![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Would you like to add the discretionary sanction tag to his talkpage please? I reverted some vandalism a few days ago. I will try to expand his page with referenced info from Jstor, etc., soon. Zigzig20s ( talk) 02:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Srich, thank you very much for being kind, by giving useful links to beginners and being helpful. Just recently, I got around to exploring Wikipedia's messaging system, so the thanks is very belated. Thanks once again, 2know4power ( talk) 20:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC). P.S. Conversation is here
We need good admins like you. Are you ready, yet? Atsme 📞 📧 16:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
How does that work then?
While I agree that political corruption can be an issue under many types of systems, that doesn't make it not a weakness of Capitalism.
( Personal attack removed) GliderMaven ( talk) 22:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain the Depreciated template edits you have been making Thanks. Unconventional2 ( talk) 01:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Better to steer clear of anything that editors might view as stalking, particularly with your RfA coming along when the time is right. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with... my own talk page. Why? It is not rendering (displaying) some comments by me and others. (Like the Los Angeles Metro revisions section immediately above.) They appear in the Editing window, but nowhere else. (At the same time this help message IS rendering.) I've re-started by computer, run diagnostics on it, and reset my preferences to no avail. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joan Harvey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Harvey until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn ( talk) 17:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Amigo, I'm not sure the refimprove template addresses the problem with Oceana. The current article text may be verified by the references, but there don't appear to be independent RS citations that establish notability. Given the personal attacks and unconstructive talk page thread, I'm loath to revisit the matter just now. At first I thought perhaps the other editor had some relationship to the subject, but he appears to deny that. Sooner or later more eyes will fall upon the page and the article will sink or swim. Meanwhile, I defer to your professional judgment. Do you think this is a notable topic? If so there should be some coverage of it from better sources, I would think. I learned the constructive function of the improvement templates from you a few years back. The talk page thread seems to indicate some confusion between a notability tag and an AfD. I suppose at some point an AfD would force the community to adjudicate the issue, but that seems premature. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the archiving. Abel ( talk) 23:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to you sir/madam at FEE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.184.18 ( talk) 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
You seem a bit more active these days. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
He was the most famous President at FEE so i think his story should be back in with rs footnotes! 166.172.61.43 ( talk) 10:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
As a participant in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen, you may be interested in participating in the related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen (politician).-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 18:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Why do you keep changing the Harvard Political Review's circulation number? The source you are citing has no mention of the circulation number (7,935). Where are you getting that number? While the page you cite does not contain the number 7,935, that page does link to another page that has the circulation number as reported by the Harvard Political Review. The current number that the Harvard Political Review reports is 2,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoureProbablyTryingReallyHard ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you please remove the content which is in copyright violation? I don't see where it is. Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 06:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for welcoming me. I hope to become a valuable contributor, once I learn better how things work at Wikipedia.
I found a number of errors on The Heartland Institute page and spent some time fixing the errors. However, none of my edits seem to have resulted in any actual changes to the relevant page -- because someone else quickly came in and unceremoniously deleted everything I wrote.
For example, The Heartland Institute does not engage in lobbying efforts. Its early work had nothing to do with government smoking bans. The listed Heartland publications should include 33 books. Errors such as these make the entire article appear untrustworthy and unfair. I just wanted to help correct some clear flaws in the article, but others seem to find this activity very unwelcome.
Perhaps you can help me to understand how to fix mistakes when I find them in Wikipedia articles. How should I proceed?
Peter Thusat Co-CEO & Intelligence Advisor Safos & Thusat, LLC 14805 Detroit Avenue Cleveland, OH 44107
peter@thusat.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterthusat Tel: +1 216 264 9610 Fax: +1 216 521 5033 Skype: peter.thusat — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterThusat ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
While I am sure there is a policy behind this, why sanitize a talk page by removing personal attacks made by someone else? I do not see the logic in censorship to protecting the guilty. Abel ( talk) 00:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer of adoption. Have you adopted others? If so, who and what steps did you take?
I'm not aware of any past interactions between us, other than the one just started at Talk:The Heartland Institute. Any other interactions you recall? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
not ssure how to talk to you. i was trying to make a change to make the grammar match up, plus align with historical context. i seldom ever edit here. Yet I'm being told its Vandalism. I also can't reach "consensus" with someone when they have the power to block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.161.142 ( talk) 19:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Hastymashi. In regards to an article, Saskatchewan, I cannot find anywhere that says French is an official language in the Province of Saskatchewan nor the Government of Saskatchewan nor their official webpage:
http://www.gov.sk.ca/ The references cited does not say French is an official language of the Province of Saskatchewan. I don't even understand who allowed these citations to be cited which says nothing about French is the official language of the province of Saskatchewan.
The 1st citation is just a 2011 Census result from Statistics Canada: Which part of the Census makes you think French is the most important language among all other minority languages: English 872,250, German 26,965, Cree 24,045, French 18,935, Ukranian 14,395, Tagalog 10,990, Dene 8,375, Chinese n.o.s, 5,540.
