Hello, Rja13ww33, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Hi! I removed
the POV tag you added because you never explained why you added it, in the edit summary or on the article talk page. Why do you think the article is POV?
WhisperToMe (
talk) 16:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Gary Webb. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Viriditas ( talk) 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ⁓ Hello 71 16:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The Burkie Barnstar | |
Is hereby awarded for your extraordinary contributions to the topic of Conservatism in particular keeping
Ronald Reagan at a level of high quality.
The Burkie (named for Edmund Burke) is the highest award given at WikiProject Conservatism. – Lionel( talk) 08:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC) |
Your comment on the information you removed from Reaganomics was "see talk page". What part of the talk page are you referring to? NewEnglandYankee ( talk) 01:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Skjoldbro ( talk) 01:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Looking at your reverts at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, I do not see how an exemption to WP:3RR immediately applies to them. Please bear that in mind before you revert again. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
(Concerning your selective notification of editors at Talk:Ronald Reagan) – dlthewave ☎ 18:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Ronald Reagan. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Toa Nidhiki05 18:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Your identity and location have been noted. 82.27.90.157 ( talk) 14:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a RfC on the Reagan article on a subject in which you have previously commented: /info/en/?search=Talk:Ronald_Reagan#RfC:_Reagan_and_Apartheid Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Rja13ww33,
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Rja13ww33,
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Rja13ww33,
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
- SummerPhD v2.0 23:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The new editor on the Reagan topic has less than 20 edits yet seems to know how to use Wiki syntax. I'm concerned they may be a previously blocked editor though I wouldn't know who. Currently they appear to be a WP:SPA. Springee ( talk) 15:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Rja13ww33 . Please consider joining the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disputes_and_edit-warring_around_KikiCamarena-related_articles. I'm trying to get all the disputes and edit-warring under control. Are you aware of other spillover around this dispute in other articles? -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 15:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye on my edits. Sources can contradict. There is not too much on the list, but I don't wish to needlessly use up too much of your time. Btw, Fatal Vision is extremely well-written and researched. Trying to keep a NPOV on the article here, but even though I was convinced of his guilt beforehand, McGinniss has further solidified my opinion. Regards,-- Kieronoldham ( talk) 00:29, 21 October 2020 (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... Does anyone know the proper way to cite the page number from a reference that has unnumbered pages? Do you just mention the section in a special note for the reference? Thanks. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 22:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
at=
parameter that can be used to specify a location in a document using something like section number or stanza.
— jmcgnh
(talk)
(contribs) 00:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to contact you. There is a potential error in the article which I believe you can rectify, if a valid error, as you own a copy of A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald. According to Fatal Vision (p. 610), the blond hair found in Colette's palm had been her own. Later in the article, text reads: Although a single hair found stuck to Colette's left palm was cited by MacDonald as belonging to one of the alleged intruders, DNA testing revealed the hair to source from his body (p. 474 of A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald). Are we referring to two separate body hairs? Thanks for your time. Regards, -- Kieronoldham ( talk) 02:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Rja13ww33. I think I am finished with the Jeffrey MacDonald article. There may be some minor edits, here and there, going forward, but it is safe to say I have exhausted the printed references I own. I have spent three months largely devoted to the expansion of the article. I believe this may be one of the most informative articles I have devoted focus to in the twelve years on Wikipedia. All the best for 2021. Regards, -- Kieronoldham ( talk) 01:33, 30 December 2020 (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... Is there a group or possibly a committee I [someone who isn't a administrator] can bring up some concerns about article content to? I know there are a few committees here.....but I am unsure which ones (if any) to bring this up to. Thanks. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 19:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 00:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi.
Sorry to bother you. According to Wikipedia's List of Unsolved Mysteries episodes article, an episode focusing on the MacDonald murders was aired in 2010, but from what I can find online, it was aired Sep. 1992. Both are titled Final Appeal. Is the 2010 episode a revisit/rehash of what was broadcast in 1992? May also need adding to the article.
