User talk:Bus stop/Archive5

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Bond in film
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Bond in film. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  freshacconci  (✉) 22:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Village pump (policy)

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Land art
Appreciate your watching this page: Jacek Tylicki, thanks...Modernist (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, . Bus stop (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Matthew Gordon Banks
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Matthew Gordon Banks. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Check this out
...Modernist (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Student financial aid
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Student financial aid. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Your recent change on American Jews
I undid your revert, because rather than giving an explanation for it, you stated an opinion. Whatever problems you may or may not have with my additions, please express them on the talk page.

Thank you. The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

American Jews talk page
I wanted to draw your attention to my edit here. I am disappointed that you would invoke frames of reference, only to immidiately insist on one singlular frame. I was hoping we could talk about this rather than edit past each other. Newimpartial (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I agree that it is a good idea to drop the discussion on the talk page, which had drifted off-topic. However, when you say "You are convinced that we are discussing distinguishing between black people and white people, but that is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is the distinguishing between Jews who are white (the majority of Jews) and non-Jews who are white", you are clearly missing my point. If it is not possible to tell between white and non-white (or black and non-black) people "by looking", then logically it is not possible to tell between white and non-white Jewish-Americans "by looking". So, to give a specific example, in the 2020 U.S. census (assuming that the MENA classification goes through), American Jews born of two Moroccan Jewish parents would have no choice in the census instructions but to identify with the new MENA group, and therefore would not be considered "white" for census purposes. Do you really think you can tell "by looking" that they aren't white? Or are you saying that they really *are* white, even though for most purposes people from Northern Africa are not considered "white" - perhaps this is most obviously true in Europe, but it is also true in Canada and increasingly true in the U.S. How can you not see that this is relevant to the question of which Jews are "white"?Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have time
I can use input here:...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Note
I think it was you that was the target of wrath that bought him a 3-month block. Do you think 3 months is kind of harsh? I had thought to raise that question with the blocking admin - but it's really not my business, it's more like your call, since he was attacking you, not me (not this time, anyway). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, replying to your post on his talk page: He isn't blocked because he got into an argument with you; I mean, if we blocked everyone who got into an argument ... there would be no one left. You are not at risk of blocking. No one is blocked because they disagreed with someone else.
 * He is blocked for repeatedly using personal attacks, belittling comments, and insults, even after he was warned to stop, after a long history of doing the same thing to other people. I would never consider a block like that if it wasn't a pattern of behavior. Because of that pattern, I don't plan to unblock or reduce the block based on your comments.  However, your comments might be considered by any admin reviewing the block, that's up to them.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Galkayo
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Galkayo. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sven Hassel
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sven Hassel. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Salvator Mundi (Leonardo)
Hello Bus stop, could you keep an eye on this article Salvator Mundi (Leonardo), and it's Talk page. There seems to be much contentious editing going on, especially with regard to authenticity (See latest in Talk). Thanks. Coldcreation (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I appreciate being alerted to this. Bus stop (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
That was a nice external link you added to the Rape article. I think the writer used Wikipedia for some of the text because it was word for word in one part of the article. I expect, though, that your addition will eventually be removed by other editors for reasons known only to them. But I wanted you to know that I appreciate your addition to the article. I hope it remains. I liked it. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Energy East
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Energy East. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * Thank you, ! Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays

 * Thanks, ! Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Art Gallery of Ontario
Not sure, but you may be interested in this conversation about the gallery section of Art Gallery of Ontario. Coldcreation (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
I'm very sorry for writing very late. Thanks for you answer there Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2017_October_20--Pierpao (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome., and thank you for the question. Bus stop (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:So Far Away (Martin Garrix and David Guetta song)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:So Far Away (Martin Garrix and David Guetta song). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 02:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * —what did I do? I realize that the discretionary sanctions say that it does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date but is there something I said that suggests I might do something else that might upset the proverbial applecart? Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at this time, although I would recommend against making statements like this one which allude to a broad world racism, without evidence. I know your intent wasn't bad, it's just not an entirely helpful part of your comment (your point could have been made without it is all I'm saying). But, no big worries at all, just wanted to inform you of the applicable DS system since you edited in the topic area. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 13:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the heads up, . Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you . "Decency art" sounds like an art movement. I guess it is the counterpart to that other famous art movement, "indecency art". Thank you for the recognition. I appreciate it. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * forgive me to enjoy strange combinations in the header line, for brevity ;) - Today, I arrived at "horror sports". - Yours was longer last year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Horror sports" sounds very gruesome. Do they use protective gear? Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * —I hope I didn't offend. I wanna say I thank you again for the recognition. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * the user writes about horror films and sports events ;) - enjoy the prize from the cabal of the outcasts! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dorothy Tarrant
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dorothy Tarrant. Legobot (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Harsh Douche Canoe
If you search ANI incidents you will see that harsh douche canoe is a well-used phrase in Wikipedia. I have restored your removal of my comment. I'm sorry you don't like the phrase, but do not edit my comments. Any negative connotation that you perceive in the phrase is all in your head. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Resource officer
We've established with great effort that we are not going to name Peterson in the context of failing to engage the shooter. So now you're going to name him in a different context? Do you think people can make the connection via "school resource officer"? I think many can. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  19:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Revert it. I was only trying to clear up the typo. Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't revert it, I'm 3RR-impotent. Anyway the typo needs to be cleared up. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted it. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article still names Peterson - because you named him. That's the problem. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted the Talk page by accident. Now it is taken care of. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article still incorrectly states Peterson High School. It's beyond me why you refuse to follow through on the correction you startedwithout naming the individual we have agreed not to name. How difficult can this be? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did. Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. That's a good edit. I was unfamiliar with the previous instances of referring to him as the "school resource officer". Bus stop (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

question
Please keep an eye on this:, thanks...Modernist (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Bus stop (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  06:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Andrew Wakefield
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andrew Wakefield. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off 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. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you! WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

BLP/N Stephon Clark
Hello BS. RE: This. I have not mentioned WP:COATRACK anywhere. Please correct your misstatement about my position. I presume you meant no harm. Thx.  SPECIFICO talk 12:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope this remedies the problem I caused, . Please accept my sincere apology. Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks! WMF Surveys, 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

'''If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again.''' We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. WMF Surveys, 00:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vevo
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vevo. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI
May I infer from this edit that you now understand the discussion in which you were taking part? (In particular, that Uanfala was not characterizing the edit in question as vandalism?) --JBL (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. It would have been polite to leave at least an edit summary explaining your removal: you pinged me twice, leaving me with notifications that pointed to nothing. --JBL (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Does it help when multiple people point out your error? We shall see.  --JBL (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think everyone will be grateful if you drop whatever you have with that post by Piotrus. This is not remotely relevant to the discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Uanfala—you say "Let's talk about the thread then." And then when I ask you a followup question—I asked it multiple times—you cease talking to me. You were editing elsewhere but you were not responding to me despite being pinged. Such is not the basis for honest and forthcoming discussion. I see that you are a capable editor. I ask you to sustain a discussion with me if you initiate a discussion with me. I'm saying this here rather than at AN/I because I don't want to appear petty or offended. But in general this discussion should be taking place in the relevant section of the AN/I page. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I thought it was obvious I wasn't inviting you for a general discussion of that thread, but of the involvement of Bugs there – he was the subject of the whole discussion. And your own behaviour there seems to me like a sustained attempt to emulate the behaviour that is currently getting him banned from ANI. – Uanfala (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are inviting me to talk about or not inviting me to talk about. I just respond to whatever you post on my Talk page with the hope that I can persuade you that Bugs' participation in the thread about the blocked student-editor mistaken for vandalism-editing by multiple administrators and non-administrators might not rate him a 100% grade for editor participation at AN/I but I think it would rate him an 80% to 90% range—not anywhere near requiring a block. We should stop holding ourselves in such positions of righteousness. Much else was wrong with that earlier thread which I tried to point out in the present thread. When you have a cacophony of competing aims, participants try to shout louder than one another—not because they wish to be overbearing but because they wish their analysis of an underlying situation to be heard. I think it was only in haste that Bugs accused the initiator of the thread of reinserting a problematic edit. I believe that in his quick perusal of the sequence of edits that were interpreted as vandalism that Bugs saw what he thought was a reinsertion of the problematic material by the initiator of that thread. He quickly apologized. I assume good faith. I could address other points but this is long enough. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for your support. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You should not have been blocked, . Just my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't blocked, just temp-banned from ANI... which is probably just as well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Bourdain
, can you explain why suicide is "not important enough" to be in the lede? It is the single most prominent aspect of recent news coverage, and, like the case of Robin Williams, it will long be associated with the name Anthony Bourdain.

