User talk:JamesMLane

'''[//en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:JamesMLane&action=edit&section=new Click here to start a new section. (The edit summary will be created automatically; it will be the same as the heading of the new section.)]'''

Archives: Archives tables of contents, Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4, Archive5, Archive6

Know any law book about interlocutory appeals?
Could you please refer me to a law book which confirms what you were saying in the interlocutory article:

"In many legal systems, interlocutory orders are not appealable, except in a few extraordinary cases. When the case is concluded, any aspect of an interlocutory order that has not become moot may be challenged in an appeal from the final judgment."

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.248.173 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the federal courts in the United States, the general statement of the "final judgment" rule, which bars interlocutory appeals, is found in 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which reads in part: "The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States . . . ." Other provisions of the law allow interlocutory appeals in limited circumstances.


 * If you're looking for a general statement of the law in the United States, not based on any particular court system (state or federal), one source is Corpus Juris Secundum, a legal encyclopedia. The text in CJS is: "Except where a statute, rule, or constitutional provison provides otherwise, an appeal lies only from a final judgment or order."  I've edited the Interlocutory article to add a citation to this passage. JamesMLane t c 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I might not have expressed myself clearly enough because your answer does not really respond to my question.

I repeat once again the part of your quote which interests me the most, namely: "when the case is concluded, any aspect of an interlocutory order that has not become moot may be challenged in an appeal from the final judgment."

Once again what you wrote does not seem to support this kind of statement. So, please clarify on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.237.110 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't understand you. I cited only the first part because the second seemed to me to be obvious.  If you can't take an immediate appeal from a particular interlocutory decision, then it must be appealable at the end of the case, otherwise you could never get judicial review of that decision.  Nevertheless, I suppose the principle of the availability of judicial review isn't self-evident, so it should be cited.  The relevant passage in CJS reads: "Any right of appeal from an interlocutory ruling terminates with the entry of final judgment in the action, whereupon the issues raised in the interlocutory ruling are considered on appeal from the final order."  I've edited the Interlocutory article to add a citation to this passage. JamesMLane t c 00:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarification. I find the main problem with law is that not always common sense are what one would consider elementary fairness is what is observed in the legal system. For example, there is principal that appeal lies from the order and not from reasons for the order. Why would it be so? Isn't it obvious that the order, even in my favour, can be made in such a way that though it looks like I won, while in fact, I lost. And I cannot appeal it because it looks like I won (it comes from the case of a wife who was declared unfaithful in the judgment which she won against her husband and which she could not appeal). Does this make sense?

Or yet another example – res judicata. Suppose a judgment is entered that snow is black, then Court of Appeal supports that snow is black, then somebody proves scientifically that snow is in fact white and one cannot change the judgment because it became res judicata. Does this make sense? Are you aware of any exceptions in civil law which allows to challenge res judicata? Where can I read about it?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.235.198 (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Res judicata applies only to holdings that were necessary to the decision. If the wife was declared unfaithful, but won, then you're right that she could not appeal.  Because she couldn't appeal, though, it wouldn't be res judicata.  If someone stated in another context that she was unfaithful, she could sue for defamation, and wouldn't be precluded from establishing the falsity of the accusation.


 * As to changes based on subsequent evidence, Rule 60(b)(2) in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to seek relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence. If the scientific report on snow came out within a year after the initial decision, this rule would be available.  (I think that most states in the U.S. have similar rules.)  Beyond that, courts can always overrule themselves on matters of general import (such as what color snow is).  For example, compare Plessy v. Ferguson ("We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority") with Brown v. Board of Education ("separate educational facilities are inherently unequal").  The latter decision was based in part on scientific knowledge that had been developed since Plessy was decided.  The scholarly authorities are summarized in the decision's famous footnote 11. JamesMLane t c 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks
You're right – I did not see that the McCain disability stuff was being deleted when I made that change – thanks for catching it. Tvoz / talk 05:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, JamesMLane. I've responded at my talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

John McCain article
Please discuss the edits you have been adding in the talk page for Political positions of John McCain. Trilemma (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I pointed out in my edit summary that the passage you wanted to add (the pro-McCain spin about what a "maverick" he is) was unsupported by the cited source. You restored the passage without addressing that point.  I didn't respond on Talk:Political positions of John McCain because there was nothing to respond to; my prior edit summary was still valid as to your former source and applied equally to the new one you added.  I've now commented additionally on the talk page. JamesMLane t c 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I read your edit summary; I disagreed with it. That's why I asked you to explain it on the talk page ;) Trilemma (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What I find odd is that you still haven't cited any language in either of your linked sources that actually supports the assertion you added. JamesMLane t c 00:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The language is very clear, particularly in the second article. But since you're persisting, I've found another: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10637.html. Trilemma (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The point I made in my ES about the first article you cited applied also to the second and applies to this one as well: "rm claim unsupported by articles, which mention only one environmental issue (global warming)". The Politico article talks about the capital gains tax and McCain's promise to appoint more conservative judges.  Would you mind pointing me to the specific language in that article that shows him breaking with Bush on an environmental issue other than global warming? JamesMLane t c 18:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of John McCain
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment, although as it happens I've already heard of the NPOV policy. The edit I made is both neutral and factually correct.  I'll elaborate in greater detail at Talk:Political positions of John McCain, which is where you should have taken the trouble to explain whatever NPOV problem you saw with my edit. JamesMLane t c 21:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edit whitewashes the important fact that he wants to effectively repeal the federal minimum wage. Just because McCain holds a fringe position doesn't mean that it should be left out of the article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edit asserts falsely that he wants to repeal it. My edit makes clear what you now state, that he wants to effectively repeal it.  Our readers aren't idiots. JamesMLane t c 23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology
It appears I lumped you in a with a troll at the Fox News talk page, and had some apparently unnecessary harsh words for you specifically. After doing some research, at the behest of Gamaliel. I see my initial reaction to you was in error. Therefore, I apologize. I stand by my words, but I do not believe you are the proper recipient of them, so once again I'll say that I'm sorry for directing them towards you. Perhaps our paths may cross at sometime in the near future, and we can collaborate peaceably. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, with thanks. I've been off-wiki for the holiday weekend or I would have responded to your gracious comment earlier. JamesMLane t c 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

