Talk:William M. Tweed

message: The game try to drag the modern Council on Foreign Relations into an article about Boss Tweed is a textbook case of "weasel words" and I've cut it. Here's what the Wiki guidelines are, fyi: 
Similarly, avoid weasel words that offer an opinion without really backing it up, and which are really used to express a non-neutral point of view.
Examples of weasel words
Some people say...	...is widely regarded as...	..is widely considered...
...has been called...	It is believed that...	It has been suggested/noticed/decided...
Some people believe...	It has been said that...	Some would say...
Legend has it that...	Critics say that...	Many/some have claimed...
Profhum 17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words cut at end 

message: I have read before that Thomas's Nast cartoons greatly contributed to his capture in Cuba. Cuban authorities recognized him by the political cartoons and this lead to his capture. An interesting point to include if anyone can cite it. I'll take a look on google and see if I can find a reference /// I found a citation; here http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20050704/202/1467 among other places on google if you type up "boss tweed capture in cuba" in the search. I'll be adding this in now. --Glen 07:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apprehension 

message: I apologise for all the backslashes that have appeared since my edit. I\'m not sure why they are appearing but I suspect if I try to revert, they will appear again. Can someone edit them out, please? Thanks. 69.41.185.10 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backslashes 

message: I just trimmed a line that was out of context in its placement.  Instead of just moving it, I have opted for deleting it as it was about living relatives as of 1974.  It was out of date and why would we want to saddle relatives with infamy by association?
User:El benito 11:15AM 4/20
This article should not be titled Willam Marcy Tweed. It should be titled William Magear Tweed. Magear is both the middle name of his first born son, William Magear Junior, November 14, 1845, but also the maiden name of his mother, Eliza Magear. The name Marcy was a nickname that was derived from the politician William L. Marcy. He was the one to coin the phrase, "To the belongs the spois." Nicknames were common to this era such as, John "Toots" Hoffman, and Peter "Bismark" Sweeney. Ipso facto, the title should be William Magear Tweed because that is truly his real name. See Hershkowitz and Ackerman. 68.162.150.122 05:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relatives? 

message: I have removed this sentence: "Tweed does have a small camp of defenders, mainly liberals who point out he looked after New York City's poor and lower classes by distributing tax money as welfare for the poor."
I have done so for two reasons.  Citation is lacking, and the word liberal seems to be a POV attack on modern day Democratic party members.  This word requires context.  Liberal in its most basic essence means a leftist or an advocate of democracy and free speech as our founding fathers were.72.150.107.101 22:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views of Tweed Today 

message: There were, as a previous poster indicated, two sections referring to his legacy: One called "Tweed's legacy" and one called simply "Legacy." I have deleted the "Tweed's legacy" section and moved its content to the "Legacy" section.
I have also added a couple of requests for citation.
In addition, I have removed the following paragraph:
:"Tweed's organization was neither the first nor the last instance of a political machine, but it may have been one of the most stupid.  Tweed's over-reaching doomed him; with better judgment he might have remained in power much longer. Many big cities were governed by machines well into the 20th Century and machine-like political organizations persist to this day -- for example, in Chicago."
At best, this is uncited original research. The author draws his own conclusions from the information in the article and presents them as fact. The author also makes an accusation about the city of Chicago. Whether or not this accusation is true,
#No source is given.
#The information is not relevant to Tweed's career in New York.
CKA3KA (Skazka) (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweed's legacy section 

message: Just wondering, in the articles beginning it says he stole hundreds of dollars from taxpayers...shouldn't it be millions? I don't want to make any changes if hundreds is the proper way to say it, though. Ageofe (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hundreds of Dollars? 

message: I replaced "He then plundered the city" with "He then allowed contractors and others to submit invoices for inflated amounts or for work that was not done."  I also replaced "cronies" with "others."
Ephraimh (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloppy words 