Of 965,925 people questioned in Saskatchewan, only 47,000 people knows French, that's just 4.90% of the population in Saskatchewan. How is French important if only 5% of the population speaks French? "The 2011 census added the question “can this person speak English or French well enough to carry on a conversation?”. 965,925 people in Saskatchewan report being able to only speak English, while only 430 people report being able to only speak French. There are 46,570 people who report being able to carry on a conversation in both official languages."
The 2nd citation refers to what the "Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages" is doing to help French-Canadians to communicate with the provincial government by providing provincial government services in French. It DOES not in any way to say that French is the official language of those provinces.
– Hastymashi (talk) 3:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hastymashi (
talk •
contribs)
Hello. I see that you reverted my additions to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area article. I don't understand why you did this. I've added a bunch of museums as well as airports and education to the article which I feel add value to the article. This is why I have spent hours adding useful information. Could you explain why I am wrong? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesnote ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)>
Please help. The article 'fee' says it is a think tank but when I place this in the summary intro, one editor keeps taking it away. If you look in the article, the 'fee' is one of the oldest and #46 'think tank' so this should not be cut out. Please read oon the talk page to see ad homonem attacks and so forth. 166.171.187.167 ( talk) 12:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Read untill you are convinced. here are reliable sources stating THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=da&as_sdt=0,5&q=thc+cancer+cells+apoptosis
now correct your mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulfarf ( talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure why you didn't like my edit but I won't waste my time on it anymore. That site was a great resource for me when I needed to find section 8 housing. I don't see how relevant information like that is discouraged. I also don't see how it violates any rules but I'm sure you'll justify it somehow. Have fun. Benefitshelp ( talk) 02:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't look like I'm the only one that's had issues with you. Benefitshelp ( talk) 04:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Could you explain your reasoning behind adding ELs to Goodreads to articles? There appears to be very little in, for instance, this page here that isn't, or couldn't be, already on the Wikipedia article. This appears, to me, to fall very much within WP:ELNO, (specifically points 1, 10, 14 and 17), and particularly because "GoodReads" is essentially a social-media front for the commercial operations of Amazon. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Kemo Sabe, check out the meaning of "hoi polloi" in a dictionary. I didn't mean to refer to or compare you to Curly Larry and Moe. Just that public reviews and polls don't meet WP standards for RS. I suspect most readers understood no such reference was intended, but you might wish to circle back there. We do have a new restaurant by that name here not far from my flat, but its too chic for my expat tastes. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk
The first source, the LP Platform, absolutely does not mention the NAP at all. The second source is opinion, and there are dozens just like it from all sides. The fact that the author found it necessary to highlight his position that the NAP is the core of libertarianism demonstrates that it is not the core for every libertarian. JasonW1415 ( talk) 21:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Here are some sources: Yeager, Leland B. Ethics As Social Science: The Moral Philosophy of Social Cooperation. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2001. p. 283 http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/92/1605.pdf / http://www.jstor.org/stable/4144964?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Charles Murray, David Friedman, David Boaz, and R.W. Bradford. What's Right vs. What Works. Liberty. January 2005, Volume 19, Number 1, Page 31
In fact, the overwhelming majority of libertarians are not adherents to the NAP, and the overwhelming majority of libertarian literature is consequentialist. This is true of both the Party and the more general term. JasonW1415 ( talk) 21:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. JasonW1415 ( talk) 21:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The NAP page is now demonstrably false. What is the process to get a review? JasonW1415 ( talk) 20:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I'm contacting you regarding the consensus you had established here. Back them and edit was done which had stood up to recently, until someone had edited the article against that consensus. I've started an edit request which was denied with an explanation that there is no consensus, although I had put the link. I wouldn't contact you as soon as this if I had believed this is a simple misunderstanding (however I'm maintaining the benefit of the doubt in the discussion). I'm concerned that this edit was not noticed by any of the people who had participated in the original RfC and who had opposed that consensus. It seems that they are very quick to react when the article is edited against their stand, but they are not willing to answer to my edit request, although they are familiar with the RfC and the consensus. From my previous encounters with some of the editors involved in that article, I have no doubt that this won't go easily and that certain people will try to obstruct to revert the edit that had been done without and against a standing consensus. 89.164.127.101 ( talk) 16:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the information, but you removed items to Brady Harran's Wikipedia page ( /info/en/?search=Brady_Haran) that I didn't add and had been there for years previously. Namely, the Hello Internet flag. Please at least leave that alone. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatjh ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. About the edit of the Cannabis article in the section about cancer I added the fact that THC kills cancer and tumor cells. The source i added is a reliable source. The source is not the first and not the only. There are many universities that have confirmed that THC kills cancer and tumor cells. Although not your intention your revert of my comment is vandalism. Pleas repair!!!
Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulfarf ( talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Sir, I believe that the info re: Bataan Death March photo is more accurate then present info. My uncle Ralph Frank Maze, USMC Retired (deceased) who survived the march years later before his passing showed me, I was a Marine at the time, that photo and described in detail the date, location, etc. I have no cause to doubt him. This website, http://valor.militarytimes.com/recipient.php?recipientid=51504#.uptoh3dgwuy.facebook, confirms his POW status and I have photos of him and my father that may be of assistance in clarifying this claim. His profile and features match my Father's, his brother.
Respectfully, Jim Maze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmaze9392 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, is it now accepted that the US government "stage-managed" 9/11 ? Or that 80% of Indian tax revenues ... etc. His is a difficult article to source because there is so much of that sort of guff flying about but I'm pretty sure it counts as conspiracy theorising. - Sitush ( talk) 21:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Please do not restore content challenged on WP:BLP grounds to articles about living people, as you do here. [1] Also, as you have noted on my talk page [2] the article in question, Hillary Clinton, is covered by discretionary sanctions. Aggressive edits like this may subject your account to temporary blocks if deemed appropriate by administrators to maintain stability of the encyclopedia. Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 02:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your many contributions to the Wikipedia cause. Unfortunately your recently edit removal of the years on the reference dates at Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 cause a major error in reference list. Please refer to WP:CS or MOS:NUM when editing or creating references. Thank you. DrFargi ( talk) 10:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I could use your advice as the editor who had done this closure. A group of Serbian editors have made a fort out of that article. They are banning every discussion and user who don't go along their way. However, when an user comes along which inserts Serbian nationalistic viewpoints [3] [4] they don't revert him even if it goes against the earlier mentioned consensus. Should I try to establish the consensus or let them completely control that article? It's hard since everyone who opposes them is being banned, including me. I hope you will review the edits that go against the rfc that you had closed, regardless of the accusations you hear from them. 141.136.252.195 ( talk) 17:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Note that I'm the same person with the same problem as in this subsection of your talk page. So this just repeats once again. 141.136.252.195 ( talk) 23:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I could use your advice as the editor who had done this closure. A group of Serbian editors have made a fort out of that article. They are banning every discussion and user who don't go along their way. However, when an user comes along which inserts Serbian nationalistic viewpoints [5] [6] they don't revert him even if it goes against the earlier mentioned consensus. Should I try to establish the consensus or let them completely control that article? It's hard since everyone who opposes them is being banned, including me. I hope you will review the edits that go against the rfc that you had closed, regardless of the accusations you hear from them. 141.136.252.195 ( talk) 17:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Note that I'm the same person with the same problem as in this subsection of your talk page. So this just repeats once again. 141.136.252.195 ( talk) 23:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
With reference to the edits I made to Bergdahl's page, I am in the sister company of Blackfoot (B) Company which has always shared the same building on Fort Richardson. I cannot confirm the truth to the Soldier of the Week honor, for which, a soldier is awarded a designated parking spot next to the company commander's parking spot. I can, however, confirm that he was indeed in B CO, 1-501 IN (ABN), 4 BCT (ABN), 25 ID. I'm sure I could Google the proof, but I am uneducated on how to site a source on a Wikipedia article. This particular article doesn't weigh heavily with me regarding correctness, so I am not too worried about it in this case. However, when editing articles in the future, I value the knowledge of how to do so properly. Thank you for your time.
Vsmeier2282 ( talk) 05:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you shortened two decimal places to whole numbers when reporting vote percentages here:
/info/en/?search=Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29#Presidential_candidate_performance
While you used one decimal place here:
/info/en/?search=Gary_Johnson_presidential_campaign,_2012#Results
In looking around wikipedia, it seems like most places that report vote percentages use one or two decimal places.
Example one decimal:
/info/en/?search=Republican_Party_%28United_States%29#Republican_Party_in_Presidential_Elections
Example two decimal:
/info/en/?search=Green_Party_of_the_United_States#Electoral_results
Example two decimal:
/info/en/?search=Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#State_results
I've even seen it taken to five decimal places:
/info/en/?search=Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidential_tickets
So why only use whole numbers for the Libertarian Party?
Thank you,
AJPEG (
talk)
02:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@ AJPEG: I'm trying to apply MOS:UNCERTAINTY quidelines. If we look at the significant figures in some of these tables, it seems 5 decimal places is absurd. Thanks for your comment. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this really how we do page numbers -- "237-45" rather than "237-245"? I don't see the benefit. We don't lack for storage space, and it takes the brain an extra clock cycle to process. If this is written down as a standard, well OK, but if it's just your personal preference, it was better before. Herostratus ( talk) 01:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I totally give up. The entire article is based on a single book published for a historical group. Unfortunately the book doesn't have an ISBN. So you might as well just delete the whole page or revert it back to its early 2008 version before I added all the additional information. Sure, I might not have added all the necessary, line-by-line references, but the information is solid, from a well-researched book that doesn't have an ISBN because, quite frankly, the cost of acquiring a ISBN is too much for a historical group that has a very small budget.
I was congradulated when I added the information back in 2008, now I am told that my work is all crap. So you win. I will not be editing ANY pages from this point forward. I do find your "conflict of interest" statement fascinating, I surely doubt every page of Wikipedia is written by a someone that has no interest in the subject.