re Rfc
Thanks for the heads up on the template error. Hopefully it's corrected now. I'm not sure what you find to be misleading about my representation. The specific 2004 survey appears to be in regards to proposed renegotiations of NAFTA and other trade agreements. We can provide any additional McCain philosophies regarding future trade agreements without the usage of those types of surveys. Trilemma (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You write, "The specific 2004 survey appears to be in regards to proposed renegotiations of NAFTA and other trade agreements." That interpretation explains (as you had not previously done) why you saw his opposition to renegotiation as subsuming his opposition to labor and environmental protections.  The hole in your argument is that your interpretation is purely your spin on it.  The cited source doesn't contain the word "renegotiation" or any of its variants.  As I've shown you, in the real world the question of labor and environmental protection is actually raised in the context of whether to grant initial approval to a trade agreement.  One POV (a fairly widespread one) is that the proposed agreement should be assessed purely on economic grounds.  An opposing POV (also widespread) is that labor and environmental impacts should be taken into account.  McCain has aligned himself with the former camp.


 * You also write, "We can provide any additional McCain philosophies regarding future trade agreements without the usage of those types of surveys." Your objection to surveys is quite selective, given that other passages in the article rely on them.  Nevertheless, I'm not wedded to this source.  If you find some source that you regard as more reliable, and it conveys McCain's position on this specific point, we could certainly consider citing that in addition to or instead of McCain's response to the survey question. JamesMLane t c 07:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to revise primary usage guidelines, would affect Worcester
Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation: I've proposed a change in general guidelines on primary usage that would result in a move for Worcester.--Loodog (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma's recent edit
What do you think of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_John_McCain&diff=230937326&oldid=230936757 this] edit by Trilemma? I don't think he's given nearly enough justification for the amount of information he's deleted. I started a section on the talk page.  Azure Fury  (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of NLP Modeling
An editor has nominated NLP Modeling, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic
Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come! You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC
Dear JamesMLane, If you have time and are willing to share your point of view. Can you give your comment arguments about the current discussion in the bates method article. Paragraph : The American acadamy of opthalmology link listed in the external link section ? appreciate your comment, Seeyou (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment
Here (and also, if possible, ) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     05:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SS fraud in Texas
James, Thanks for the feedback. I agree: "My thought is that we should move your material to a daughter article on "Janitorgate" (or whatever) and leave behind only a couple sentences in the main article." But, I am a newbie and not sure how to doe this. Can you do it, or else tell me how to do it? And, in fact, I am not sure that I am responding to your comment in the proper way (by posting to your discussion page). Nicholas007 (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC
Dear JamesMLane ,If you have time and are willing to share your point of view. Can you give your comment arguments about the current discussion in the bates method article. Paragraph : Elwin Marg was an optometrist ! appreciate your comment, Discussion is about whether or not the profession of Elwin Marg should be mentioned in the external link section. Seeyou (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

YouTube as RS?
We've moved the discussion here, if you want to add your two cents.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 02:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yo
Yay election season. I'll be checking up on Palin's page, you coming? --kizzle (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah James, I miss your ability to wiki-p0wn, i.e. Palin. --kizzle (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad you have an interest in lead sections
Perhaps you'd like to look at the lead section for Controversy over an Obama–Ayers connection:


 * The controversy over an Obama–Ayers connection arose during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign of the significance and details of Presidential candidate Barack Obama's contacts with his constituent Bill Ayers, a former leader of the Weather Underground Organization who later became a professor of national reputation at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a "very respected and prominent" member of local society." Obama served on two nonprofit boards with Ayers and lived near him, and both Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn had hosted a small campaign meeting for Obama at their home. The matter was covered by news organizations and brought up by the campaign of competing candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton in February 2008, revisited during a debate between Clinton and Obama in April 2008, then subsequently picked up by Republican presidential candidate John McCain as an issue in the general election campaign.  Obama condemned Ayers' past through a spokesman, and indicated he does not have a close association with Ayers.

There's a discussion about the lead at Talk:Controversy over an Obama–Ayers connection. Noroton (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
Regarding the Kopp information, I'm fine with putting it at the end of the section, because the section has gotten bigger. But may I suggest an alternative: deleting it from the main article. The Monegan issue really is now far more about the investigation, Palin's (lawyer's) proposal that the legislature drop the investigation, and whether or not the legislature will resort to a subpoena to try to force her to provide information. The Kopp stuff was (proportionately) important when it was first added, but I don't think it is any longer, as the situation has evolved. Deleting it, of course, will deal with any confusion. And it still will be in the daughter article, with all the details. (I note that it's not – or wasn't, last I looked – in the lead section of the daughter article, indicating relatively less importance.)