message: Far too often when an essay is dealing with a larger-than-life person, the writer gets lazy & forgets to provide sources for the good stories. It's not following th eadvice of the cynical newspaperman in the movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend" -- it's that without a bit of healthy skepticism, we help make legends into facts. It was in this frame of thought that I dropped some  tags in this article: the anecdotes just sound too good to be true -- although it's likely that they are. 
I'd like to see these sourced in some of the well-researched books about the man. At the moment, these statements are accepted without criticism because we can find some kind of source for many of them -- although these sources are not the result of careful research, but off-the-cuff comments by people familiar with the legend around Boss Tweed. If possible, I'd like to see a couple quotations traced back to the primary sources. (Why quote secondary sources, when primary ones will provide even more impact?) I believe the right person, with a love for research, could turn the material here into a Featured Article. -- llywrch (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: There is a poorly worded sentence under SCANDAL that should be corrected.  I don't know the correct info so cannot do so:
"New York City's debts increased from $3600 million in 1868 to about $136 million by 1870"
Djarvinen (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: Tweed was not convicted for graft of any kind. He was convicted for failing to audit claims against the city. I'm not a member so i do not feel comfortable editing the article myself, so would someone please address this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.52.252 (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: I've tagged this with  because it's mostly uncited, and therefore possible coincidental, references. If it isn't addressed in a reasonable time, the section (apart from the Karl Malden reference) should be consigned to the dustbin of unnecessariness. Rodhullandemu 02:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section on pop culture but it keeps getting reverted. We need to agree that this section is an absolute farce. Why do Wikipedians seem to think that every passing reference to anything on Transformers and Family Guy must be in Wikipedia? It's absolutely ludicrous. TurtleMelody (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no consensus for this deletion.  Get one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have it. Wikipedia is not a place for fancruft references. Sorry. You lose. TurtleMelody (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point me to the consensus discussion which decided that these specific items should not be inthe article.None of them are "fancruft", by the way, they are appearances of Tweed as a fictinal character in books, movies, TV series, a Broadway show and one comic book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Popular culture sections are usually bloated with cruft but this one is not altogether trivial. Up In Central Park was a successful Broadway show (and less-successful film) which featured Tweed as a main character; Gangs of New York was a major motion picture in which Tweed is portrayed prominently. These warrant mention here. Other entries are more questionable: from the look of the article Dante's Inferno (2007 film), it does not appear that Tweed is among the 60 or so main characters. The imdb.com entry for Liberty shows the Tweed character billed eleventh; is this more than a fleeting appearance?  Secondary sources would be helpful in establishing whether some of these depictions are substantial. I favor converting the bullet list to prose as recommended by  WP:IPC. Ewulp (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right to remove Dante's Inferno, since IMDB doesn't list Tweed as a character. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Regarding Liberty, Tweed was played by Philip Bosco, a name actor.  The majority of actors above him are names, and no one below him is a name, so I think he qualifies for being in the main cast. The film is about Bartholdi's quest to get the Statue of Liberty built, but I haven't been able to find anything else about the story. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

text: It has been removed, I self-reverted my revert of your removal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