Eagle Mountain RR ( talk) 14:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, please express your opinion on this subject on its talk page. Thanks! — Andy Anderson 05:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Please read MOS:BCE before changing BC/AD style to BCE/CE in future. In particular:
Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change.
— Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, section 2.3.2
Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 11:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi S. Rich,
I'm looking to bring Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years_in_science out of defunct status. You marked it defunct on 2014/04/30 ( [7]). Was this done simply because it had been inactive for awhile, or for some other reason? Metawade ( talk) 16:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Metawade: Defunct because of no editing on it for some years. Best wishes on your efforts to revive! – S. Rich ( talk) 05:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw that you made edits to Fractional Reserve Banking recently. I wonder if you would like to vote or pass comment on this rather important proposed change to the page => Time to change which theory gets prominence? - BTW, yes I know that this has been discussed before, but I think that there are good reasons why this issue should periodically be reviewed. Cheers Reissgo ( talk) 08:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on the article on Fake news site !!!
I added a little bit to it from a few sources.
Do you think it now looks good enough to not be deleted from Wikipedia?
69.50.70.9 ( talk) 05:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
You recently requested speedy deletion of {{
Libertarianism sidebar/sandbox}} under the T3 criteria (that it substantially duplicates another template). However, in the case of templates under the /sandbox
naming convention, that is precisely the point: to serve as a staging area for template development.
Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases has some further information on this if you're interested.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
10:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Which naming conventions are you referring to? Nemo 15:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
As per WP:ERA, please don't change era BC/AD to BCE/CE as you did here. I notice that you've already been told about this above. Paul August ☎ 18:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Please stop removing hyphens from ISBN numbers. Correct ISBNs have hyphens and the placement of the hyphens reflects the registration group and registrant id. You are removing meaningful information for no apparent reason and damaging reference information as you do so. -- RL0919 ( talk) 09:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Srich32977,
I'm hoping you can help me have an edit made to a Wikipedia page, being as I cannot due to my conflict of interest--my client would like to be moved from the List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council to the list of List of former members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, being as they haven't belonged to ALEC since 2012. I've left a note at Talk:List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council#Association No Longer a Member with documentation. Would you be able to assist?
Thanks in advance!
( Bgluckman ( talk) 15:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC))
I see you commented at User talk:DubaiTerminator/ub/formerpage. I am not sure exactly what the problem was but do these pages User:DubaiTerminator/elderscrolls, User:DubaiTerminator/template/shepard fall under the same criteria of WP:UPNO and WP:FAKEARTICLE? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 14:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
You might be interested in Talk:James Robart#Should there be detail about the travel ban case, or not?. Sundayclose ( talk) 23:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've started a discussion on the Talk Page for Saskatchewan on the language issue - hope you will participate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 10:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits you made recently to Age of Enlightenment. You made some mistakes:
Do you want to make these changes, or shall I?
My general advice would be "if in doubt, leave it alone". If however you want to make style changes, more consistency would be desirable. Again, thank you for your work, but my advice would be to slow down and take more care. AWhiteC ( talk) 22:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
You undid my edit on Stefan M. article with following justification:"Completely non-RS -- appears to be a blog comment and nothing more." Not true. The quotation is from webpage https://www.freedomofmind.com section "group listing". See freedman radio on the list: https://www.freedomofmind.com/Info/list.php Freedomofmind.com is a cult-information source apparently upheld by Steven A. Hassan ( https://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/prof_detail.php?profid=108149&p=10), Steve Guziec and Rachel Bernstein. Specialist opinion: "Steven Hassan is a compelling spokesman on the topic of cult mind control, which encompasses issues of human identity and our innate psychological vulnerability to dissociate. In addition, he educates and challenges us to think about the groups using mind control techniques in our culture, and how to help those affected reclaim their lives. His commitment to this neglected area of human experience is exemplary. At my invitation, Steven has taught psychiatry residents at Brigham and Women's Hospital about these issues for the last 14 years. Knowledge of these issues is crucial for all mental health professionals." -- Mary K. McCarthy, M.D. Harvard Medical School. This is a genuine source. Furthermore, Stefan Molineux himself is nothing but a blogger and if we actually followed your criterions, this article shouldn't exist at all. In any case, the source is not a blog but a cult-information webpage. -- Raži ( talk) 16:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Why are you keeping the biased language and information on Charles Murray's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raider1918 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
We now have 804 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm serving as faculty sponsor for a group called "gays, lesbians, queers and trannies against safe spaces" at my university (I being the tranny). The snowflakes need to be purged if we are going to save liberalism (and fun, generally).