I'm normally not one to engage in edit-warring, but unless you can offer a persuasive argument based on editorial factors, rather than personal ones, I will feel compelled to put it back. Thank you. Sca (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * , I hope you don't mind but I moved this to Talk:Anthony Bourdain so that others may weigh in. Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Western dress codes
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Western dress codes. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

DS 1RR
You may be interested to know that you've violated 1RR on the Trump talk page.

The fact is that the text is already bolded because it was moved to header formatting and so your revert changes nothing. Nevertheless please be careful about reverts. 19:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * —is the above post by you? Did you sign it? Bus stop (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes that's me. Signature didn't work right. Thanks.  SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * —can you tell me why in this edit, this edit, and this edit you add bolding to the word "religion" in the section subheadings? Bus stop (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * —why are you saying in this edit summary that it is "clearer to leave them bold"? Do you not understand that "Boldface...is considered appropriate only for certain usages."? Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You guys are both wrong. The 1RR rule applies to the article, not talk pages. WP:MOS applies to the article pages, not talk pages. 198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Drop the stick
Can you seriously just stop ruining the Afd for Messen de Clerq? Your arguments are so repetitive and awful, and you just cannot stop repeating them and ruining the Afd. Maybe that is your strategy. Anyway, as I said there, it would be great if you could stick a sock in it and restrain yourself. Silence is golden.198.58.156.206 (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Competence says "A person should be able to collaborate with other editors". How about trying that?198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Warning: Disruptive Editing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meessen De Clercq
Your persistent badgering of other editors in the ongoing AfD discussion is unconstructive and disruptive. Your belief that you are right does not excuse this behavior which is inconsistent with the type of collegial discussion we try to foster at AfD and elsewhere in the project. In addition to the obvious effort to WP:Bludgeon your fellow editors the walls of highly repetitive text that you have posted make the discussion unwieldy and are likely to discourage others from joining in. You have already been asked to stop this behavior, repeatedly, and yet you persist. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am no longer asking. I am telling you to desist. This should be understood as a formal warning. Ignoring it may result in your being blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * —I hope this edit is acceptable. It is an edit I made to that AfD which is more about procedure than about argument—simply that I should not be characterized (twice) in that thread as having a real life interest that precludes me from being objective about the article under consideration for deletion. If it needs to be stated—I have nothing to do with that art gallery. I never heard of it until the AfD was introduced. Bus stop (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I made this edit, . I hope it is OK, as it is only a question, and partly out of curiosity. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've posted again,, I think in a restrained way. I hope this post is within limits. Bus stop (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Your recent edits at the same AfD amount to more badgering, walls of text and general messing-up of the AfD. I think a block is in order, since you have now intentionally ignored the request to stop such activity.Notifying  to assess. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, for the love of G--. Please. I don't want to insist you to stay off the discussion entirely but you promised to be cautious and restrained. Some of your more recent edits have been insane. On which note @ 96.127.242.226, is there anything that hasn't been said that is relevant? I am going to advise both of you to bow out of this discussion. Seriously. It's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You are asking 96.127.242.226 if they have anything else to say, . The answer is of course not. That is why they are repeatedly telling me that my input constitutes badgering. They have told me that on the AfD discussion page three times and they are crying that now on my Talk page. This is just a game to shut me up. I have an account. That is an important difference between my participation in that AfD and the participation of 96.127.242.226, also known as 104.163.157.79, also known as 198.58.163.19. This is just a game. Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * And the game continues, . Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ENOUGH I have posted on the discussion. This incessant bickering stops now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD Stev´nn Hall, improvements available at Draft:Stev´nn Hall
Hi Bus stop, thanks for your valued contribution in Articles for deletion/Stev´nn Hall. As the creator of Stev´nn Hall, I have made an alternative, hopefully improved text for the entry, now located at Draft:Stev´nn Hall. I wonder whether to change now the original page to this newly modified version or to wait until the discussion develops further. At any event you are welcome to use the new draft at your discretion to improve the original at any time. Thanks once again. Neuralia (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi —I think you should just make improvements in "article-space". I don't think it is necessary to work on a draft even though the article is under consideration for deletion. I believe work can still be done directly on the article at the same time that a discussion concerning the possibility of deletion is taking place. I would consider informing the discussion on deletion of important changes you've made to the article since it was nominated for deletion. But I'm not an administrator. For expert advice you might pose a question to an admin. Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Saman Kunan
As a contributor to Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Saman Kunan. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cathy Newman
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cathy Newman. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

