl2000 (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few articles referencing her husband, so I have added that to the biography. However, apart from the April 2008 appearance on her brother's show, I'm having some trouble finding references to support that she is significantly identified as Lynn Tweddle. The Scotsman article from July 2008 still referred to her as Ferguson as does IMdB's writers list for the Late, Late Show. Guess we'd need a few more sources and cases to determine if she is professionally using her married name to any significant degree. Dl2000 (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Calico Jack 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:

|death_date={{Death-date and age|November 18, 1720}}<ref name="rackhamtryals" />)
1721)</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:37, 29 January 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) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, June w. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, June w. 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, June w. 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]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]