But you're a libertarian, not a liberal. I wonder how you voted in 16'? Steeletrap ( talk) 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'm reaching out to you since you have been one of the top contributors to American Legislative Exchange Council. There are a number of recent discussions at Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council that could benefit from additional input. You are invited to participate. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention here.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 00:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Would you like to add the discretionary sanction tag to his talkpage please? I reverted some vandalism a few days ago. I will try to expand his page with referenced info from Jstor, etc., soon. Zigzig20s ( talk) 02:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Srich, thank you very much for being kind, by giving useful links to beginners and being helpful. Just recently, I got around to exploring Wikipedia's messaging system, so the thanks is very belated. Thanks once again, 2know4power ( talk) 20:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC). P.S. Conversation is here
We need good admins like you. Are you ready, yet? Atsme 📞 📧 16:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
How does that work then?
While I agree that political corruption can be an issue under many types of systems, that doesn't make it not a weakness of Capitalism.
( Personal attack removed) GliderMaven ( talk) 22:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain the Depreciated template edits you have been making Thanks. Unconventional2 ( talk) 01:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Better to steer clear of anything that editors might view as stalking, particularly with your RfA coming along when the time is right. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with... my own talk page. Why? It is not rendering (displaying) some comments by me and others. (Like the Los Angeles Metro revisions section immediately above.) They appear in the Editing window, but nowhere else. (At the same time this help message IS rendering.) I've re-started by computer, run diagnostics on it, and reset my preferences to no avail. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joan Harvey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Harvey until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn ( talk) 17:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Amigo, I'm not sure the refimprove template addresses the problem with Oceana. The current article text may be verified by the references, but there don't appear to be independent RS citations that establish notability. Given the personal attacks and unconstructive talk page thread, I'm loath to revisit the matter just now. At first I thought perhaps the other editor had some relationship to the subject, but he appears to deny that. Sooner or later more eyes will fall upon the page and the article will sink or swim. Meanwhile, I defer to your professional judgment. Do you think this is a notable topic? If so there should be some coverage of it from better sources, I would think. I learned the constructive function of the improvement templates from you a few years back. The talk page thread seems to indicate some confusion between a notability tag and an AfD. I suppose at some point an AfD would force the community to adjudicate the issue, but that seems premature. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the archiving. Abel ( talk) 23:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to you sir/madam at FEE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.184.18 ( talk) 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
You seem a bit more active these days. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
He was the most famous President at FEE so i think his story should be back in with rs footnotes! 166.172.61.43 ( talk) 10:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
As a participant in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen, you may be interested in participating in the related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen (politician).-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 18:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Why do you keep changing the Harvard Political Review's circulation number? The source you are citing has no mention of the circulation number (7,935). Where are you getting that number? While the page you cite does not contain the number 7,935, that page does link to another page that has the circulation number as reported by the Harvard Political Review. The current number that the Harvard Political Review reports is 2,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoureProbablyTryingReallyHard ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you please remove the content which is in copyright violation? I don't see where it is. Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 06:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for welcoming me. I hope to become a valuable contributor, once I learn better how things work at Wikipedia.
I found a number of errors on The Heartland Institute page and spent some time fixing the errors. However, none of my edits seem to have resulted in any actual changes to the relevant page -- because someone else quickly came in and unceremoniously deleted everything I wrote.
For example, The Heartland Institute does not engage in lobbying efforts. Its early work had nothing to do with government smoking bans. The listed Heartland publications should include 33 books. Errors such as these make the entire article appear untrustworthy and unfair. I just wanted to help correct some clear flaws in the article, but others seem to find this activity very unwelcome.
Perhaps you can help me to understand how to fix mistakes when I find them in Wikipedia articles. How should I proceed?
Peter Thusat Co-CEO & Intelligence Advisor Safos & Thusat, LLC 14805 Detroit Avenue Cleveland, OH 44107
peter@thusat.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterthusat Tel: +1 216 264 9610 Fax: +1 216 521 5033 Skype: peter.thusat — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterThusat ( talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
While I am sure there is a policy behind this, why sanitize a talk page by removing personal attacks made by someone else? I do not see the logic in censorship to protecting the guilty. Abel ( talk) 00:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer of adoption. Have you adopted others? If so, who and what steps did you take?
I'm not aware of any past interactions between us, other than the one just started at Talk:The Heartland Institute. Any other interactions you recall? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
not ssure how to talk to you. i was trying to make a change to make the grammar match up, plus align with historical context. i seldom ever edit here. Yet I'm being told its Vandalism. I also can't reach "consensus" with someone when they have the power to block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.161.142 ( talk) 19:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Hastymashi. In regards to an article, Saskatchewan, I cannot find anywhere that says French is an official language in the Province of Saskatchewan nor the Government of Saskatchewan nor their official webpage:
http://www.gov.sk.ca/ The references cited does not say French is an official language of the Province of Saskatchewan. I don't even understand who allowed these citations to be cited which says nothing about French is the official language of the province of Saskatchewan.
The 1st citation is just a 2011 Census result from Statistics Canada: Which part of the Census makes you think French is the most important language among all other minority languages: English 872,250, German 26,965, Cree 24,045, French 18,935, Ukranian 14,395, Tagalog 10,990, Dene 8,375, Chinese n.o.s, 5,540.