Regards, -- Kieronoldham ( talk) 01:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Rja13ww33 – I plan to nominate Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign, an article I have recently expanded for GA. It has been cop-edited and received a review in it's peer review page. It would be great if you can help me by reviewing the article and letting me know if anything major needs to be addressed. I intend to nominate it as soon as possible, as the GAN backlog drive is underway, and it has higher chances to be review quicker. No issues if too busy. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 16:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for you help defending the president lede page. I don't know who the wacho Viriditas account is but do you think he is gonna get away with destroying the article with left wing bias and lede editing? Let me know please and thank you for standing up to the left wing editor who is trying to destroy the strong standing of the Reagan article. 2600:1700:D090:3250:DC1F:8440:DB7E:BA5D ( talk) 07:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Could you provide some rationale for your revert of my recent edit to the lead? "Supply side" is not an economic theory. It's a policy approach, which is quite a different thing. I appreciate your concern about editing longstanding text, but this particular article is full of content that does not hold up very well with respect to rigorous mainstream economic thought. If you have a specific objection, please present it on article talk and let's see what discussion develops. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not appropriate for us to fill up the talk page regarding matters related to my tone or your tone. I'll respectfully ask that if you wish to make additional comments about that please do so at WP:ANI, a more appropriate place for such discussion. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 04:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rja13ww33. I have begun a thread Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Allegations of CIA drug trafficking about our discussion Talk:Allegations of CIA drug trafficking#Poppy cultivation. You have repeatedly plainly altered what you claim to be copy and paste of a source. I see no other way to resolve this. Invasive Spices ( talk) 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rja13ww33, I've made additional changes to Reagan's legacy section. Does that section look right to you or am I... making more mistakes? Also, I can't help but think that there isn't really puffery in there. Wow ( talk) 15:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
|
Reagan's supporters have asserted that this was his typical anti-big government rhetoric, without racial context or intent.Wow ( talk) 05:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure where else to find them. If a citation has a Google Books link, it's probably because it's not on archive.org or some database, but here's the new list based on this revision:
Citations that need checking
|
---|
|
-- Wow ( talk) 03:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Would you be willing to enable email? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:27, 2 February 2023 (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... Today my watchlist is screwy. Is it because of the maintenance that is going on? At the top of the watchlist page, it says: "Many toolforge tools are offline; this may impact bots and other hosted tools." Is that what is going on? Thanks. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 19:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Hope we can have a productive discussion here!
The State of Vietnam was signatory, according to the CIA's file, CIA and the House of Ngo:
"The Viet Minh destroyed colonial rule in Indochina when they defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu on 7 May 1954. Negotiations beginning in Geneva a day later led in July to an agreement signed by France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, Communist China, and the three Associated States of Indochina, including Ho Chi Minh's Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The United States agreed to respect the Geneva Accords, but, unhappy with the provision for the temporary division of Vietnam at the 17th parallel, refused to sign. Bao Dai, the puppet emperor of the French, remained in Cannes, and his new prime minister, Ngo DDinh Diem, had played no role in the war or in the negotiations that ended it." Jumopil ( talk) 17:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I think whatever is agreed at the Vietnam War talk page should be replicated on the South Vietnam article since it looks like you want to make identical changes to both articles 154.126.11.50 ( talk) 04:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I am disengaging so I don't lead them into an AE sanction. I understand the compulsion to debate - I'm an architect and could give a two-hour dissertation on steel in fire, fireproofing, trusses, failure modes, and construction types, but it's not going to be useful. It's very clear that they've absorbed a superficial set of Truther talking points - very superficial, since it contradicts some Truther Truths. I wouldn't waste any more time, as long as they don't commit any BLP violations or disrupt articles. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I saw your post Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 162 - Wikipedia on Villiage Pump. Were there any resolutions, decisions or projects that came from that?
I'm a new editor and I've noticed a skew in content and editing habits on controversial articles. I'm wondering if any formal attention has been given to the topic beyond debating. Tonymetz 💬 21:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Given the currency of the topic and a lack of a detailed article on WP, I've started a draft at User:Acroterion/Fracture critical bridge. While I have a general knowledge of the subject and can work out an outline, I'm not a structural engineer. Please feel free to jump in and improve, well, everything, I'd greatly appreciate it. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I have raised the discussion as to whether how we should reflect's Simpson's culpability for the "crime of the century", much like LHO is named "guilty". Discussions open here. 92.17.198.220 ( talk) 21:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The talk section is "How should we treat Simpson's “culpability” in the murders; neutral or adamant?" 92.17.198.220 ( talk) 21:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Rja13ww33, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Hi! I removed
the POV tag you added because you never explained why you added it, in the edit summary or on the article talk page. Why do you think the article is POV?
