Open main menu


Those sneaky post-nomsEdit

Dear Master Editor — with that credential, I expect that you can explain to me, please, how this does not mean to include post-noms on, for instance, the Bill Gates page, from MOS:POSTNOM:

"Post-nominal letters should be included in the lead section when they are national or international honours or appointments issued by a state, or a widely recognized organization, with which the subject has been closely associated"; and "Post-nominals should not be added except to a biography subject's own lead sentence, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material"; and goes on to instruct "This template needs the |size=100% parameter when it is used in an infobox, or its output will be too small."

...because that's exactly as I did when I was "sneaking" those post-nom letters back in, with detailed notes regarding,14 Nov and 6 Jan, on the , (talk) page for the editor who had deleted them, with no response. Please clarify your no post-noms position. Thank you. AHampton (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That is easily explained by noticing some of the other words that you didn't put in boldface: "... issued by a state, ..., with which the subject has been closely associated" (please especially see the italic part). Mr. Gates has not been closely associated with the state that issued him those honours, and the post-nominals are not typically considered an important part of his notability, so they should not be included in the lead section in that manner. The consensus about this has been recorded at Talk:Bill Gates (see the FAQ and the Talk page archives), and if you wish to try to change that consensus, that Talk page is the proper place to hold that discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And, I would easily argue that "closely associated" is subjective, and also that anyone involved with as many UK projects as Gates is, and who has over 10,000 British employees, is "closely associated" with the UK. Further, copious post-noms have been removed by the editor who chose to ignore the note on his page regarding, without leaving any mention of same of those pages. There was also no visible discussion on the page regarding, I had checked.
Was trying to respond, but met "edit conflict" while you were changing your last comment somehow (about which I have been pointedly told: "never, ever modify existing content in talk pages... even if it's your own text. It's a huge no-no."(Mardus /talk 03:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)).) I guess that's subjective, too. AHampton (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the article Talk page itself, I suggest checking the archives of the Talk page (which you can typically find by looking for the word "archive" on the Talk page). I found discussions in every one of that article's Talk page archives about this – please search the archive pages for "KBE". Also please note that Talk:Bill Gates has an FAQ section about this particular issue. It says this:
Q1: Should the post-nominal "KBE" appear after Gates's name in the introduction? (No.)
A1: No. According to the Manual of Style, post-nominals should be omitted unless the article subject is closely associated with the issuing country. Gates's honorary knighthood is mentioned along with honors from several other countries in the "Recognition" section.
If you think that this consensus should be changed, you should start a discussion about it on that Talk page.
Regarding the issue of modification of Talk page comments, that is actually acceptable to some degree, and especially for the type of change I made; the previous comment from another editor was a bit of an oversimplification, but I agree that the edit that it was discussing was problematic – please see WP:REDACT. The modification I made in this instance was to remove a few words from the quote and replace them with "..." to make the quote easier to read. I made that change before you responded. The relevant guideline about that can be found at WP:Talk page guidelines. Among other things, it says "So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely."
BarrelProof (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I will take it to the page, disagreeing, thank you. Too bad Mophon did not deign to recommend same, long ago. As for the modification... I would have thought so, too, my own being equally innocuous, but a lot of editors are terribly high-handed, even rude, one finds, "sneaking" away now. AHampton (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for using the word "sneak"; I should have assumed that the addition was good faith editing. I suppose I was thinking otherwise since this has been a repeated "edit warring" issue for that article for a long time, despite the consensus recorded on the article's Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I abhor manipulation, underhandedness and, so, sneakiness, and one does not expect to be referenced in this way when openly editing and leaving notes regarding for a specifically interested party. (Apparently, ignored TALK page notes can lead to such unnecessary issues.) One does smart from the unexpected high-handedness and insults of some seasoned WP editors, no doubt discouraging new editors. Would that they were all so accountable, as you have been here. Thank you.AHampton (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for your edit - Freemasonry might not even be a "minor characteristic" of Kościuszko, see also this discussion where I questioned the addition by HorCrux48 (in case they decide to continue arguing for its inclusion). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the user has added "freemason" to the introduction of several articles with the same web source (that doesn't look very reliable to me) - as I don't know these biographies as well as Kościuszko's (and as I'm not very active in English-language Wikipedia anyway, and don't intend to become too involved in disputes here), I'm not going to concern myself with these edits, but you might want to have a look... Gestumblindi (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. In fact it was an edit of the 21 Savage article that led me to think about looking at that user's edits, and I had noticed there was some discussion on the Talk page of that article. Alas, I have no real expertise (or even much real interest) on the topic of Freemasonry, although I have the rough impression that some people tend to put too much emphasis on Freemason membership status. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


There was a user who added Bloods and Crips categories to other Rappers' pages with no reliable sources to back them up. Here, for example is [their edit to Ice Cube]; the word Crip is only mentioned in the user's category addition. So a lot of their edits had to be reverted to due to WP:BLP. But checking 21 Savage, I now see he had affiliation with the Bloods, so the category will be restored by the time you read this. Crboyer (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

[The user was reprimanded on their talk page] for adding categories without reliable sources. Crboyer (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the response. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


Hello, BarrelProof. You have new messages at Thewinrat's talk page.
Message added 16:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheWinRatHere! 16:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "BarrelProof".