![]() Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 Hillary Rodham Clinton
- 2 Upcoming attractions in DC
- 3 Please comment on Talk:Corona del Mar High School
- 4 HRC
- 5 Please comment on Talk:Brown rice
- 6 New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
- 7 Check what this whole issue is about before even consider getting involved
- 8 RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.
- 9 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture)
- 10 Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food
- 11 Please comment on Talk:Charleston church shooting
- 12 Please comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins
- 13 Please comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi
- 14 Talk:Guy Fawkes_Night#Survey
- 15 Please comment on Talk:Interstellar probe
- 16 Speedy deletion nomination of Vantix Diagnostics
- 17 Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
- 18 Please comment on Talk:Mizrahi Jews
- 19 Please comment on Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha
- 20 Talk:Volkswagen emissions violations#Dieselgate?
- 21 Disambiguation link notification for October 1
- 22 Elizabeth II
- 23 Please comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC
- 24 Ford Pinto lead
- 25 This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
- 26 Please comment on Talk:Full Service (book)
- 27 Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose
- 28 Please comment on Talk:Eagles of Death Metal
- 29 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 30 Please comment on Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting
- 31 Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
- 32 Please comment on Talk:Muhammad
- 33 Nisour Square massacre RfC
- 34 Happy New Year, NickCT!
- 35 Please comment on Talk:Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations
- 36 Please comment on Talk:Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio
- 37 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 38 Please comment on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes#rfc_C79C105|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany...
- 39 February events and meetups in DC
- 40 Editor behavior on Ford Pinto]
- 41 February 2016
- 42 Please comment on Talk:Climate change denial
- 43 Katherine, Crown Princess of Yugoslavia
- 44 Brandon Wade
- 45 Please comment on Talk:Human sexuality
- 46 March events and meetups in DC
- 47 Pinto article
Hillary Rodham Clinton
I'm glad that you have weighed in there. Unfortunately, GregKaye and I have been at loggerheads on some other issues, and I seem to have gotten on his bad side. In any case, if you do some work on this proposed move, please feel free to borrow liberally from the Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Move rationale page that I set up for the last discussion. Also, one issue that was raised in opposition to the proposed move in the last discussion was usage in "high level sources", which opposers contended favored the current title. I did a little research on this issue, looking at the highest-level sources available, peer-reviewed academic journal publications. My findings are at User:BD2412/High level sources, but they are now about a year out of date. Still, the trend is pretty clear for the usual sources of these kinds of publications. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- @BD2412: - Awesome mate. As you may have already seen, I'm going to try to prevail on GregKaye to not be at loggerheads.
- I will take look at your "Move rationale" and "High level sources". You may have to give me 24hr to get really involved. I have limited time to devote today.
- Let's hope this effort isn't stymied by the BLP fanatics again........ NickCT (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is no deadline. The news reports suggest Hillary will announce on Sunday, and I would actually wait a couple days beyond that to allow the news to be carried around and reactions to be reported. Don't worry about my dispute with GregKaye. I don't need to work with him directly, and don't want side issues to get in the way of encyclopedia issues. Also, I note that in the last RM, the admins considered the number of editors who seemed to support each proposed rationale. I would phrase the move request itself to say whatever the complete set of rationales is (common name, recognizability, conciseness, etc.) and to clearly request that supporting participants to specify if there are any of those with which they do not agree. That will indicate that supporters are supporting for all reasons stated, unless they specify that some of those reasons are not a basis for their support, and will avoid that sort of confusion. bd2412 T 14:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- @BD2412: - re "that will indicate that supporters are supporting for all reasons stated" - Ok. That seems reasonable. My only concern might be that we make the mechanics of the RM so complex that people have a tough time offering a simple Support position.
- I wonder whether we should just simply ask the question again, and show again that a super majority is for the move. Maybe a 3-admin can overturn a pretty firm consensus once, but twice.................?