From the start
So on the talk page I have outlined the main concerns you have with how terms are used and sources ....pls try to follow BRD is the future as its one of the basics that keeps things moving forward here. I take it all should be fine now that your aware of the sources and how terms are used .....if not will ask others to explain more and get others POV. - Moxy (talk)

Notice of discretionary sanctions
Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Note - violating BLP and asking others to
In your comments:
 * here 21:17, 25 August 2018 ✅
 * here 22:13, 25 August 2018 ✅
 * here 22:28, 25 August 2018 ✅
 * here 15:47, 26 August 2018 ✅

You violate BLP by giving your own opinion on the question of whether Prager "targets multiculturalism" and you ask others to give their opinions on how he does that - you are trying to draw others into violating BLP. Please strike these comments and please stop doing that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC) (redact)
 * Thanks for this. Our feelings and opinions and original research are not relevant in WP; please base discussion on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You have left statements demanding others violate BLP and do WP:OR to provide evidence supporting what a source says, and indeed added a new instance, as shown above. Please finish striking. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * —I've referenced this in an inquiry at Teahouse to be found here. Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are treating BLP like a game. It is not a game. And of course people at the teahouse are not going to judge a BLP violation. That is not what they do there. This will end up at AE tomorrow if the rest are not struck. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look at the linked diffs and am thinking that labeling them as BLP vios might be a stretch. Editors need to be able to discuss controversial topics relating to BLP subjects and the article talk page is normally where that occurs. That said, I am somewhat concerned about WP:FORUM. There is a fine line between discussing controversial claims in a manner that is pertinent to the encyclopedic mission (i.e. is reliable sourcing adequate?) and getting into a political discussion, which is not. I would gently suggest you steer clear of discussions related to controversial issues that are not directly relevant to improving the article. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * —I don't think we were getting into a "political discussion". The "Views" section of a Dennis Prager article is about "ideas". Ideas can't be expressed briefly. That was the problem with the source. Other sources are available. They discuss Prager's ideas at length. Bus stop (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * —it is still in the article right now. It says According to National Public Radio, Prager is an "outspoken conservative" who "often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people." Do you see the problem with brevity? The aim is not to skewer him. The aim is to elucidate his ideas. The NPR source is reliable but not suitable for our purposes which in this case is the elucidation of Prager's "ideas" in the "Views" section. Bus stop (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note User:Ad Orientem. I hear you on the "bit of a stretch". However, the BLP violation is clearly arguable; you acknowledge the NOTFORUM aspect and that is indeed the core issue.  Giving and demanding personal opinions and "evidence" about what an RS says is well outside the bounds of how we work here; doing that with respect to a living person is definitely dicey.  While I am satisfied that the comments are struck I remain concern that the underlying principles still seem to be unclear to this user. Please also be aware if you are not, the the article subject doesn't like our article and complains about it fairly often on his show, which has led to a stream of inexperienced editors showing up and making "arguments" outside the boundaries of P&G. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * —you write Please also be aware if you are not, the the article subject doesn't like our article and complains about it fairly often on his show, which has led to a stream of inexperienced editors showing up and making "arguments" outside the boundaries of P&G. Is it any surprise that "the article subject doesn't like our article" when our article says that he "targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people"? That is found here. Pinging . Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The way that article subjects and their fans "feel" about article content is irrelevant. Content in WP is driven by the reliable sources and the policies and guidelines. If you want to keep working on the Prager article you must work within the boundaries and on the foundation of what we do here.  I will not respond to your question and you need to stop asking questions like that, anywhere in Wikipedia.
 * Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That value of openness is very important to us and editing is a privilege offered to everyone. But the privilege comes with a responsibility to pursue Wikipedia's mission and to learn and follow the policies and guidelines. The community gives people time to learn, but eventually restricts or removes editing privileges from people who just cannot get grounded on the mission of Wikipedia, or who will not or cannot follow the policies and guidelines.
 * I strongly recommend you take the time to get grounded on the relevant policies and guidelines including how to behave on talk pages, before you continue working on the Prager article. You can have a read of User:Jytdog/How if you like, as a starting point.  I wrote that to help people in a hurry get grounded on what we do here, how we do it, and why we do it that way. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is hardly unusual for persons who are the subject of an article to dislike parts of it unless it was written by them or one of their fans. That said, I do agree that care needs to be employed when adding negative claims into a BLP. It is perfectly legitimate to ask questions like 'are the sources adequate for the purpose of backing these claims?,' 'is the article unbalanced in its discussion of negative claims about the subject?,' 'does the article run afoul of NPOV or UNDUE?' But when I looked at the above linked diffs it sounded like you (Bus stop) were asking for personal opinions on the subject of the article. I am inclined to think that was an honest mistake or maybe poor wording, but Jytdog is largely right. We need to frame any questions in terms of improving the article, and in the case of negative claims, insuring that they meet our WP:PAG. In particular avoiding WP:BIAS and conforming to WP:V. No I don't think you were breaching BLP. The issues you were discussing are mentioned and referenced in the article. But by appearing to solicit private opinions about them you were treading close to WP:NOTFORUM. In the grand scheme of things this looks like a good faith error in the way you were approaching the subject so I would treat this discussion as a friendly caution. But now that this has been laid out, please be more careful. If you have concerns about the coverage of these or other negative claims of fact, those questions need to be laid out in terms of PAG. You may also wish to solicit input from other experienced editors by posting a neutrally worded request for comment on the talk pages of relevant wiki-projects such WP:POLITICS. Now I think this horse has been beaten to a pulp and we should all maybe find something to do that improves the project. Moving on with best regards to you and Jytdog... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * —you do not reduce a person's ideas to "often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people" when you have sources such as this and many others expounding voluminously on the ideas of the subject of the biography. Ideas take space. They are not described in seven words ("often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people"). Bus stop (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you believe such, then I suggest you open a discussion about your concerns framed by and referenced to WP:PAG. Nothing you wrote above alters in any way what I and Jytdog have been trying to explain. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * —I have zero to do with the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Look over the Talk page at the Dennis Prager article to see what I am talking about. In fact, look to a point before I got there. I have virtually never heard of Dennis Prager until a week ago. Notice how User:Shinealittlelight is treated on that Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it is just ridiculous, and not really based on anything in existing policy, that you were bullied into striking these remarks on that page. I'm so sorry. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