text: It really don't matter what the RfC says, since RfCs cannot contradict policy, and policy says that primary sources are acceptable, and any book, record, video, comic book, video game, television show etc. is the primary source for what it contains, so, as long as the popcult entry doesn't offer any analysis or interpretation, which would absolutely require a secondary source, the primary source is valid (as these media item cannot comment on themselves, unless they have forwards, or prefaces, or commentary tracks, or liner notes).  That's what policy says, and any RfC which contradicts policy is automatically void.  You want to change policy, go ahead and start an RfC that explicitly says that it is changing policy, and not one (such as the one you cite) which simply aims to get the sense of the community.  (And since it involves popcult, that means all the anti-popcult editors, such as yourself, turn out in droves and overwhelm regular editors such as myself who deal with popcult as if it were any other piece of information on Wikipedia, no different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, it does matter what the RfC said because the RfC informs how we interpret policy. Primary sources can demonstrate that they exist, but they cannot demonstrate that they are significant to the subject - that bit requires interpretation. There's no contradiction of policy there, and you can't decide the RfC is void just because your interpretation of policy differs. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a "sense-of-the-community" RfC can be informative as to how we interpret policy, but it cannot do so to the extent that it tells us to interpret policy in a way that's opposed to what the policy says, which is the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And just a personal reminder to you that you have a tendency to focus your editing tightly on specific topics, and to get caught up in them to the extent that it becomes combative and antithetical to the Wikipedia ethos.  I'm not going to link to the thread I'm talking about, because you know full well what it is, and what it lead to, but I want to point out that you're now doing pretty much the same thing to popcult as you did at that time to infoboxes.  You saved that situation by making a personal sacrifice, which I applauded at the time as an honorable action, but you need to examine what you're doing right now, because it's essentially the same pattern.  You're on a mission against popcult: you come into articles you've never edited before, tag them, and if no one is paying attention, decimate their popcult entries. I'm sorry that you don't understand the importance of noting in our articles the "epidemiology" of specific subjects within popular culture, but ignoring it isn't going to make it go away or less important, it's only going to make Wikipedia less relevant to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The "epidemiology", as you call it, can be very useful - when appropriately sourced. But we shouldn't be trying to list out every mention of every subject in every work of popular culture (at least in the main article - "X in popular culture" is a different story), because that obscures those references that truly are important to the reader's understanding of the topic. Current consensus on the topic of popcult entries is that they should be supported by reliable secondary sourcing, the existence of which helps us determine which entries are important enough to warrant inclusion. Since you disagree with that, what other criteria would you propose to determine what goes in these sections? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are five popcult entries in this article, that's hardly "listing ever mention", so I don't understand why you are making a fuss here if you aren't de facto automatically opposed to these sections.  In any event, as always, if you want to discuss any individual entry as to whether it should be included, I'm always happy to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not "automatically opposed" to these sections, I'm simply trying to understand your perspective here. Usually epidemiology would involve analysis of patterns and linkages rather than just a listing of cases without interpretation or selection of some kind - and the sourcing you've added provides some opportunity to do that, as in the NYT comparison of Gangs of New York and Forever. I'm going to add that now, as that's quite interesting. But if we're not listing every mention, and we're not using sourcing to decide what mentions to list, how are we deciding that it's these five entries we should include and not others like Drunk History or the Tammany Hall Board Game? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We're deciding because those five entries have been added by Wikipedia editors.  If another editor adds something which a different editor -- you or me or anyone else -- thinks is inappropriate to the article, then its inclusion in the article can be discussed right here on the talk page until a consensus is reached, just as happens with any other piece of information added to an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm not making myself clear, but how would we reach consensus on that point, if we do not discuss sourcing? I don't think Liberty warrant inclusion, for example. If we're not talking about sourcing or policies/guidelines to make that decision, we're pretty much left with ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How? We discuss, just as always. What is it about the Liberty entry that makes you feel that it shouldn't be included? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps what I just added to it will help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, thank you. The other one that I disagree with is Inferno - there are many famous personages who make cameos, it's not to my mind significant that Tweed does. Also, are there any better sources available for The Great Adventure? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about Inferno: "cameo" appearances are, pratically by definition, trivial, so it's the WP:BURDEN of someone adding a cameo appearance to show that it's significant.  I've removed that entry. The "Great Adventure" episode is problematic in the way that non-high profile TV stuff which predates the Internet can be problematic.  I think that the number of cites is pretty definitive about the existence of the episode, and that Tweed is the major character in it (the storyline is about the New York Times trying to bring Tweed down). TV Guide and TV.com are acceptable in the way that IMDB sometimes is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In popular culture" 