- re " Don't worry about my dispute with GregKaye. I don't need to work with him directly" - Sure. But trying to smooth over frayed feelings rarely hurts, no? NickCT (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think supporters generally "support" without too extensive an explanation, and generally do not object to specific arguments provided as a basis for making a move. I would also structure the RM with separate sections for ===Support===, ===Oppose===, and ===Discussion===, with an admonition that discussion should be kept to the section designated for it. I have closed many lengthy RM's and such a structure makes it much easier for admins to see all the arguments put forth by each side in one place, and to keep lengthy diatribes from obscuring the consensus of the community. I would actually have the entire discussion on a separate subpage, as we did with the second Chelsea Manning move request. bd2412 T 14:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is no deadline. The news reports suggest Hillary will announce on Sunday, and I would actually wait a couple days beyond that to allow the news to be carried around and reactions to be reported. Don't worry about my dispute with GregKaye. I don't need to work with him directly, and don't want side issues to get in the way of encyclopedia issues. Also, I note that in the last RM, the admins considered the number of editors who seemed to support each proposed rationale. I would phrase the move request itself to say whatever the complete set of rationales is (common name, recognizability, conciseness, etc.) and to clearly request that supporting participants to specify if there are any of those with which they do not agree. That will indicate that supporters are supporting for all reasons stated, unless they specify that some of those reasons are not a basis for their support, and will avoid that sort of confusion. bd2412 T 14:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I have a fairly complete list of participants in the previous discussion at User:BD2412/sandbox#Hillary Rodham Clinton requested move tally. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- @BD2412: - So noted. Thank you. NickCT (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Just to let you both know that, now that I know the level of involvement from nationals, I won't personally be submitting an RM but will be happy to chip in contribution such as I have done recently. As mentioned I am more than happy for you to use any portion of my text or not. I do not see why we should publicly soapbox a name that she does not soapbox publicly herself. GregKaye 16:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- @GregKaye: - re "why we should publicly soapbox a name that she does not soapbox publicly herself" - Tad confused by that statement. Does that mean you no longer support rename? It think the problem is that the article does currently soapbox a name the subject is soapboxing. NickCT (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, Hillary (I guess for purposes here we are on first name terms) has the perfect opportunity to soapbox the name HRC on her webpages but doesn't. There is no moral issue regarding the presentation of a maiden name if she does not use it herself. GregKaye 17:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ah. Ok. My recollection from the last debate was that there was some reason to believe that HRC was the subject's preference. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Jimbo's people contacted her people about it. I don't think that should have much bearing - we have ignored subject preference in Cat Stevens for a very long time, and the community declined to move Pink (singer) to P!nk despite the artist's consistent use, so there really is not much weight to that. By the way, in light of "gaming the system" comments in the talk page discussion, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should another move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton be permitted? to determine whether this move request should be allowed at all. That should settle any potential objections to initiating such a move, but a move discussion should not be initiated until that boils down to some degree. bd2412 T 19:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- @BD2412: - I agree re Jimbo. As much a I revere and respect the Jimbo, I felt his involvement in the HRC debate was completely unhelpful. Show me the policy that says subjects of BLPs get to choose their articles' title. If there is none, why go to the trouble of asking the subject? Jimbo didn't seem to be acknowledging policy at all.
- Honestly, I would have just ignore Tarc's objections. Guy objects to everything. NickCT (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Jimbo's people contacted her people about it. I don't think that should have much bearing - we have ignored subject preference in Cat Stevens for a very long time, and the community declined to move Pink (singer) to P!nk despite the artist's consistent use, so there really is not much weight to that. By the way, in light of "gaming the system" comments in the talk page discussion, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should another move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton be permitted? to determine whether this move request should be allowed at all. That should settle any potential objections to initiating such a move, but a move discussion should not be initiated until that boils down to some degree. bd2412 T 19:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ah. Ok. My recollection from the last debate was that there was some reason to believe that HRC was the subject's preference. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, Hillary (I guess for purposes here we are on first name terms) has the perfect opportunity to soapbox the name HRC on her webpages but doesn't. There is no moral issue regarding the presentation of a maiden name if she does not use it herself. GregKaye 17:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- @GregKaye: - re "why we should publicly soapbox a name that she does not soapbox publicly herself" - Tad confused by that statement. Does that mean you no longer support rename? It think the problem is that the article does currently soapbox a name the subject is soapboxing. NickCT (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Just to let you both know that, now that I know the level of involvement from nationals, I won't personally be submitting an RM but will be happy to chip in contribution such as I have done recently. As mentioned I am more than happy for you to use any portion of my text or not. I do not see why we should publicly soapbox a name that she does not soapbox publicly herself. GregKaye 16:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I have created a subpage at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request using the format from Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request. bd2412 T 17:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the Chelsea manning sequencing format has systemic bias towards "support". GregKaye 21:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- We almost always sequence discussions this way, if they are expected to be lengthy and complicated - Support, then Oppose, then Discussion (or Abstain, then Discussion). If there is a bias, I have not seen it play out in discussions. bd2412 T 16:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, I have moved the list of past discussion participants to User:BD2412/sandbox2 (this should be everyone from all the discussions, except that IPs and currently indefbanned users are stripped out). Cheers! bd2412 T 16:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- @BD2412: - Includes folks from recent village pump discussion? I can send out a notification that looks something like this. I know there's some software out there that allows for mass notification, but I'm not sure what it is. Can I do that in Huggle? NickCT (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would go with AWB. That's a perfect draft for the circumstances, by the way. bd2412 T 17:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- The move request has launched. Do you want to do the notifications? I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- @BD2412:
Done - Is there a reason you notified some people already? I accidentally double notified a couple folks. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- @BD2412:
- The move request has launched. Do you want to do the notifications? I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would go with AWB. That's a perfect draft for the circumstances, by the way. bd2412 T 17:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- @BD2412: - Includes folks from recent village pump discussion? I can send out a notification that looks something like this. I know there's some software out there that allows for mass notification, but I'm not sure what it is. Can I do that in Huggle? NickCT (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Upcoming attractions in DC
Hello!
Here are some upcoming DC meetups in April and May:
- Tuesday, April 14: National Archives Hackathon on Wikipedia Space with American University – 2:30-5pm
- See the latest work on the Wikipedia Space exhibit in the new NARA Innovation Hub and brainstorm on new ideas for a public exhibit about Wikipedia
- Friday, April 17: Women in Tech Edit-a-thon with Tech LadyMafia – 5-9pm
- Team up with Tech LadyMafia to improve Wikipedia content on women in the history of technology.
- Saturday, April 25: April Dinner Meetup – 6 PM
- Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!
- Friday, May 1: International Labour Day Edit-a-Thon – 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
- An edit-a-thon at the University of Maryland
Hope to see you at these events! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.
Cheers,
To remove yourself from this mailing list, remove your name from this list. 22:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Corona del Mar High School
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corona del Mar High School. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
HRC
You should probably indicate somewhere on the request page that you notified past participants. Calidum T|C 19:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Brown rice
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brown rice. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- @BD2412: - Sorry I didn't see this in time to comment. That seemed like a rather crumby attempt to poison the conversation at the last moment. NickCT (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Check what this whole issue is about before even consider getting involved
i can see that by giving "oh poor malik ..." you immediately throwh yourself on his side, as if wikipedia is a place where friends support each other. you might know each other or be friends. but your friendship should not influence the work in wikipedia and its neutrality and corectness in any way. if malik edits or deletes something with the argument that it does not fit into the list ALTHOUGH it qualifies for BOTH criterias the listM wants, then it is a sort of vandalism, especially if he does not let himself engage in any form of exchange or talk. that is the end of story. this arrogant guy does not even "discuss", argues or does anything towards the site, but merely deletes without logic or reason. if this is the wikipedia you like and you just support this mischief fine, then you better should consider to quit. wikipedia IS NO FACEBOOK2.0 yet many of its editors behave like it, putting more effort in making their own site "nice" or use discussion pages as chats or forums. so before putting some dumb on my site and just hook up with your buddy without even discussing with me or actually checking what is this whole thing about, you should not even consider getting involved into this. have a good day, and may the day come you will work on wikipedia correctly. without crap as "poor malik...".it is no instagram,Joobo (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- and yes i offered him to use the discussion page several times but he never engaged in any form in discussion. so you dont have to show me the bold revert discussion cycle... if there is only one person who wants to dicuss and the other simply ignores it.Joobo (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
-
- I see you have not made a single edit to the article's Talk page concerning your addition to the article. Please see WP:BURDEN. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- @Joobo: - Malik Shabazz and I rarely interact. We've probably more often found ourselves on the opposite side of issues than on the same side.