In fact, let me just expound a little. I think that it is obviously (obviously!) going to be a political opinion whether a given source is biased in a given case. It is part of policy that we need to make such judgments, because when a source is biased, we can take various actions to mitigate that bias. Thus, political opinions--specifically, opinions about whether a given NPR piece or NYT piece or whatever--are biased, are relevant to these sorts of articles, and Jytdog is just mistaken about this, with all due respect. How then are we to keep it from turning into the "wild west"? The answer, it seems to me, is that we are to remain civil and also seek consensus. That is the check against endless, pointless political debate on the talk pages. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, others have argued that NPR is just factually a non biased source, and that's just settled once and for all as a non-opinion. This is itself a violation of policy, since policy says that these sorts of judgments are to be made on a case-by-case basis. See WP:NEWSORG. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"targeting" multiculturalism
Since you asked how Prager targets multiculturalism: He does so, for example, by writing an article called "1,400 English Girls Raped by Multiculturalism" and by saying "The West is committing suicide through the vehicle of multiculturalism". . Vexations (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to decline to discuss this, . But thank you for your input. Bus stop (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Query
Hello, That edit summary represents "WikiProject Jewish Women" (abbreviated).--Johnsoniensis (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "jew wom / wp" means "WikiProject Jewish Women"? Maybe it's just me but it looks offensive. I even reverted you the first time I saw it based on the edit summary. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Dennis Prager 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 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

So we have:
 * diff removing "conservative" from lead the first time, 14:15, 1 September 2018
 * diff again removing "conservative" from the lead after that was reverted, 12:26, 3 September 2018
 * diff adding quote from atlantic 13:29, 3 September 2018, which had already been discussed on talk and there was no agreement on this
 * diff restoring quote from Atlantic 14:28, 3 September 2018

Hm.Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresenting other people
Please read WP:TPNO. This is not reddit, and misrepresenting other people is not acceptable, as you did here and again after I pointed you to my actual objection again here. Again, we topic ban people who behave this way. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You did it again. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Fred Guttenberg
It's simply unnecessary to mention that he's Jewish. Compare with: "Fred Guttenberg, an atheist..." or "Fred Guttenberg, who has Scandinavian heritage..." Etc. It's apropos of nothing.