(And re the code, I don't remember where I copied it from, but it can be helpful, as you note.) -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 21:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"
Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You commented on the Bill Ayers page about this, so please see the RFC on "terrorism" and the Weathermen
Please take a look. Your opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. Thanks! -- Noroton (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal
Thank you for what you did here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal&diff=237857474&oldid=237854079

Your approach is much better than what I put in there. I was mostly motivated by an objection to what was there earlier: a statement that Wooten was "disciplined … for making a death threat." This was incorrect, since Grimes' letter doesn't even mention the alleged threat. Anyway, thanks for your helpful edit. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin
FYIFerrylodge (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope we can discuss the Stambaugh matter a little bit before you reinsert stuff.Talk:Sarah PalinFerrylodge (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC
This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT


 * Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
 * Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:


 * Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project


 * 349 W. 12th St. #3
 * Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
 * By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:


 * Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,
 * Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nutrition
I always look forward to your inclusions to Talk:Sarah Palin. In your discussion w/fReid, in a plain-spoken manner, you encapsolate what is happening there. Some editors are more perceptive than most and, additionally, they can vocalize their perception clearly. Thank you for clearing my mind. It seems that the Talk has drifted to specifics and minutiae so I'm gonna busy myself elsewhere. But, I will watch for your inclusions with an apt manner. Until the debates begin, editors at Sarah will just be dancing around the Maypole. However, feel free to "wake me up" if an issue requiring non-partison support arises. Thanks again.--Buster7 (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Pic
Hi, After taking into consideration the feedback from other editors regarding the Carson City image at Sarah Palin (I agree with your suggestion for a tighter crop), I have created a new version with the intent of pleasing those who have contributed to the discussions. The quality of the image has been significantly improved. I would appreciate your opinion here: Talk:Sarah Palin. Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan rescheduled for October 4
Wikis Take Manhattan has been rescheduled for next Saturday, October 4, due to the rain predicted for this weekend.. I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies...
The more I read what I wrote, the more I regretted my tone. My frustration built with every detail I learned about this Stambaugh character, and I saw your gun issue as a red herring. Personally, had he been my subordinate, I'd have canned him two weeks into my tenure. Regardless, you're entitled to your opinion, and I shouldn't be so adamant to force my own on you. Truce? Fcreid (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't think you have anything to apologize for. We had a difference of opinion.  You expressed your view but you didn't call me an idiot or anything.


 * I practice law in New York City. I have a pretty thick skin.  :)  JamesMLane t c 01:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad, because one never knows when he'll need a good lawyer! :) Fcreid (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on Palin
This whole thing is getting extremely frustrating. I really appreciate your support for having both sides represented on the bridge and not just the pro-bridge arguments.

May I ask you to revert Hobartimus' edit which he still refuses to defend on the talk page more than an hour after I called him on it? Unfortunately, I've found you usually have to revert back before Hobartimus will come to the talk page to join in discussions about his own edits. He's still online commenting on my talk page and complaining about my "personal attack" here but I doubt he'll get into discussions of substance as long as his mass deletions remain.GreekParadise (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Already done. Thanks for watching the article closely enough to flag this latest incident. JamesMLane t c 15:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Addendum: There was another such edit re the email hack, which I'll now address. JamesMLane t c 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment
After reading your comment on "Obama is evil" argument and "FBI investigation of a fairly minor incident" I feel that you should refrain from editing the talk page or the article. I know you will probably not do so but my opinion is that you feel extremely strongly about Obama (I can't read your Obama is evil comment any other way) and that can be a problem when evaluating the actions of your fellow editors. Hobartimus (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is not whether an editor is biased but whether an edit is biased. You and I have divergent edits here -- you inserted into the Palin bio material that relates only very tangentially to Palin but that seeks to cast a bad light on a Democratic politician from Tennessee, and I removed that addition.  I would be happy for our respective edits to be evaluated by any fair-minded Wikipedian.


 * By the way, my political bias is disclosed on my user page. What is yours?  Do you feel extremely strongly about Obama, or for that matter about Palin?  or do you believe yourself to be unbiased on these subjects?  Wikipedia allows editing by biased editors, so you're not required to answer; I'm just curious.  JamesMLane t c 17:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"That One"
I was truly shocked. I wonder if it was some deep seated "feeling" that McCain has that just bubbled to the surface. The climate is changing...... I pray for the best. Both McMain and Palin are obligated to stop this "mob response" before it localizes in one lone psycho. When Obama announced, all American's "thought" the same fear. It was too tragic to voice. (It still is) WHen does it deserve mention in Palin's article? If the link doesnt work...google "kill him". second or third page..Wasington Post article is mentioned at www.nytimes.com...--Buster7 (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Palin didn't say "That one" so it certainly doesn't belong on her page. At this point, I think what's appropriate for her bio is the overall observation that she's stepping up the negative campaigning, and specifically the personal attacks on Obama.  The details belong in the McCain campaign article.  That's also the place for reporting about the unseemly conduct at the campaign rallies.  Even if the words are coming out of Palin's mouth, there's no doubt that it's part of the overall campaign. (I just received an email that John Kerry sent to his mailing list, in which he writes, "McCain allows his running mate to make outrageous charges that only a few years ago would have disqualified someone from serious consideration for national office."  He points the finger where it belongs -- McCain, not Palin.)


 * Of course, even to put something in the McCain campaign article, we need a published observation, such as from Kerry if he's been quoted somewhere verifiable. Your link doesn't work for me. Tell me who wrote the piece and I can find it on the Times site. JamesMLane t c 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasington Post site...Dana Milbank...10/05 or 10/06...--Buster7 (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dickinson and Rolling Stone
Dickinson and Rolling Stone constitute a perfectly respectable source despite not being to the extreme right of the political spectrum. And your desire for an accurate article is admirable and totally in line with WP core policy. But I fear you're wasting your time. As you know, your opponents there tirelessly pass all prospective McCain material through a political filter to prevent informed judgment by the article's readers. Old hands at the filibuster, they will simply parade one bogus argument after another to keep the material bouncing around in Talk and prevent it getting into the article. Ultimately, when this becomes just too obvious, they will claim "consensus" for exclusion—or failing that, covert politicization—of the material. I must say I admire your tenacity. And forcing discussion of material that runs counter to the McCain mytholgy at least enters it in the record, for which all who live in what the neocons dismiss (!) as "the reality-based world" should be grateful to you. — Writegeist (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. My opinion is that, currently, Sarah Palin is biased but is better than John McCain -- both articles being far too solicitous of the subject.  I don't accept the view that no negative statements may be included unless certified as true by the bio subject in an interview published in National Review Online.