- Where we are "on the same side", is in our attitudes towards tendentious and fractious editors like you.
- Take a look at WP:BRD. Malik does not need to discuss or argue anything with you. If you want to make a change, YOU need to convince him that the change is OK.
- Now quit yelling. It looks like some of the edits you are making are probably OK. You just need to sit down and discuss them first. If you do that quietly and respectfully, you are more likely to succeed. I will listen to and give careful consideration to quiet and respectful discussion, and I'm sure Malik will too. NickCT (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
-
RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.
Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Charleston church shooting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charleston church shooting. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Guy Fawkes_Night#Survey
While I understand you sentiments, stating option 3 is not helpful in resolving this divisive issue, and to help the project, I suggest that you reconsider and opt for options one or two. -- PBS (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- @PBS: - Ok. Done. I think the RfC is a little misleading though in that it didn't allow for the opinion that "Guy Fawkes Night" is a celebration or commemeration of the "Gun Powder Plot" which was the event. I'm surprised others didn't pick up on that. As I'd stated, this seems self-evident to me. The RfC ought to be redone. NickCT (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your point of view, but the article is about the celebration, it just that most of it at the moment is a about the history of the celebrations not the present celebrations. If you look back at how it was back end of September 2010 you will see a far from perfect article but one that contains a lot of information about the state of celebrations in the 21st century. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- @PBS: - Yes. I see what you mean. The article should be about the present celebration. If there's a lot to say about the history of the celebration, that should be a subsection or a different article. Maybe there should be a simple RfC to just establish the primary topic of the article.
- Hmmmmmm.... Scanning over the old version, my initial impression is that this article has rotted a bit. The older version seems more consistently and logically laid out. Sorta sad to see the decline really.
- This looks like a classic example of what I personally refer to as "article rot" (i.e. a situation where an article which is sorta "good" gets picked to pieces by a series of well meaning but unfocused editors). Frankly, I wonder whether we should just consider a blanket revert to an old version of this article. NickCT (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- I understand your point of view, but the article is about the celebration, it just that most of it at the moment is a about the history of the celebrations not the present celebrations. If you look back at how it was back end of September 2010 you will see a far from perfect article but one that contains a lot of information about the state of celebrations in the 21st century. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Interstellar probe
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Interstellar probe. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Vantix Diagnostics
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160310152307im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Vantix Diagnostics 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 an organization or company, 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Peppy Paneer (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mizrahi Jews
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mizrahi Jews. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Volkswagen emissions violations#Dieselgate?
Majority unanimously opposes the proposal. Withdraw? --George Ho (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of corporate collapses and scandals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevron (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) 10:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Elizabeth II
I think there's no doubt of one thing. There's definitly a consensus against "Queen of 16...". PS - Thank goodness for that :) GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah. Well, I'm not counting my chickens until the "Queen of 16"er's relent. This page and the debate about the lead really tops my list for contentious debates about nothing on WP. I think a lot of the shenanigans is caused by a minority of very committed POV pushers. NickCT (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
It might be best if you control your emotions, like I had to do. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: - What gave you the impression my emotions were'nt controlled? NickCT (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your expressed frustrations over how the Rfc turned out. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: - Frustrations? More observations really about the circumventing of RfC's. NickCT (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your expressed frustrations over how the Rfc turned out. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Ford Pinto lead
I get what you mean about highlighting one paper in the lead section, but could you participate in the talk page for that article a bit? Right now it's just going back and forth and not really getting anywhere -- we need to establish at least some basic compromises that everyone can stand. --Aquillion (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Full Service (book)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Full Service (book). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Eagles of Death Metal
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eagles of Death Metal. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, NickCT. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Paul Singer. Thank you. --FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Muhammad
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muhammad. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Nisour Square massacre RfC
Hey Nick, wanted to let you know that I reformatted the RfC on Nisour Square massacre per your suggestion and went ahead and removed your comment with your permission. Good idea! We can now keep the RfC discussion in the associated subsection. I will respond to your comments here shortly. Have a great night. Meatsgains (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year, NickCT!
-
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Please comment on Talk:Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Paul Singer. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes#rfc_C79C105|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany...
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
February events and meetups in DC
Greetings from Wikimedia DC!