The focus on this aspect of Guttenberg's life is beginning to look a bit creepy. Apologies if I'm taking this wrong, but this is a rather odd aspect to focus on, and so persistently. Related: the "religion" parameter was removed from Template:Infobox person a while ago, and for good reason, I believe. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Just delete it
Just delete it. It's your post, and I'm the only one to reply and I give you permission to delete mine too. Why clutter up more an already cluttered up talk page. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okey-dokey, . Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Your image concerns
About this, I didn't intend to exclude Ian's response but could have perhaps modified things to have left it better. About your image concerns, I have no objection to you continuing in the thread about the infobox or perhaps in a thread that you initiate...I believe that was trying to discuss a different issue and didn't want it taken off topic by a tangential discussion. Feel free to discuss your concerns on the talk page. You may simply move the removed comments into a thread of their own. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I think you make a valid point. That is why I said in my edit summary that "I stand corrected". Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

requested explanation; you know, you could have looked it up yourself
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti-intellectual

anti-intellectual

noun


 * 1) a person opposed to or hostile toward intellectuals and the modern academic, artistic, social, religious, and other theories associated with them.
 * 2) a person who believes that intellect and reason are less important than actions and emotions in solving practical problems and understanding reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

Anti-intellectualism

Anti-intellectualism is hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy, and the dismissal of art, literature, and science as impractical and even contemptible human pursuits.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I've removed the language that you objected to. You make a valid point. It is not my intention to insult the editor. Thank you for your criticism, . Bus stop (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

anti-i
I was interested in your oppose in an RfA and have the impression that you changed it so much afterwards that the following discussion doesn't make sense. Consider to restore the original version, and then to strike, not delete. - I wouldn't mind the correction of small typos, but the very word the discussion is about seems to be gone. Save us the trouble to go back in the history, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, but I'm staying away from that RfA. I should have "struck through" instead of "deleted", to make comprehensibility better. Thanks for the good advice. Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Understand. Did you know that so far, I never opposed an RfA? The worst I do is ignore it. These are people ready to do tedious work I'd never want to do myself, - most are welcome to do that and will not break the project ;) - If I'd ever oppose, I'd leave it at a statement, and never discuss. Floq is a friend of mine. The RfAs of 2 other friends failed. Just for the next round. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * —this is the first time I've ever weighed in at an RfA. I didn't question the candidate's competence. My concern is that all editors have biases or leanings. If a candidate is dismissive of a segment of the encyclopedia, I felt it was my responsibility to call attention to that flaw in that candidate. I hope they pass. And I'm sure they will. The thing is galleries of contemporary art are often dealing with rarified concepts that leave the general public baffled and even angry. And often galleries of contemporary art are dealing with complete rubbish and the public's anger is justified. But our view as an encyclopedia should of course always be evenhanded. Our approach to this segment of the encyclopedia should be fair. I tried to show that the candidate was dismissive of this segment of the encyclopedia. You are right that it is hard work being an administrator. I realize my "Oppose" comment was haphazard and not exactly cogent. But so be it—the sun will still rise in the east and set in the west. Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand even better. I look at every RfA that comes along. If I know the candidate (looking at Precious) I support or ignore. If not I ask questions and decide to support or ignore. I don't consider how they relate to contemporary music because that's no admin business. My bias ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't you say you'd stay away from the RfA? Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers RfA
Could you please keep me out of the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Justlettersandnumbers? I have concerns over the way you have conducted yourself in discussions relating to the notability of galleries, but the RfA is not the place to address those. Thanks, --Vexations (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You have the nerve to say "I'm refraining from making personal attacks", when your vote is nothing but a blatant WP:PA and a disruption of the process. If RfA were not the de facto playground where people can be as unpleasant as they like with impunity, you would probably be bordering on sanctions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * —believe it or not I have no animosity towards this editor. I am just trying to express what I see, based on my interactions with them, the downside of the editor as an administrator. They will likely be approved for adminship based on overwhelming support. But during this transitional process I think I should speak up with relevant concerns. Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment to read WP:RFAV and you'll probably find that things work out better if you bear in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. We do need to encourage editors to come forward for adminship. You may also find these articles on adminship in our recent issues of The Signpost a light hearted good read, but addressing a nevertheless serious issue:
 * Has the wind gone out of the Admin Ship's sails?
 * What do admins do?
 * The Last Leg of the Admin Ship's Cruise
 * Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Facebook message section
The Facebook message section was removed from Columbia University rape controversy since you participated do you believe in its inclusion. Valoem talk contrib 15:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alan Walker discography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alan Walker discography. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)