User talk:BX9438Q

Idaho stop
I had all of the bills cited, but you deleted that. I can go back in and add those citations, but it's pointless if you're just going to delete them again.

I disagree that this doesn't matter. If no other states had proposed it that would say something about how it is viewed. Likewise if it has been proposed many many times, that says something different. I think it is part of the story.

I've tried to meet you halfway on this. The post has been up, with that list, for years and no one has tried to delete that. You're the only one who has found it onerous. I think you should reconsider.

Volcycle (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to me the fact that the issue matters is sufficiently verified by the five paragraphs already in the section about places that have actually implemented the policy. But if you want include the sentence about other proposed legislation and you cite your sources, I think that would be sufficient. Flyte35 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Resolution: Bills added to entry. Flyte35 (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Carole Radziwill
Your reverts continue to be nonconstructive to the article Carole Radziwill. You are removing a properly cited reference from a sentence in the article, leaving it unsourced, and changing a link in the article to go a redirect. Neither of these are "Better than before". This edit warring is immature. You have not given any clear, concise reason as to how leaving information unsourced and uncited and changing a link to a redirect are somehow beneficial. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand what you're talking about. The sentence in question is "Upon her marriage she became Princess Radziwill, but the title is rarely used." That line is sourced in this article, and the citation for that is at the end of the paragraph.
 * Sorry about the redirect. That was a mistake. Let me know if you have any additional concerns. Flyte35 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly how are your reverts beneficial to the article? I don't see the need for removing an additional source (at the end of the sentence I am sourcing) and removing "Prince" from Anthony Radziwill, even though that is the title of his page? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there's just no need for additional sourcing. You said "You are removing a properly cited reference from a sentence in the article, leaving it unsourced" and that's not what's going on. I believe the article is fine as I edited it. If you object, and can explain why you think it's necessary to include that Huffington Post article, please explain. Thanks.Flyte35 (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolution: My edits retained. Flyte35 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Capella University
All the changes in the article are explained, and with the proofs.

If you want to polish the English in the page then fine, bat do not erase all the article changes!

Joe silver 1 (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears only the last 3 paragraphs you would like to include--those beginning "In college factual ranking," "In the best colleges," and "In 2010 Capella"--are well sourced. Those seem to me appropriate (though not necessary) to include, if you can make the language clear and understandable. It seems the appropriate place to put this sort of information, if you think it's necessary, would be in the Academics section. Flyte35 (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolution: Edits under discussion not retained. Flyte35 (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism people
Hello, even though Columbia school of journalism is not mentioned in Ebenezer Ako-Adjei's article, there are documents that establish that fact and can be provided as references. Will the references be enough premise to add his name to the list of notable alumni or does it still have to be mentioned in his article? Thanks Kinvidia (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The general guideline is that a Wikipedia article establishes notability. The article should mention how the person is associated with the school. And the fact of their association should have a reliable source cited. Flyte35 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Resolution: Ako-Adjei not retained in list. Flyte35 (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Anne, Princess Royal
If you think it's so easy to find a reference for her height, then include it. Do not re-add unsourced material. DrKay (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was putting the information back in about her genealogy. I didn't realize there was unsourced material about how tall she was. But what's going on with pruning the genealogy here? It seems 5 generations are standard. Flyte35 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Four generations is fairly standard, see her elder brother, mother, father and maternal grandfather. DrKay (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All of those articles had 5-generation ancestry charts until you changed them to four. Why are you doing that? Flyte35 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you would think that. I was the one who expanded Elizabeth II to four, and got agreement on talk for that despite two editors thinking it should be restricted to fewer: Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 38. Four generations is easily sufficient in almost all cases to demonstrate relevant connections and relations. DrKay (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You definitely cut down the Elizabeth II ancestry to 4 generations (on 4 April 2018‎). You also cut down the genealogy for several other articles. Why are you doing this? Maybe you think four generations is sufficient, sure, and that everything should be cut down to remove the 5th generation, but that seems like a more general discussion to have, perhaps at WikiProject Genealogy.Flyte35 (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is the discussion that led to the consensus to present five generations? Speaking of, where is the discussion that led to the consensus to have ahnentafels anyway? Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See the diffs I provided? They're from February 2018 of me expanding the section even though the only other editors who commented wanted it reduced. Since there has been a talk page discussion, other editors should not now come along and expand it further unless they get consensus to do so on the talk page. I undid the expansion on the 4 April, which occurred 45 minutes before I undid it, because it had not been discussed and there was no consensus for expansion. DrKay (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I doubt there was a discussion that led to consensus to present five generations, or any other number of generations. That's why it's worth talking about at WikiProject Genealogy, which aims to standardize genealogical information on Wikipedia. Flyte35 (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion that I participate in the ongoing discussion about inclusion of relatively recent ancestry in royal bios. Since, unfortunately, it looks as though our point of view is under siege in an apparent war of attrition, any "rule" is likely to be used to oppose such inclusion, so I do not wish to give grist to that mill by allowing ourselves to be accused, even unjustifiably, of canvassing allies (although i

I find it clear that you have not done so). Please feel free to put forth any points I have made in these many discussions, either attributed to me or, if you concur, as your own. FactStraight (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Resolution: Weirdly ongoing discussion. My edits not retained. Flyte35 (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma
Thank you for supporting ancestry charts against crazed campaigns for their diminution or removal. LE (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this intelligent and not at all pathetic thread. May you outgrow high school name-calling in the new year. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Resolution: My edits retained. (Part of same discussion in above.) Flyte35 (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Industrial property
Hi

Thanks very much for your edits to Industrial property, I agree that there should be less info about WIPO since it has its own article, but I think there should be some information on its role in Industrial Property, what do you think about this cut down version?