 * On the other hand, tenacity is worth something in Wikipedia. For example, while Palin has been running around with her "thanks but no thanks" lie, the Wikipedia article does record that the Congressional vote revoking the earmark came before she was Governor.  That simple fact, although rather buried in the article, does make clear to the discerning reader that her statement is false.  The Palinistas can't very well argue with an objective report of a Congressional action.  Thus, although the article is still biased, I console myself with the thought that it's somewhat less biased than it would be if people like you and me had abandoned it.


 * I also console myself with the thought that, after November 4, this article will be of considerably less importance.


 * Incidentally, by coincidence the use of Rolling Stone as a source is also being discussed at Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies, concerning RFK Jr.'s article. JamesMLane t c 05:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin?
Please post at talk. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispute at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008
You may want to take a look at Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. We're debating whether or not to include jihadists reaction to a McCain presidency.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 16:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:JamesMLane/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy
User:JamesMLane/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JamesMLane/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:JamesMLane/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Threshold (online game)
Hello, I'm writing because you were at one time a significant contributor to Threshold (online game). Some issues have come up regarding the article's contents, and I'm at an impasse with a possibly-COI affected editor. I would greatly appreciate your participation at Talk:Threshold (online game). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme split
I have just [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APonzi_scheme&diff=259667268&oldid=259538189 made formal your proposal.] – Anxietycello (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

pan blue coalition
"restore ext link -- notability is a requirement for a Wikipedia article but not for an ext link; this link is apparently related to the article's subject matter"

this link is "apparently" related to the article's subject matter: NO WAY...

Pan blue coalition refers to a Republic of China (taiwan) stub, and ull find plenty of references to the members of the coalition just googling the term, or readning some taiwanese media... The chinese guys, well... I guess I dont have to remind u that China is a dictatorhip... I just dont see how a web page designed by a chinese (PRC, not ROC) has anything to do with taiwanese parties...

Just read what the page says... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.115.180 (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Too descriptive?"
What is an encyclopedia about if not mere description? Is it your intention to revert every single edit I make, no matter how small? Explain to me please how changing "History" to "A history of environmental conservation" is POV? Your edits, and edit summaries, seem a bit over the top to me. Assume good faith? Or is "control" your operative goal? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Material userfied from Talk:Chuck Missler by User:Hrafn
The following is an attempt by this user to argue that an AfD is required for redirects, in direct contradiction to WP:AFD which states "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." It has therefore been userfied per WP:TALK "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article".

JamesMLane's revert
JamesMLane has reverted the redirect with the edit summary: "redirecting as nn is improper when the article has survived AfD". I would point out that: Unless anybody can come up with a strong countervailing argument, it is my intention to restore the redirection. HrafnTalkStalk 08:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) AfDs have repeatedly disavowed control over merges and redirects as being under their purview (with 'redirect' consensuses often closed as 'keep's).
 * 2) AfDs quite frequently result in 'keep's for NN articles: WP:ILIKEIT & WP:IAR appears to override WP:NOTE more often than not there. In any case a two year old AfD is hardly controlling over redirection, which does not require AfD approval.
 * 3) The second AfD on this article was ludicrously superficial (and the first was "no consensus").
 * 4) Missler is clearly a case of WP:ONEEVENT (at least as far as sourced information goes), so an article on him seems to be inappropriate.


 * If you think Missler is nonnotable, you should list the article on AfD on that basis. The incessant relisting, as happened with Daniel Brandt for example, is abusive and improper, but I agree with you that a two-year-old AfD can reasonably be revisited.  Until there's a new AfD, however, the question whether there should be a separate article on Missler has been resolved in favor of keeping one.  Your personal opinion that the previous AfD was "superficial" doesn't give you the right to override it.  Your edit had the same practical effect as if the AfD had been closed as "delete".  If there's a policy that allows that, please give me the link.  You could reasonably make Chuck Missler a redirect only if, for example, you were moving the article to a different title.


 * As to the merits, I don't see him as a one-event figure. The article lists him as the article of two books published by Thomas Nelson.  I just Googled this search: "Chuck Missler" -wikipedia -plagiarism (to screen out most Wikipedia mirrors and at least some of the articles about the plagiarism incident) and got 134,000 hits.  Neither of those facts is dispositive but they're indications that we should have an article about him. JamesMLane t c 09:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk 10:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "If you think Missler is nonnotable, you should list the article on AfD on that basis." No! An AfD is not required for a redirect. And, even when the consensus is for redirect, it is not uncommon for the closing admin to kick the issue back to article talk as a 'keep (as in not-delete), you settle the rest yourselves as it doesn't require Admin involvement'.
 * 2) The second AfD was clearly "superficial": the first keep !vote was on the basis that he was a "published author" (insufficient per WP:BIO), the second was WP:GOOGLEHITS, the third was bare assertion and the fourth was based on his books being listed on Amazon (which quite frequently lists self-published books of little or no notability). It was closed (after only 2 1/2 days) as a 'speedy keep' as an administrative matter (the nominator was a banned editor), not on its merits. Therefore the original no consensus AfD is controlling.
 * 3) Your "I don't see him as a one-event figure" is likewise WP:GOOGLEHITS. If you think that there is WP:RS beyond this WP:ONEEVENT then the WP:BURDEN is on you to produce it.

