This page 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.

I think you were very wrong to remove my change to Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility— "because it did not appear constructive". I removed a link that did not work! It was NOT constructive of YOU to restore a dead link to that article. Please be more careful in the future when you make accusations like that against people trying to clean up an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.133.108 ( talk) 04:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your message! I apologize for any confusion that may have been caused. The reason your change was reverted is that you removed relevant external links from the article as well as the article categorization and stub template tag. I'd be happy to elaborate if you'd like more detail on why that information would be considered relevant. Please let me know if you'd like to chat further on the change. Thank you! Eric-Wester ( talk) 04:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

PS - I have removed the two dead links from the external links section! Eric-Wester ( talk) 04:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The listing of the Secular Republic of Turkey under Neo-Nazism was always under the European category. Why was it moved to Asia? Why isn't Russia moved to Asia too? Turkey is a Transcontinental nation physically & politically in Europe. Istanbul is a Great European City, a nation in the UN, NATO, COUNCIL OF EUROPE, ORGANISATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE, ASSOCIATE MEMBER OF THE EEC SINCE 1963 AND IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR FULL EU MEMBERSHIP. So why has Turkey been moved to the Asia listing and Russia allowed to stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan121 ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Aryan121: Thank you for your message. You may want to start a discussion on the article's talk page and address your main concerns about removing the content from the article. If a consensus is reached, it seems reasonable to go ahead and make those changes. Eric-Wester ( talk) 00:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.

I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 20:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note that additional talk page archive can be retrieved by viewing my talk page history.