message: Per this RfC, IPC entries should include reliable secondary sourcing that demonstrates their significance to the topic. (IMDb doesn't qualify). WP:BURDEN applies, especially as the section's had a refimprove tag for nearly two months. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It really don't matter what the RfC says, since RfCs cannot contradict policy, and policy says that primary sources are acceptable, and any book, record, video, comic book, video game, television show etc. is the primary source for what it contains, so, as long as the popcult entry doesn't offer any analysis or interpretation, which would absolutely require a secondary source, the primary source is valid (as these media item cannot comment on themselves, unless they have forwards, or prefaces, or commentary tracks, or liner notes).  That's what policy says, and any RfC which contradicts policy is automatically void.  You want to change policy, go ahead and start an RfC that explicitly says that it is changing policy, and not one (such as the one you cite) which simply aims to get the sense of the community.  (And since it involves popcult, that means all the anti-popcult editors, such as yourself, turn out in droves and overwhelm regular editors such as myself who deal with popcult as if it were any other piece of information on Wikipedia, no different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, it does matter what the RfC said because the RfC informs how we interpret policy. Primary sources can demonstrate that they exist, but they cannot demonstrate that they are significant to the subject - that bit requires interpretation. There's no contradiction of policy there, and you can't decide the RfC is void just because your interpretation of policy differs. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a "sense-of-the-community" RfC can be informative as to how we interpret policy, but it cannot do so to the extent that it tells us to interpret policy in a way that's opposed to what the policy says, which is the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And just a personal reminder to you that you have a tendency to focus your editing tightly on specific topics, and to get caught up in them to the extent that it becomes combative and antithetical to the Wikipedia ethos.  I'm not going to link to the thread I'm talking about, because you know full well what it is, and what it lead to, but I want to point out that you're now doing pretty much the same thing to popcult as you did at that time to infoboxes.  You saved that situation by making a personal sacrifice, which I applauded at the time as an honorable action, but you need to examine what you're doing right now, because it's essentially the same pattern.  You're on a mission against popcult: you come into articles you've never edited before, tag them, and if no one is paying attention, decimate their popcult entries. I'm sorry that you don't understand the importance of noting in our articles the "epidemiology" of specific subjects within popular culture, but ignoring it isn't going to make it go away or less important, it's only going to make Wikipedia less relevant to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The "epidemiology", as you call it, can be very useful - when appropriately sourced. But we shouldn't be trying to list out every mention of every subject in every work of popular culture (at least in the main article - "X in popular culture" is a different story), because that obscures those references that truly are important to the reader's understanding of the topic. Current consensus on the topic of popcult entries is that they should be supported by reliable secondary sourcing, the existence of which helps us determine which entries are important enough to warrant inclusion. Since you disagree with that, what other criteria would you propose to determine what goes in these sections? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are five popcult entries in this article, that's hardly "listing ever mention", so I don't understand why you are making a fuss here if you aren't de facto automatically opposed to these sections.  In any event, as always, if you want to discuss any individual entry as to whether it should be included, I'm always happy to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not "automatically opposed" to these sections, I'm simply trying to understand your perspective here. Usually epidemiology would involve analysis of patterns and linkages rather than just a listing of cases without interpretation or selection of some kind - and the sourcing you've added provides some opportunity to do that, as in the NYT comparison of Gangs of New York and Forever. I'm going to add that now, as that's quite interesting. But if we're not listing every mention, and we're not using sourcing to decide what mentions to list, how are we deciding that it's these five entries we should include and not others like Drunk History or the Tammany Hall Board Game? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We're deciding because those five entries have been added by Wikipedia editors.  If another editor adds something which a different editor -- you or me or anyone else -- thinks is inappropriate to the article, then its inclusion in the article can be discussed right here on the talk page until a consensus is reached, just as happens with any other piece of information added to an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm not making myself clear, but how would we reach consensus on that point, if we do not discuss sourcing? I don't think Liberty warrant inclusion, for example. If we're not talking about sourcing or policies/guidelines to make that decision, we're pretty much left with ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How? We discuss, just as always. What is it about the Liberty entry that makes you feel that it shouldn't be included? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps what I just added to it will help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, thank you. The other one that I disagree with is Inferno - there are many famous personages who make cameos, it's not to my mind significant that Tweed does. Also, are there any better sources available for The Great Adventure? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about Inferno: "cameo" appearances are, pratically by definition, trivial, so it's the WP:BURDEN of someone adding a cameo appearance to show that it's significant.  I've removed that entry. The "Great Adventure" episode is problematic in the way that non-high profile TV stuff which predates the Internet can be problematic.  I think that the number of cites is pretty definitive about the existence of the episode, and that Tweed is the major character in it (the storyline is about the New York Times trying to bring Tweed down). TV Guide and TV.com are acceptable in the way that IMDB sometimes is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Redux

message: This is not a big deal, but could some one add "Boss" Tweed as a redirect? I am not a member and do not know how. It would be appreciated, thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.131.189 (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Boss Tweed already directs here. I can't see that anyone would search for "Boss" Tweed. Is this a problems that needs a solution? Rodhullandemu 20:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keep in mind that redirects are cheap. It's entirely plausible that someone would search for a person's nickname and surname this way. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Redirect 

message: In the second paragraph, consider the part which states: "his ability to insure the loyalty of voters through jobs" 
Insure is a verb which relates to insurance. You know, like car insurance.
The word we're looking for here is "ensure," i.e., to make sure. Assuming others agree, please make this change utilizing whatever the proper method for Wikipedia edits is. I have no idea how to do it properly. Thanks. 130.49.94.154 (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to get over your problem because, in fact, both "insure" and "ensure" can mean "to make certain by taking precautions".  With "insure" it's a secondary defintion, but, nonetheless, inmany contexts "insure" and "ensure" (as well as "assure") can be used interchangeably.  The dichotomy you're setting up, that "insure" only refers to insurance is incorrect, as a look at any authoritative dictionary will show you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homonym Confusion 