I would further point out that the cited sources do not establish Missler's notability as "an author" (other than as a plagiarist), "conservative Bible teacher", "founder of the Koinonia House ministry", "former businessman", "minister" or "biblical fundamentalist". So unless we change the lead to read "Charles "Chuck" Missler is a plagiarist", there is no notability established here (WP:ONEEVENT or not). HrafnTalkStalk 10:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I repeat my previous request for information about policy. There were two previous AfD's, each based on a nominator's assertion that the subject was nonnotable.  Each resulted in the article being kept despite this objection (the first through "no consensus", the second through a direct "keep" result).  You now contend that you, as one editor, may effectively overturn the result of those processes, because you personally deem Missler nonnotable, even though several other editors who expressly considered and addressed the point concluded that he is notable.  What policy authorizes such an outcome?  Please provide a link.


 * It's just no answer to say that AfD doesn't apply to redirects. When an AfD results in "delete", the article will often be replaced by a redirect to some broader article.  That's why I said that your edit effectively reverses the AfD result.  The precise issue of notability has been considered by the community.  Your view has not been accepted.  You can't proceed unilaterally; you must initiate a third AfD.  What's the problem with doing that?  The way deletionism is running rampant these days, I'd bet on the AfD to succeed. JamesMLane t c 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that I have completely demolished your 'AfD first' argument, do you have any WP:RSes demonstrating WP:Notability beyond WP:ONEEVENT? If not, then I'll return the redirect. If you still object to this, then I suggest that the appropriate forum is WP:BLP/N (as WP:ONEEVENT is part of WP:BLP). HrafnTalkStalk 12:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The guideline applying to redirects is WP:REDIRECT. Please note that this guideline makes no mention of an AfD being needed.
 * 2) WP:AFD likewise states "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately."
 * 3) Incidentally, if you don't know what the policy is then please read the relevant policy first, before reverting and before making demands. Failing to do so simply puts others' backs up, and make you look foolish. It is hardly rocket science to work out that WP:REDIRECT & WP:AFD would be the appropriate policies.
 * 4) A 'no consensus' keep + a curtailed speedy-keep-because-nominator-is-banned provides no basis whatsoever for requiring that the article remain un-redirected. Neither resulted in a finding that the article to be unambiguously "notable".
 * 5) You are incorrect to state that "When an AfD results in "delete", the article will often be replaced by a redirect to some broader article." A "delete" close results in a WP:REDLINK.
 * 6) *Your previous statement that "Your edit had the same practical effect as if the AfD had been closed as 'delete'" was likewise incorrect. A delete results in a redlink and the loss of the article-history, a redirect does not. A "delete" takes an admin, and an admin to reverse it -- a redirect takes neither.


 * Thank you for your advice that I read the policies. I will reciprocate with the advice that you reconsider the tone of your comments.  I am indeed familiar with WP:Redirect, and, because it provides no support whatsoever for your interpretation, I thought there must be some more specialized policy that you had in mind.


 * Under the heading "What do we use redirects for?", you'll find the section Redirect, which discusses making a redirect "to a 'list of minor entities'-type article which is a collection of brief descriptions for subjects not notable enough to have separate articles." That's what you've done.  You'll note that it expressly incorporates the assumption that the subject isn't notable.  If the AfD discussion had concluded that Missler wasn't notable, I doubt that his name would've been left as a redlink; no one would've objected to a redirect to where he was listed.  Nonnotability is a basis for deleting an article but is not a basis for deleting a redirect; in fact, the quoted excerpt from the redirect guideline makes clear that redirects of this particular type are appropriate only if the subject is nonnotable.


 * So, Question One is whether Missler is notable, and Question Two is what process Wikipedia should use to arrive at an answer to Question One. My answer to Question Two is that our process is the AfD.  In some instances, including the first Missler AfD, that process does not result in a finding that the article is unambiguously notable.  You are quite correct on that score.  In such instances, however, the policy directs that "no consensus" defaults to "keep".  Furthermore, the second Missler AfD produced an unambiguous "keep".  Five users responded, with four favoring "keep", all on the basis of Missler's notability.  One of the four then supplemented his comment by adding that the nomination was by a banned user.  The editor closing the AfD made no reference to the nominator's status.  Nevertheless, you contend that the AfD result was "a curtailed speedy-keep-because-nominator-is-banned" -- a position unsupported by the record.  Furthermore, even if that were true, your remedy would be to re-list for deletion or to request a deletion review (which is usually done to contest a "delete" result but which, according to Deletion review, "includes ... appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion)".


 * The difference between us is that your answer to Question Two is apparently along these lines: A lone editor who decides that the subject is nonnotable may treat it as nonnotable, even though several experienced editors in two prior AfD's have opined that the subject is indeed notable, even though both AfD's resulted in the article being kept, even though no additional AfD has been commenced, and even though no deletion review has been commenced. In my opinion, such a process would be a recipe for chaos.


 * There's no reason that the burden should be on me to go to WP:BLP/N or anyplace else. If you still disagree with the results of the prior AfD's, then I suggest that the appropriate forum is WP:AfD or WP:DRV.  The discussion could also include whether Missler's self-published books should be included in the article (clearly they should), and whether they relate to his notability (that would depend on what kind of sales and/or critical notice they received). JamesMLane t c 23:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * JamesMLane: your claims are directly contradicted by policy. Per the passage quoted above, WP:AFD explicitly disavows responsibility for "problems that do not require deletion"', a category in which it explicitly includes redirects. Your statement that "My answer to Question Two is that our process [for determining notability] is the AfD" is therefore inaccurate. AfD is the process for determining notability only in the context of deletion. WP:AFD actually gives an exhortation to "be bold and fix the problem" -- clearly giving justification for "a lone editor" doing something about it. That the article stood unrestored for six months rather indicates that there was little in the way of a consensus against my WP:BOLD move.