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations, WIPO provides a forum for its member states to create and harmonize rules and practices for protecting IP rights, including Industrial Property. Most developed countries have protection systems that are centuries old, while developing countries continue to create legal and administrative frameworks to protect their patents, trademarks, designs and copyright. WIPO assists its member states in developing these new systems through treaty negotiation, legal and technical assistance, and training in various forms, including in the area of enforcement of IP rights.

WIPO provides international registration systems for trademarks, industrial designs and appellations of origin, and an international filing system for patents. Instead of having to file separate national applications, in different languages, in each country in which protection is sought, applicants can file a single application, in one language, with a single application fee. The WIPO-administered systems include four different mechanisms of protection for specific industrial property rights:


 * the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) System, for filing patent applications in multiple countries.
 * the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks, for trade and service marks.
 * the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs.
 * the Lisbon System for the International Registration of Appellations of Origin.

Four WIPO treaties have created classification systems that organise information on different branches of industrial property into indexed, manageable structures:


 * the Strasbourg Agreement Concerning the International Patent Classification
 * the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks
 * the Vienna Agreement Establishing an International Classification of the Figurative Elements of Marks
 * the Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center provides services for the resolution of international IP disputes between private parties. Such proceedings can include contractual disputes (such as patent and software licenses, trademark coexistence agreements, and research and development agreements) and non-contractual disputes (such as patent infringement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cummings (talk • contribs)


 * I don't think more than two paragraphs about the World Intellectual Property Organization are really that useful in the article on Industrial property, if any text is necessary. Also all of that text seems to be lifted from this document, so I don't think that really works.Flyte35 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes the text comes from that source but its CC BY-SA so there isn't a copyright issue, I'll cut it down some more and add it back in and then find some more references. John Cummings (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a copyright problem, but it's still bad to plagiarize. If you really think it's necessary to include this information, I think it's best to summarize the role of the World Intellectual Property Organization w/r/t the article on Industrial property in your own words.Flyte35 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, its not plagarism as credit is given for the original source of the information at the bottom of the article, as is required by the license. There's more information available on using text from open license sources at Adding open license text to Wikipedia. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that it's allowed. But it's bad writing. We should really only have block quotes like if it's absolutely necessary. And here it isn't. If you think it's beneficial to discuss the World Intellectual Property Organization in this article, I think you should just summarize the organization in your own words, preferably with citations from secondary sources. Flyte35 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Resolution: Information about the World Intellectual Property Organization reduced to two sentences at the beginning of the entry. Flyte35 (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Buffalo, New York
Did you check the hyperlink to the Buffalo Bisons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Bisons_(NL) before removing information from the Buffalo entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soperd (talk • contribs) 00:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe your comment is in reference to the line you recently added to the entry on Buffalo, New York. That sentence was uncited. If you think it's important to include this information you should provide sourcing. Flyte35 (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolution: Edits in question not retained. Flyte35 (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Creighton University
It's really, really weird that you're edit warring to remove one of the unsourced entries in the list of Academic honor societies in Creighton University but you're completely content to leave the other ten entries that are also unsourced. At a minimum it seems extremely unfriendly to the editor who originally added it; worse, it makes it seem like you have a bizarre vendetta against that particular organization. If you want to remove all of the unsourced material from that section, be my guest! But it's incredibly bizarre to only remove one of eleven unsourced items in that section. ElKevbo (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit you're referring to was added recently. I removed it because it didn't have sourcing. The fact that there may be other material somewhere that also doesn't have sourcing is not a valid reason to retain the newly added uncited material. I'm perfectly happy to let you to keep this material in there if you think it's important, but you have to provide sourcing. Flyte35 (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Edits in question not retained. Flyte35 (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Only because, unlike you, I'm not willing to edit war over something so trivial. The other unsourced items in this section remain and the editor who tried to add this material hasn't made any other edits to any other articles. So I don't know what you've accomplished here except possibly driving off a new editor. ElKevbo (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolution: Sourcing added. Edits retained. Flyte35 (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Ahnentafels
Just posted my comment. I hope you will read it and see my point, which is very reasonable. Respectufully, M. Armando (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

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. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Status of Grand Canyon University
There's an entire section of Grand Canyon University that discusses the complex and changing situation of who classifies the university as for-profit (Dept of Education) and who classifies it as non-profit (nearly everyone else). So surely you're going to open a discussion in the article's Talk page about your recent reversion on this topic, right? ElKevbo (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It either is a for-profit school or it is it isn't. It's not a "complex and changing situation." Which is it? Flyte35 (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the multiple sources provided in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fairly clear it's a for-profit college, even if it doesn't want to be. Flyte35 (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Flyte35 - it is a for-profit college and should be stated on wiki as such. The fact that certain outlets and the media jumped the gun on labeling it as a non-profit before it was ever approved is not our problem. Now that the Department of Ed ruled that it rejects the transition it continues to be a for-profit college. I will update our talk discussion since I was the last to provide an response back almost a year ago. Thanks guys AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)