February is shaping up to be a record-breaking month for us, with nine scheduled edit-a-thons and several other events:
- On Friday, February 12, NPR will host a Black History Month First Edit event.
- On Saturday, February 13 and Sunday, February 14, we're working with the Wiki Education Foundation to hold a series of four edit-a-thons at the AAAS 2016 Annual Meeting.
- On Tuesday, February 16, we're holding the Smithsonian American Art Museum and American University WikiWorkshop with Professor Andrew Lih's class.
- On Saturday, February 20, the Smithsonian American Art Museum will host the African American Artists Edit-a-Thon.
- On Friday, February 26, Howard University will host its second annual Black History Month Edit-a-Thon.
- On Saturday, February 27, we have three different events. In the morning, we're holding an Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library. In the afternoon, we'll host our second February WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.
We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!
Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Editor behavior on Ford Pinto]
Please refrain from making vaguely denigrating comments in your talk comments (e.g., referring to Gary Schwartz as a 'character') and making "or else" threatening comments in your edit fields. We are all working on this together and these behaviors fail to demonstrate the GOOD FAITH it will take to sort out the direction of the article. Thanks for your contributions. 842U (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- @842U:
- 1) Not sure referring to someone as "a character" is denigrating. That's probably more an issue with your perception than my intent.
- 2) Your revert-without-discussion behavior is tendentious, fractious and not in keeping with the idea of WP:BRD. If you want to demonstrate good faith, when someone suggests having a conversation about something on the talk page, try doing it. NickCT (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- This isn't a discussion about the Ford Pinto, it's about your behavior. If you want to be respectful, then you'll refrain from comments that are accusative and vague: "are you related to this Schwartz character?" You yourself have also participated in the reverting behavior -- and have also made it clear that others may not revert "or else" (which is entirely an act of Ownership). Let's work together. If that's going to happen, you're going to have to not only refrain from being sufficiently vague in your comments as to be easily misconstrued, as well as refrain from strong-arming -- you're going to have to be respectful. I think we have a chance to improve the article. Let's.842U (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- @842U: - It's actually a discussion about your behavior. You've been on that page, trying to insert the Schwartz reference over others' objections for YEARS. Literally YEARS. Take a look at WP:OWN or WP:SPA. Your behavior here has clearly been a little extraordinary.
- I didn't say "others may not revert". I said YOU may not revert. I would be happy to see that information go back in if others felt the content was appropriate, but I'm not going to let it be re-inserted without some kind of demonstration that's it's supported by more than just two editors who happen to watchlist that particular article.
- I also think we have a chance to improve the article, but if you want to have the Schwartz content put back in the same way it was in there before, you will have to demonstrate WP:CONSENSUS for that. Again, I share your willingness to work together and would be happy to help you craft an RfC or a poll to test consensus on this point. I'd also be happy to discuss re-inserting the Schwartz content in some more limited way. NickCT (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- This isn't a discussion about the Ford Pinto, it's about your behavior. If you want to be respectful, then you'll refrain from comments that are accusative and vague: "are you related to this Schwartz character?" You yourself have also participated in the reverting behavior -- and have also made it clear that others may not revert "or else" (which is entirely an act of Ownership). Let's work together. If that's going to happen, you're going to have to not only refrain from being sufficiently vague in your comments as to be easily misconstrued, as well as refrain from strong-arming -- you're going to have to be respectful. I think we have a chance to improve the article. Let's.842U (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
February 2016
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This relates to this edit. Please do not repeat it. --John (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- @John: - Thanks for the note John. You'll notice though that I was attacking a large group of peoples rather than any individual person. I'm not sure the attack was meant to be personal. Also, probably best not to issue warnings b/c ones sense of national identity may have been offended. Dangerous ground. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Climate change denial
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Katherine, Crown Princess of Yugoslavia
Can you explain why you reverted this edit? AeroAuxiliary (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- @AeroAuxiliary: - B/c I'm huggling too darn fast? Thanks for the catch. NickCT (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- @NickCT: - Haha no worries... :-) AeroAuxiliary (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Brandon Wade
Hey, check out my latest edits to this article on Wade. It looks like a PR flak or Wade himself is reverting my cited edits, including the addition of his well-documented birth name.