 * As you have provided no legitimate policy basis why my original redirect was illegitimate, nor any WP:RSes establishing notability beyond WP:ONEEVENT, I am restoring the redirect. If you revert this without providing such RSes, I will immediately bring this article to WP:BLP/N's attention. HrafnTalkStalk 03:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to learn that I have failed to provide a basis that you consider legitimate. As you know, my view is that you are not the ultimate arbiter who's empowered to unilaterally overrule the position of the numerous other Wikipedians who considered the matter and decided that Missler was notable, so your view of what's legitimate isn't dispositive.  You, however, persist in treating it as such, so there's evidently no point in my continuing to attempt to explain Wikipedia policy to you.


 * You write, "If you revert this without providing such RSes, I will immediately bring this article to WP:BLP/N's attention." I'm not going to revert it again because I don't believe in edit warring.  In any event, as I've stated, I don't see this as a matter for WP:BLP/N.  There are no issues here that are unique to BLP's.  This could just as well be an article about a long-dead medieval nobleman, whom some Wikipedians considered notable and some considered non-notable.  What's at issue is following the proper process for resolving such differences of opinion.


 * Unfortunately, after I rule out an edit war I have no bright ideas about how to proceed. It seems to me obvious that, given your multiple denunciations of the prior AfD's, you should begin a new AfD, but you're apparently unwilling to do so -- a refusal that at least reflects your consistent position that other editors' opinions on notability don't matter if those opinions conflict with your own.  I thought about starting an RfC, but I have to fear that comments you don't agree with would simply be met by, "you have provided no legitimate policy basis why my original redirect was illegitimate".  It comes back to that fundamental process disagreement -- that you edit based on your personal view of the merits (in this case, your view that Missler isn't notable enough for an article), regardless of what anyone else believes.


 * That seems to leave WP:AN/I as the only option. I would hate to do that, because you're certainly no vandal and you believe in good faith that Missler is non-notable, but you are contravening our established process.  In favor of going to WP:AN/I is that your override of two AfD's, if allowed to stand, would set a bad precedent, which provides some justification for bringing a petty dispute to that page.  Do you have any other ideas? JamesMLane t c 06:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
"Do you have any other ideas?" Yes!

You can read the following passage which you have repeatedly failed to address from WP:AFD:

This is what I did. My actions therefore are NOT "contravening our established process". I was doing exactly what the relevant policy exhorts us to do as an "appropriate" and "efficient alternative" to listing the article as an AfD. HrafnTalkStalk 11:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would further point out that throughout the above you have never cited a specific (page and section please) policy (or set of policies) that my initial redirect violated. You complaints have ubiquitously been based upon vague and nebulous claims about "established process" and similar -- without citing the policies that establish the specific "process" that I am purported to have violated. This will make it rather difficult for you to report me to WP:AN/I -- as you have no policy basis for a complaint. HrafnTalkStalk 11:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's a strong element of "I didn't hear that" in this discussion. You and I have apparently been talking past each other, with each naturally considering the other at fault.


 * Believe it or not, I had read the AfD policy even before this discussion began. The policy states, in your quoted excerpt, that an issue like a POV problem isn't a basis for deletion.  By contrast, however, nonnotability is a basis for deletion.  I never cited a policy to that effect because I thought it was fairly well known.  Given that I was evidently mistaken, I apologize for the omission.  Here you go: "Reasons for deletion include ... Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)".  That's from Deletion policy, seventh bulleted point.  Therefore, nonnotability is not among the "problems that do not require deletion".  For a final citation, I'll document that your action was expressly based on alleged nonnotability, because [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck_Missler&diff=199305671&oldid=199291085 your edit summary] described it as "redirect of article on non-notable topic".


 * In this instance, alleged nonnotability is an issue that has already been considered twice in the proper forum, namely AfD. You've stated your grounds for disputing the decisions that were made in those AfD's.  Wikipedia policy sets forth the method for resolving such disagreements: "Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in  deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions."  That's from the opening paragraph of Deletion review.


 * I don't know if there's a page somewhere that states expressly, "When Wikipedia policy sets forth a procedure for resolving a dispute, and the prescribed procedure involves soliciting opinions from the entire community, and such a procedure is employed, then it's improper for one editor to unilaterally act on his or her contrary conclusion merely because he or she disagrees with the Wikipedians who participated in the prescribed process." That's probably just an implicit policy -- implicit in the policy of having policies, which would otherwise be mere essays. JamesMLane t c 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As WP:AFD explicitly supports my position, I think this matter is closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 January 2009
 * 1) I have been ignoring much of what you have said because you have been raising unsubstantiated irrelevancies.
 * 2) Case in point, it is irrelevant that "nonnotability is a basis for deletion" -- as WP:AFD makes no assertion that it is the forum for all determinations to do with notability, but to the contrary explicitly disavows any responsibility for questions where a deletion is not on the table. As a matter of fact, merger discussions frequently raise notability questions, with non-notable articles often being merged into related topics, in part to avoid the possibility of an AfD resulting in deletion. I think this is an example of a fallacy of the undistributed middle.
 * 3) WP:AFD further states: "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." (my emphasis) Is that explicit enough for you? Redirects do not require an AfD! (I didn't previously read this far down, as the box at the top already clearly supported my position.)