Of 965,925 people questioned in Saskatchewan, only 47,000 people knows French, that's just 4.90% of the population in Saskatchewan. How is French important if only 5% of the population speaks French? "The 2011 census added the question “can this person speak English or French well enough to carry on a conversation?”. 965,925 people in Saskatchewan report being able to only speak English, while only 430 people report being able to only speak French. There are 46,570 people who report being able to carry on a conversation in both official languages."
The 2nd citation refers to what the "Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages" is doing to help French-Canadians to communicate with the provincial government by providing provincial government services in French. It DOES not in any way to say that French is the official language of those provinces.
– Hastymashi (talk) 3:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hastymashi (
talk •
contribs)
Hello. I see that you reverted my additions to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area article. I don't understand why you did this. I've added a bunch of museums as well as airports and education to the article which I feel add value to the article. This is why I have spent hours adding useful information. Could you explain why I am wrong? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesnote ( talk • contribs) 07:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)>
Please help. The article 'fee' says it is a think tank but when I place this in the summary intro, one editor keeps taking it away. If you look in the article, the 'fee' is one of the oldest and #46 'think tank' so this should not be cut out. Please read oon the talk page to see ad homonem attacks and so forth. 166.171.187.167 ( talk) 12:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Read untill you are convinced. here are reliable sources stating THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=da&as_sdt=0,5&q=thc+cancer+cells+apoptosis
now correct your mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulfarf ( talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure why you didn't like my edit but I won't waste my time on it anymore. That site was a great resource for me when I needed to find section 8 housing. I don't see how relevant information like that is discouraged. I also don't see how it violates any rules but I'm sure you'll justify it somehow. Have fun. Benefitshelp ( talk) 02:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't look like I'm the only one that's had issues with you. Benefitshelp ( talk) 04:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Could you explain your reasoning behind adding ELs to Goodreads to articles? There appears to be very little in, for instance, this page here that isn't, or couldn't be, already on the Wikipedia article. This appears, to me, to fall very much within WP:ELNO, (specifically points 1, 10, 14 and 17), and particularly because "GoodReads" is essentially a social-media front for the commercial operations of Amazon. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Kemo Sabe, check out the meaning of "hoi polloi" in a dictionary. I didn't mean to refer to or compare you to Curly Larry and Moe. Just that public reviews and polls don't meet WP standards for RS. I suspect most readers understood no such reference was intended, but you might wish to circle back there. We do have a new restaurant by that name here not far from my flat, but its too chic for my expat tastes. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk
The first source, the LP Platform, absolutely does not mention the NAP at all. The second source is opinion, and there are dozens just like it from all sides. The fact that the author found it necessary to highlight his position that the NAP is the core of libertarianism demonstrates that it is not the core for every libertarian. JasonW1415 ( talk) 21:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Here are some sources: Yeager, Leland B. Ethics As Social Science: The Moral Philosophy of Social Cooperation. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2001. p. 283 http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/92/1605.pdf / http://www.jstor.org/stable/4144964?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Charles Murray, David Friedman, David Boaz, and R.W. Bradford. What's Right vs. What Works. Liberty. January 2005, Volume 19, Number 1, Page 31
In fact, the overwhelming majority of libertarians are not adherents to the NAP, and the overwhelming majority of libertarian literature is consequentialist. This is true of both the Party and the more general term. JasonW1415 ( talk) 21:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. JasonW1415 ( talk) 21:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The NAP page is now demonstrably false. What is the process to get a review? JasonW1415 ( talk) 20:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I'm contacting you regarding the consensus you had established here. Back them and edit was done which had stood up to recently, until someone had edited the article against that consensus. I've started an edit request which was denied with an explanation that there is no consensus, although I had put the link. I wouldn't contact you as soon as this if I had believed this is a simple misunderstanding (however I'm maintaining the benefit of the doubt in the discussion). I'm concerned that this edit was not noticed by any of the people who had participated in the original RfC and who had opposed that consensus. It seems that they are very quick to react when the article is edited against their stand, but they are not willing to answer to my edit request, although they are familiar with the RfC and the consensus. From my previous encounters with some of the editors involved in that article, I have no doubt that this won't go easily and that certain people will try to obstruct to revert the edit that had been done without and against a standing consensus. 89.164.127.101 ( talk) 16:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the information, but you removed items to Brady Harran's Wikipedia page ( /info/en/?search=Brady_Haran) that I didn't add and had been there for years previously. Namely, the Hello Internet flag. Please at least leave that alone. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatjh ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. About the edit of the Cannabis article in the section about cancer I added the fact that THC kills cancer and tumor cells. The source i added is a reliable source. The source is not the first and not the only. There are many universities that have confirmed that THC kills cancer and tumor cells. Although not your intention your revert of my comment is vandalism. Pleas repair!!!
Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulfarf ( talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Sir, I believe that the info re: Bataan Death March photo is more accurate then present info. My uncle Ralph Frank Maze, USMC Retired (deceased) who survived the march years later before his passing showed me, I was a Marine at the time, that photo and described in detail the date, location, etc. I have no cause to doubt him. This website, http://valor.militarytimes.com/recipient.php?recipientid=51504#.uptoh3dgwuy.facebook, confirms his POW status and I have photos of him and my father that may be of assistance in clarifying this claim. His profile and features match my Father's, his brother.
Respectfully, Jim Maze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmaze9392 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, is it now accepted that the US government "stage-managed" 9/11 ? Or that 80% of Indian tax revenues ... etc. His is a difficult article to source because there is so much of that sort of guff flying about but I'm pretty sure it counts as conspiracy theorising. - Sitush ( talk) 21:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Please do not restore content challenged on WP:BLP grounds to articles about living people, as you do here. [1] Also, as you have noted on my talk page [2] the article in question, Hillary Clinton, is covered by discretionary sanctions. Aggressive edits like this may subject your account to temporary blocks if deemed appropriate by administrators to maintain stability of the encyclopedia. Thanks, - Wikidemon ( talk) 02:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your many contributions to the Wikipedia cause. Unfortunately your recently edit removal of the years on the reference dates at Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 cause a major error in reference list. Please refer to WP:CS or MOS:NUM when editing or creating references. Thank you. DrFargi ( talk) 10:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I could use your advice as the editor who had done this closure. A group of Serbian editors have made a fort out of that article. They are banning every discussion and user who don't go along their way. However, when an user comes along which inserts Serbian nationalistic viewpoints [3] [4] they don't revert him even if it goes against the earlier mentioned consensus. Should I try to establish the consensus or let them completely control that article? It's hard since everyone who opposes them is being banned, including me. I hope you will review the edits that go against the rfc that you had closed, regardless of the accusations you hear from them. 141.136.252.195 ( talk) 17:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Note that I'm the same person with the same problem as in this subsection of your talk page. So this just repeats once again. 141.136.252.195 ( talk) 23:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I could use your advice as the editor who had done this closure. A group of Serbian editors have made a fort out of that article. They are banning every discussion and user who don't go along their way. However, when an user comes along which inserts Serbian nationalistic viewpoints [5] [6] they don't revert him even if it goes against the earlier mentioned consensus. Should I try to establish the consensus or let them completely control that article? It's hard since everyone who opposes them is being banned, including me. I hope you will review the edits that go against the rfc that you had closed, regardless of the accusations you hear from them. 141.136.252.195 ( talk) 17:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Note that I'm the same person with the same problem as in this subsection of your talk page. So this just repeats once again. 141.136.252.195 ( talk) 23:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
With reference to the edits I made to Bergdahl's page, I am in the sister company of Blackfoot (B) Company which has always shared the same building on Fort Richardson. I cannot confirm the truth to the Soldier of the Week honor, for which, a soldier is awarded a designated parking spot next to the company commander's parking spot. I can, however, confirm that he was indeed in B CO, 1-501 IN (ABN), 4 BCT (ABN), 25 ID. I'm sure I could Google the proof, but I am uneducated on how to site a source on a Wikipedia article. This particular article doesn't weigh heavily with me regarding correctness, so I am not too worried about it in this case. However, when editing articles in the future, I value the knowledge of how to do so properly. Thank you for your time.
Vsmeier2282 ( talk) 05:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you shortened two decimal places to whole numbers when reporting vote percentages here:
/info/en/?search=Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29#Presidential_candidate_performance
While you used one decimal place here:
/info/en/?search=Gary_Johnson_presidential_campaign,_2012#Results
In looking around wikipedia, it seems like most places that report vote percentages use one or two decimal places.
Example one decimal:
/info/en/?search=Republican_Party_%28United_States%29#Republican_Party_in_Presidential_Elections
Example two decimal:
/info/en/?search=Green_Party_of_the_United_States#Electoral_results
Example two decimal:
/info/en/?search=Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#State_results
I've even seen it taken to five decimal places:
/info/en/?search=Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidential_tickets
So why only use whole numbers for the Libertarian Party?
Thank you,
AJPEG (
talk)
02:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@ AJPEG: I'm trying to apply MOS:UNCERTAINTY quidelines. If we look at the significant figures in some of these tables, it seems 5 decimal places is absurd. Thanks for your comment. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this really how we do page numbers -- "237-45" rather than "237-245"? I don't see the benefit. We don't lack for storage space, and it takes the brain an extra clock cycle to process. If this is written down as a standard, well OK, but if it's just your personal preference, it was better before. Herostratus ( talk) 01:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I totally give up. The entire article is based on a single book published for a historical group. Unfortunately the book doesn't have an ISBN. So you might as well just delete the whole page or revert it back to its early 2008 version before I added all the additional information. Sure, I might not have added all the necessary, line-by-line references, but the information is solid, from a well-researched book that doesn't have an ISBN because, quite frankly, the cost of acquiring a ISBN is too much for a historical group that has a very small budget.