message: I think that we should request that this page be semi-protected. The vandalism is beginning to get out of hand.Alex 19:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection of page 

message: Please be aware, that there two distinct entities commonly known as Tammany Hall: one is the Order of St. Tammany, founded by Mooney in 1797, and was a sort of fraternal organization, similar to club. The Grand Sachem was elected annually, in May, on the date of the order's foundation, and few men were actually re-elected, the Grand sachemship rotating all the time. The other was the Tammany Hall political machine, first organized about 1800, by Aaron Burr who was never a member of the Tammany order, and which was led by a political boss, sometimes for decades, without election. It was a position of grey eminence. The political organization's meeting were held at the actual Tammany Hall, and the membership was closely intertwined, which leads to some confusion. But please be aware, that while Tweed was the political boss, and was occasionally Grand Sachem, there were other men who held this club post during Tweed's political leadership. Kraxler (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But you keep putting in "Boss", which was never a title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Boss" was his nickname, and is an informal, but very widely used and easily uderstandable, description of his status. A more formal term would be "Leader." The term "Head" is in my opinion a bit too indistinct, it's used for a wide range of positions, including elected and appointed office-holders. Kraxler (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leader Vs Grand Sachem  

message: No mention is made of Tweed's religion. Is there no info about this?Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found something and added it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting that he should have a Quaker background.  Nice find. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Reffed or not, the redlink that links nowhere else is WP:TRIVIA, and fails GNG, per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. When it has its own article, feel free to add it. I would be happy to have 3O settle this.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: To wit, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%22In_popular_culture%22_content#Good_and_bad_popular_culture_references
"When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:
*point 2: Have multiple reliable sources pointed out the reference?"--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In the same section "Inclusion of more and more pop-culture details the more influential or general the topic is – A litany of innumerable novels, TV shows, and films featuring Julius Caesar, dogs, New Hampshire, World War II, wizards, or hip hop is not useful to anyone. Topics of this level of world importance or broad generality never need pop-culture bulleted lists. Lists with bullets tend to grow exponentially, to the point that they become an indiscriminate collection of trivia. If a cultural references section is present in an article on WWII, for example, it should be reserved for major, in-depth treatments of the subject that have had lasting significance. As well, it should be written in prose, in paragraph form. This "raises the bar" for contributing to the section, and makes editors less likely to add trivia."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done-it's at 3O now.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  redlink that links nowhere else, and WP:TRIVIA 

message: #::There is clear an edit war here, in which the two main editors have both violated WP:3RR, and a third has participated.  Brief history:
#::* made the novel title Assassin's Creed Last Descendants into a wikilink
#::*One minute later, Kintetsubuffalo removed the sentence as non-notable.  Kintetsubuffalo proceeded to remove the sentence a further four times in three hours:    
#::*Kintetsubuffalo was reverting reversions by , of which there were four in a seven hour period:    
#::*The text is presently in the article, Kintetsubuffalo's final revert having been reverted by .  No further additions / removals have occurred in the roughly 12 hours since Cassianto's edit
#::*Kintetsbuffalo began the talk page discussion noted above after having removed the text three times, and having been reverted three times.  No other editor commented.  All three editors have been leaving edit summaries arguing for their views.
#::*Both Kintetsbufallo and Beyond My Ken are lucky to have avoided 3RR blocks for this edit war.  The argument which Kintetsbuffalo is making, that the information is non-notable or fails WP:GNG, is flawed as these are article standards, not determinants of content within articles.  The argument that the red link means that the information should be excluded until there is an article misses the point of red links.  Comments on WP:NOT might indicate that inclusion is UNDUE, though that argument has not been made in a convincing way.  In my view, the content should remain unless a talk page consensus forms that there is a well-made policy-based argument for its exclusion.  EdChem (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on William M. Tweed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091008235848/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=211 to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=211
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Maybe it's just because I'm Scottish myself, but the vagueness of this description is annoying me. There is a whole string of towns along the River Tweed, and none of them are particularly close to Edinburgh. Can we narrow down the family's origins any more than this? Zacwill (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A town near the River Tweed close to Edinburgh"