 * I'll take that as confirmation that, if I went to the trouble of presenting the dispute via RfC, and twenty other editors showed up and unanimously agreed with me, you would simply dismiss the lot of us as uninformed. In sum, Hrafn Has Spoken, hence you "think this matter is closed."  I think you are wrong. JamesMLane t c 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No! WP:AFD "Has Spoken" and has clearly and unambiguously stated that redirects don't require AfDs: "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.", but you still WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your complete and utter unwillingness to acknowledge explicit policy is both tendentious and disruptive. Enough! HrafnTalkStalk 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At first I found your tone irritating, but you've graduated to being amusing. In this discussion, if such it can be called, I've made the same points repeatedly.  You've made the same points repeatedly.  In my view, that means we disagree and we're talking past each other.  In your view, it means that I'm being tendentious and disruptive, presumably by my failure to acknowledge your omniscience.  Anyway, I agree with your "Enough!" if it means that I've spent enough time trying to explain my position to you, and I'm now ending that effort.  The question will have to be addressed through other means. JamesMLane t c 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: review of Hrafn's actions
The two foregoing subsections are the ones that Hrafn improperly userfied to this page and removed from Talk:Chuck Missler. This was the last straw in a series of actions by him that prompted me to initiate Editor assistance/Requests. My side of the story is set forth there, with some additional comments back at Talk:Chuck Missler subsequent to Hrafn's userfication. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * JamesMLane, you seem to be too focussed on attacking Hrafn, instead of putting your efforts into improving an inadequate article. As I've said on the talk page, the article hasn't been deleted, a biographical stub which fails WP:V and WP:BLP has been made into a redirect. Go thou, look for good sources and base the article on them. If it saves you typing, the previous versions of the article are all there in the history, and clicking on the "edit this page" tab will give you all the text to amend. The essential thing is to ensure that all statements are properly backed up by reliable sources. WP:CITE gives useful advice, and if you've any further questions I'll do what I can to explain. . . dave souza, talk 09:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've responded to you at Talk:Chuck Missler. All I'll add here is my response to your comment about my allegedly "attacking Hrafn".  I invite you to read the full discussion with these hypotheses in mind: My comments were directed to the merits of Hrafn's action, with no personal attacks; Hrafn's general tone toward me was far more belligerent and contemptuous than mine toward him.  I admit that the tone of his comments irritated me, so I was primed to react when he removed my comments from the talk page -- a serious breach of Wikiquette, IMO.  It is not, however, a personal attack for me to say of a particular edit that it was improper.  Love men, slay errors, as St. Augustine said. JamesMLane t c 10:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you help with Mark Dybul
Hi,James. I am in over my head on the Mark Dybul page. I explained on its talk page where I am coming from and why I ventured to edit the page, but it's been through lots of contortions since then -- some interesting, some of questionable fairness, etc. I think it could make for a very interesting page with good editing. I don't have an axe to grind except to make it a sound, interesting page. hugs, CeliaCelia Kozlowski (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hrafn-bullshit
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User:Hrafn-bullshit, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User:Hrafn-bullshit is pure vandalism; this includes redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User:Hrafn-bullshit, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted per request, thanks for undoing the vandalism. . dave souza, talk 07:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, James
I do want you to know that it was not I who spelled pathophysiology with an I for the Y, but it was I who saw it and didn't fix it these many times I read and re=read the LBD page. Hmmm, now I see Wikipedia has redlined pathophysiology. I wonder if it will do that for pathophisiology. Yes, it doesn't like that either. I'm sure pathophysiology is correct. hugs, cεlἴα, with no tildes on my keyboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celiakozlowski (talk • contribs) 17:22, 17 February 2009


 * On my screen, at least, Wikipedia has even redlined "redlined", which seems somehow inconsistent. Anyway, before making the edit, I did double-check an online medical dictionary to confirm "pathophysiology". JamesMLane t c 03:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism at Barney Frank article
Understood; if you look at the edit sequence, I was trying to remove a separate piece of vandalism, but either TW or I undid the wrong one and I immediately corrected the mistaken revert. —EqualRights (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Some meta weirdness and an observation
I brought this here, because it's not appropriate for Talk:Sarah Palin, but it's interesting in a rather bizarre, interconnected way.

After seeing Al Gore III brought up again, I went to the New York Times, since they have their entire archives online. I found 17 articles about him, although several of them are covering the same event (his fourth arrest for driving violations). What I found interesting is who represented him--a lawyer named Allan Stokke. He is the father of Allison Stokke, whose article was (correctly) deleted and salted, without a redirect. It's almost surreal.

FWIW, there are 324 articles on Levi Johnston, but a lot of them are Times blogs, which skew the numbers (a lot).There were no blogs on the NYT for Gore's first three arrests, and apparently none of the bloggers noticed the fourth one (since Gore is no longer a politician, this is not altogether unexpected). Going to advanced search pulls up only 15 articles on Levi Johnston, two of which are opinion columns by Maureen Dowd and Gail Collins; all of the rest were either duplicate hits or blog posts. Make of that what you will, but at least as far as the Times is concerned, there's not a whole lot of difference between the two young men.  Horologium  (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Johnsen
Thanks for your kind words and thanks for adding those wikilinks, JamesMLane! I really appreciate it. I do pride myself on taking stubs and expanding them into all-grown-up, ready-for-prime-time articles; Dawn Johnsen clearly is notable enough to warrant something larger than a stub, as we both recognized. Like you, I also enjoy knocking things off my (ever-expanding!) to-do list. Thanks again! User talk:Jarvishunt.

Cabal
I have evidence of a Liberal Cabal. Mark your door with a white X and I'll meet you in the parking garage. --kizzle (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the dark glasses and trench coat.--Buster7 (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WP Geniuses?
Your snarky "we Wikipedia geniuses" comment on Sarah Palin smacked of admonition to anyone except you, James (and specifically to me!) Just thought I'd point out the transparency. Fcreid (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, my comment applies to anyone who thinks that an encyclopedia article is a place for resolving disputes, as opposed to reporting them. My point is that none of us (myself included) should be taking sides in the various controversies that arise over article subjects.  In particular, the comment applies to you to the extent that you were arguing for downplaying the bridge controversy on the basis that you personally considered the detractors to be misguided -- which is the impression of your position that your comment left with me.