exeunt (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Exeunt: - Yeah OK. Looks like you're right. Let's see if we can get him to come to the talk page. He may have legitimate concerns that we should try to address there. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- @NickCT: Wikipedia's policy is very clear on this: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. ==> This user's changes simultaneously on both the main and talk page suggest the author did not write conservatively, with regard to the subject's privacy, and instead wrote to spread of titillating claims about people's lives with the possibility of harm to said living person. Jacksparrow92881 (talk)
- @Jacksparrow92881: - Hi. Thanks for getting in touch so quickly. You're absolutely right that we shouldn't include poorly sourced material and potentially contentious material about living persons. Can you go to the subjects talk page, and identify the exact material you feel is contentious and poorly sourced? If there is contentious and poorly sourced material there, I'll make sure it gets removed immediately. NickCT (talk) 18:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Exeunt: - I think I have to agree with Mr. Sparrow, that your edit here might have created legitimate BLP concerns. You may want to ask an admin to delete that revision in the history. NickCT (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Exeunt: - Actually, I think I'm going to go ahead and ask a couple admins to look at this.
- @NeilN and Edgar181: - Hey guys, could either of you review this edit and consider rev deletion. It seems there might be some WP:BLP concerns here. NickCT (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think pure speculation about whether an individual is the same person as one convicted of the crime mentioned in that edit isn't appropriate at all. Consequently, I have applied revdel to that edit. I see the possibility that there is whitewashing going on, but without a reliable source confirming any connection I don't think it is appropriate at all to speculate. If there is a advice needed about how to pursue such questions within the bounds of policy (WP:BLP), I would recommend seeking assistance at WP:BLPN. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- @NickCT: Wikipedia's policy is very clear on this: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. ==> This user's changes simultaneously on both the main and talk page suggest the author did not write conservatively, with regard to the subject's privacy, and instead wrote to spread of titillating claims about people's lives with the possibility of harm to said living person. Jacksparrow92881 (talk)
Please comment on Talk:Human sexuality
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human sexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
March events and meetups in DC
Greetings from Wikimedia DC!
Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:
- On Wednesday, March 9, we'll host our first March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle.
- On Friday, March 11, the National Archives will host the Women in the Civil War Edit-a-Thon.
- On Saturday, March 19, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian will host the Color History with the Smithsonian! event, and we'll hold our second Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.
- On Sunday, March 20, the American Chemical Society will host the Computers in Chemistry Edit-a-Thon.
- On Saturday, March 26, we'll host our second March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.
Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.
Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Pinto article
I would appreciate your input on some of the recent Pinto edits and concerns that I have attempted to raise on the article talk page. Certainly getting a long time article voice might help. In 4 days the new editor has added over 150 edits! Springee (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Springee: - Hi mate. Sorry I've been out of the loop. I have limited time at the moment, though I would like to assist. I'll attempt to take a serious look at this in the next 48 hours.
- Thanks, and apologies again for falling off the grid. NickCT (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. I have a concern that the new editor (disclosure, said editor and I don't see eye to eye on previous articles) has flooded the page with changes without really discussing his plans. It would be helpful to, among other things, have a view of what is and is not encyclopedic. We don't have to agree on all these things but it's a lot better when people put the brakes on when other editors object. I look forward to your take. Springee (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hey NickCT, I wanted let you know a few things about the status of the Pinto article. First, HughD has done a lot to clean up references, bring in some additional sources and honestly, add a lot of citations. Sadly, Hugh has also brought in 200 article edits in just 5 days a level of incivility to the editing and talk page. The article is currently locked due to my 6RR complaint against Hugh. As a point of reference [[1]]. I've been accused of following him to new articles so I'm surprised he thought it was a good idea to follow me to the Pinto article. Regardless, sorry for the mess we have created on the talk page. I don't blame you if you want to stay away but I would welcome your thoughts on the article and a few parts in particular... if you are brave enough to read the walls of text! Springee (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. I have a concern that the new editor (disclosure, said editor and I don't see eye to eye on previous articles) has flooded the page with changes without really discussing his plans. It would be helpful to, among other things, have a view of what is and is not encyclopedic. We don't have to agree on all these things but it's a lot better when people put the brakes on when other editors object. I look forward to your take. Springee (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)