WhisperToMe (
talk) 16:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Gary Webb. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Viriditas ( talk) 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ⁓ Hello 71 16:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The Burkie Barnstar | |
Is hereby awarded for your extraordinary contributions to the topic of Conservatism in particular keeping
Ronald Reagan at a level of high quality.
The Burkie (named for Edmund Burke) is the highest award given at WikiProject Conservatism. – Lionel( talk) 08:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC) |
Your comment on the information you removed from Reaganomics was "see talk page". What part of the talk page are you referring to? NewEnglandYankee ( talk) 01:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Skjoldbro ( talk) 01:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Looking at your reverts at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, I do not see how an exemption to WP:3RR immediately applies to them. Please bear that in mind before you revert again. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
(Concerning your selective notification of editors at Talk:Ronald Reagan) – dlthewave ☎ 18:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Ronald Reagan. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Toa Nidhiki05 18:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Your identity and location have been noted. 82.27.90.157 ( talk) 14:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a RfC on the Reagan article on a subject in which you have previously commented: /info/en/?search=Talk:Ronald_Reagan#RfC:_Reagan_and_Apartheid Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Rja13ww33,
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Rja13ww33,
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Rja13ww33,
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
- SummerPhD v2.0 23:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The new editor on the Reagan topic has less than 20 edits yet seems to know how to use Wiki syntax. I'm concerned they may be a previously blocked editor though I wouldn't know who. Currently they appear to be a WP:SPA. Springee ( talk) 15:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Rja13ww33 . Please consider joining the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disputes_and_edit-warring_around_KikiCamarena-related_articles. I'm trying to get all the disputes and edit-warring under control. Are you aware of other spillover around this dispute in other articles? -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 15:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye on my edits. Sources can contradict. There is not too much on the list, but I don't wish to needlessly use up too much of your time. Btw, Fatal Vision is extremely well-written and researched. Trying to keep a NPOV on the article here, but even though I was convinced of his guilt beforehand, McGinniss has further solidified my opinion. Regards,-- Kieronoldham ( talk) 00:29, 21 October 2020 (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... Does anyone know the proper way to cite the page number from a reference that has unnumbered pages? Do you just mention the section in a special note for the reference? Thanks. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 22:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
at=
parameter that can be used to specify a location in a document using something like section number or stanza.
— jmcgnh
(talk)
(contribs) 00:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to contact you. There is a potential error in the article which I believe you can rectify, if a valid error, as you own a copy of A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald. According to Fatal Vision (p. 610), the blond hair found in Colette's palm had been her own. Later in the article, text reads: Although a single hair found stuck to Colette's left palm was cited by MacDonald as belonging to one of the alleged intruders, DNA testing revealed the hair to source from his body (p. 474 of A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald). Are we referring to two separate body hairs? Thanks for your time. Regards, -- Kieronoldham ( talk) 02:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Rja13ww33. I think I am finished with the Jeffrey MacDonald article. There may be some minor edits, here and there, going forward, but it is safe to say I have exhausted the printed references I own. I have spent three months largely devoted to the expansion of the article. I believe this may be one of the most informative articles I have devoted focus to in the twelve years on Wikipedia. All the best for 2021. Regards, -- Kieronoldham ( talk) 01:33, 30 December 2020 (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... Is there a group or possibly a committee I [someone who isn't a administrator] can bring up some concerns about article content to? I know there are a few committees here.....but I am unsure which ones (if any) to bring this up to. Thanks. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 19:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 00:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi.
Sorry to bother you. According to Wikipedia's List of Unsolved Mysteries episodes article, an episode focusing on the MacDonald murders was aired in 2010, but from what I can find online, it was aired Sep. 1992. Both are titled Final Appeal. Is the 2010 episode a revisit/rehash of what was broadcast in 1992? May also need adding to the article.