I was congradulated when I added the information back in 2008, now I am told that my work is all crap. So you win. I will not be editing ANY pages from this point forward. I do find your "conflict of interest" statement fascinating, I surely doubt every page of Wikipedia is written by a someone that has no interest in the subject.
Eagle Mountain RR ( talk) 14:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, please express your opinion on this subject on its talk page. Thanks! — Andy Anderson 05:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Please read MOS:BCE before changing BC/AD style to BCE/CE in future. In particular:
Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change.
— Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, section 2.3.2
Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 11:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi S. Rich,
I'm looking to bring Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years_in_science out of defunct status. You marked it defunct on 2014/04/30 ( [7]). Was this done simply because it had been inactive for awhile, or for some other reason? Metawade ( talk) 16:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Metawade: Defunct because of no editing on it for some years. Best wishes on your efforts to revive! – S. Rich ( talk) 05:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw that you made edits to Fractional Reserve Banking recently. I wonder if you would like to vote or pass comment on this rather important proposed change to the page => Time to change which theory gets prominence? - BTW, yes I know that this has been discussed before, but I think that there are good reasons why this issue should periodically be reviewed. Cheers Reissgo ( talk) 08:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on the article on Fake news site !!!
I added a little bit to it from a few sources.
Do you think it now looks good enough to not be deleted from Wikipedia?
69.50.70.9 ( talk) 05:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
You recently requested speedy deletion of {{
Libertarianism sidebar/sandbox}} under the T3 criteria (that it substantially duplicates another template). However, in the case of templates under the /sandbox
naming convention, that is precisely the point: to serve as a staging area for template development.
Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases has some further information on this if you're interested.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
10:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Which naming conventions are you referring to? Nemo 15:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
As per WP:ERA, please don't change era BC/AD to BCE/CE as you did here. I notice that you've already been told about this above. Paul August ☎ 18:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Please stop removing hyphens from ISBN numbers. Correct ISBNs have hyphens and the placement of the hyphens reflects the registration group and registrant id. You are removing meaningful information for no apparent reason and damaging reference information as you do so. -- RL0919 ( talk) 09:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Srich32977,
I'm hoping you can help me have an edit made to a Wikipedia page, being as I cannot due to my conflict of interest--my client would like to be moved from the List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council to the list of List of former members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, being as they haven't belonged to ALEC since 2012. I've left a note at Talk:List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council#Association No Longer a Member with documentation. Would you be able to assist?
Thanks in advance!
( Bgluckman ( talk) 15:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC))
I see you commented at User talk:DubaiTerminator/ub/formerpage. I am not sure exactly what the problem was but do these pages User:DubaiTerminator/elderscrolls, User:DubaiTerminator/template/shepard fall under the same criteria of WP:UPNO and WP:FAKEARTICLE? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 14:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
You might be interested in Talk:James Robart#Should there be detail about the travel ban case, or not?. Sundayclose ( talk) 23:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've started a discussion on the Talk Page for Saskatchewan on the language issue - hope you will participate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 10:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits you made recently to Age of Enlightenment. You made some mistakes:
Do you want to make these changes, or shall I?
My general advice would be "if in doubt, leave it alone". If however you want to make style changes, more consistency would be desirable. Again, thank you for your work, but my advice would be to slow down and take more care. AWhiteC ( talk) 22:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
You undid my edit on Stefan M. article with following justification:"Completely non-RS -- appears to be a blog comment and nothing more." Not true. The quotation is from webpage https://www.freedomofmind.com section "group listing". See freedman radio on the list: https://www.freedomofmind.com/Info/list.php Freedomofmind.com is a cult-information source apparently upheld by Steven A. Hassan ( https://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/prof_detail.php?profid=108149&p=10), Steve Guziec and Rachel Bernstein. Specialist opinion: "Steven Hassan is a compelling spokesman on the topic of cult mind control, which encompasses issues of human identity and our innate psychological vulnerability to dissociate. In addition, he educates and challenges us to think about the groups using mind control techniques in our culture, and how to help those affected reclaim their lives. His commitment to this neglected area of human experience is exemplary. At my invitation, Steven has taught psychiatry residents at Brigham and Women's Hospital about these issues for the last 14 years. Knowledge of these issues is crucial for all mental health professionals." -- Mary K. McCarthy, M.D. Harvard Medical School. This is a genuine source. Furthermore, Stefan Molineux himself is nothing but a blogger and if we actually followed your criterions, this article shouldn't exist at all. In any case, the source is not a blog but a cult-information webpage. -- Raži ( talk) 16:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Why are you keeping the biased language and information on Charles Murray's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raider1918 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
We now have 804 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm serving as faculty sponsor for a group called "gays, lesbians, queers and trannies against safe spaces" at my university (I being the tranny). The snowflakes need to be purged if we are going to save liberalism (and fun, generally).
But you're a libertarian, not a liberal. I wonder how you voted in 16'? Steeletrap ( talk) 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'm reaching out to you since you have been one of the top contributors to American Legislative Exchange Council. There are a number of recent discussions at Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council that could benefit from additional input. You are invited to participate. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention here.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 00:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)