Regards, -- Kieronoldham ( talk) 01:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Rja13ww33 – I plan to nominate Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign, an article I have recently expanded for GA. It has been cop-edited and received a review in it's peer review page. It would be great if you can help me by reviewing the article and letting me know if anything major needs to be addressed. I intend to nominate it as soon as possible, as the GAN backlog drive is underway, and it has higher chances to be review quicker. No issues if too busy. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 16:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for you help defending the president lede page. I don't know who the wacho Viriditas account is but do you think he is gonna get away with destroying the article with left wing bias and lede editing? Let me know please and thank you for standing up to the left wing editor who is trying to destroy the strong standing of the Reagan article. 2600:1700:D090:3250:DC1F:8440:DB7E:BA5D ( talk) 07:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Could you provide some rationale for your revert of my recent edit to the lead? "Supply side" is not an economic theory. It's a policy approach, which is quite a different thing. I appreciate your concern about editing longstanding text, but this particular article is full of content that does not hold up very well with respect to rigorous mainstream economic thought. If you have a specific objection, please present it on article talk and let's see what discussion develops. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
It's not appropriate for us to fill up the talk page regarding matters related to my tone or your tone. I'll respectfully ask that if you wish to make additional comments about that please do so at WP:ANI, a more appropriate place for such discussion. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 04:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rja13ww33. I have begun a thread Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Allegations of CIA drug trafficking about our discussion Talk:Allegations of CIA drug trafficking#Poppy cultivation. You have repeatedly plainly altered what you claim to be copy and paste of a source. I see no other way to resolve this. Invasive Spices ( talk) 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Rja13ww33, I've made additional changes to Reagan's legacy section. Does that section look right to you or am I... making more mistakes? Also, I can't help but think that there isn't really puffery in there. Wow ( talk) 15:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
|
Reagan's supporters have asserted that this was his typical anti-big government rhetoric, without racial context or intent.Wow ( talk) 05:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure where else to find them. If a citation has a Google Books link, it's probably because it's not on archive.org or some database, but here's the new list based on this revision:
Citations that need checking
|
---|
|
-- Wow ( talk) 03:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Would you be willing to enable email? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:27, 2 February 2023 (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... Today my watchlist is screwy. Is it because of the maintenance that is going on? At the top of the watchlist page, it says: "Many toolforge tools are offline; this may impact bots and other hosted tools." Is that what is going on? Thanks. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 19:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Hope we can have a productive discussion here!
The State of Vietnam was signatory, according to the CIA's file, CIA and the House of Ngo:
"The Viet Minh destroyed colonial rule in Indochina when they defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu on 7 May 1954. Negotiations beginning in Geneva a day later led in July to an agreement signed by France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, Communist China, and the three Associated States of Indochina, including Ho Chi Minh's Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The United States agreed to respect the Geneva Accords, but, unhappy with the provision for the temporary division of Vietnam at the 17th parallel, refused to sign. Bao Dai, the puppet emperor of the French, remained in Cannes, and his new prime minister, Ngo DDinh Diem, had played no role in the war or in the negotiations that ended it." Jumopil ( talk) 17:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I think whatever is agreed at the Vietnam War talk page should be replicated on the South Vietnam article since it looks like you want to make identical changes to both articles 154.126.11.50 ( talk) 04:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I am disengaging so I don't lead them into an AE sanction. I understand the compulsion to debate - I'm an architect and could give a two-hour dissertation on steel in fire, fireproofing, trusses, failure modes, and construction types, but it's not going to be useful. It's very clear that they've absorbed a superficial set of Truther talking points - very superficial, since it contradicts some Truther Truths. I wouldn't waste any more time, as long as they don't commit any BLP violations or disrupt articles. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I saw your post Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 162 - Wikipedia on Villiage Pump. Were there any resolutions, decisions or projects that came from that?
I'm a new editor and I've noticed a skew in content and editing habits on controversial articles. I'm wondering if any formal attention has been given to the topic beyond debating. Tonymetz 💬 21:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Given the currency of the topic and a lack of a detailed article on WP, I've started a draft at User:Acroterion/Fracture critical bridge. While I have a general knowledge of the subject and can work out an outline, I'm not a structural engineer. Please feel free to jump in and improve, well, everything, I'd greatly appreciate it. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I have raised the discussion as to whether how we should reflect's Simpson's culpability for the "crime of the century", much like LHO is named "guilty". Discussions open here. 92.17.198.220 ( talk) 21:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The talk section is "How should we treat Simpson's “culpability” in the murders; neutral or adamant?" 92.17.198.220 ( talk) 21:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)