 * I'm not excepting myself. If I considered myself a Wikipedia genius who could determine and announce The Truth for the benefit of the readers, then the Sarah Palin article would look very different.  "Palin was the most unqualified candidate for national office in recent memory" would be just the start of the facts that the article would report. JamesMLane t c 00:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The difference in this case is that you are manufacturing the dispute from thin air, and your position represents a fringe view that emanated only from Campaign 2008 partisan camps. The campaign's over.  It is inaccurate, of little interest to the public and irrelevant to Palin.  The inclusion of the KAB project in this manner that implies it was conjoined with the Bridge to Nowhere does not achieve article neutrality or accuracy, but rather dupes the uninformed reader.  I'm not going to get in a prolonged debate about this, as this bridge nonsense concerns me very little, but I did want to point out your methodology is transparent, appearing only to champion the cause of someone willing to attack the subject of this biography.  That is further reinforced by your objectivity on the subject above.  Fcreid (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Opinions differ about the merits of the bridge. Opinions differ about Palin's qualifications.  Neither dispute is manufactured.  On such disputes, Wikipedia editors are not required to be objective (and, unlike some, I've never pretended to be objective); all that's required is that the edits to the article space be objective.  (By the way, would "snarky" be an accurate characterization of your phrase "your objectivity on the subject above"?)  If I really were willing "only to champion the cause of someone willing to attack" Palin, then I would be trying to edit the article to give a great deal more prominence to the numerous criticisms of her.  From the point of view of a liberal Democrat, the current article is a whitewash. JamesMLane t c 04:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry
Dear Mr.James M Lane,

I am truely sorry for my recent edit on Joe Lieberman. It's just that I got a little carried away with my anger and hatred for him being a so-called "Democrat", but still supporting Bush's stance on the Iraq war, which proved to me that the truth is that Joe is just a Jew trying to controll America.

Still, I admit the action(s) I did was/were wrong. For those who don't know,this is what I did:


 * I replaced Joe Lieberman's "Foreign Policy With Israel" section with this blasphamous comment:

"Joe Liberman is the smelliest dog on Earth."

Once again, I'm vorry serry.

Love,

Hadi Al-Shiddazi (Yahya's sorry younger brother) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.26.12.34 (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

By The Way, Here's The Link
For anyone interested, here's the link of my silly social edit:

Special:PermanentLink/283724267

Thanks,

Hadi Al-Shiddazi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.47.13 (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the link you gave goes to the article after you vandalized it. A better link is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=283724267&oldid=283087673 the diff] showing your exact change.  You've already been blocked once, for a short term.  If you make any more edits like that, you can expect a longer block and ultimately banning. JamesMLane t c 12:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC Collect
Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at Rick Warren (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: Requests for comment/Collect Soxwon (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bar Refaeli
I've changed the source of the criticism about the plane in the article, and I hope it's satisfactory to you, but if you don't mind: could you offer your opinion on the amount of detail concerning her evading the draft (this versus this)? I would like to get another opinion.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 18:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus
I changed the title because I felt that "Religion and homosexuality" was much more appropriate than "Religion and gays". It is a title (Or whatever you wish to call it), and does not require the same wording that Miley Cyrus used herself. The word gays has, at least to me, a very negative connotation. Okazakiakane (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To many other people, however, it's "homosexuality" that has the more negative connotation. I agree that we're not absolutely required to use the same word Miley Cyrus used, but on a subjective matter like this, using her word seems like the most accurate and the most neutral approach. JamesMLane t c 06:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Levi Johnston
FYI: Deletion review/Log/2009 May 7.  Will Beback   talk    20:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "I'll favor keeping it, because we must also consider the sequelae of the original event. "

I have to say, James, I rarely agree with you, but you are always a joy to read. ;-) Bonewah (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take that as a compliment, pending further analysis. :)  JamesMLane t c 16:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Chuck Missler (4th nomination). Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretzel incident
i wasn't able to respond to you in the AFD for the Bush drug controversy article Articles for deletion/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy in time. however, i would like to reply that i completely disagree with your assertion that the claim that Bush passed out drunk and didn't choke on a pretzel is "properly encyclopedic." i hope you respond on the talk page to my reasoning for this. Talk:George W. Bush substance abuse controversy.Anthonymendoza (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed George W. Bush for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for thoughtfully considering and accepting my suggestion. I really admire people who are willing to be intellectually honest and are willing to publicly reconsider their position. I strive to try and always be honest and fair in thoughtfully considering points, and I'm always glad to work with other good faith editors. I'm not really into the barnstar thing, but consider this my medal of respect. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! I'm also not into barnstars.  A personalized note like yours is much better. JamesMLane t c 22:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
StarM 01:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

could i get you opinion
Just wondering if I could get you opinion on something Talk:Manchester mayoral election, 2009 (New Hampshire) is where the discussion is. So there is an disagreement between me and another editor on what the page should be I believe it should be the one posted above and he thinks it should be Manchester, New Hampshire mayoral election, 2009 just wondering if you could contribute thanks Gang14 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered that you'd solicit my opinion, but I must disappoint you -- I think you have the worse of this dispute. "Manchester, New Hampshire mayoral election, 2009" seems more natural to me. JamesMLane t c 08:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ricci v. DeStefano
Hi,

I'm sorry you've been given a hard time about integrating Frank Ricci background into Ricci v. DeStefano. It may be that people are reacting negatively to the source -- i.e. Slate -- which I understand to be more partisan than, say, the Washington Post. (I don't follow these things closely). Without staking out a position on the Ricci v. DeStefano question, I do sincerely think that this info is relevant to the Sotomayor hearings, which anyway are in the news and deserve more attention by Wikipedia.

I'm at work, so I can't practice what I preach, but here's what I envision -- there should be sub-headings in the "hearings" subsection of the sotomayor nomination page, with sub-sub-headings for each person testifying. One of these subsections will be "Frank Ricci". The info can go there. At that point, it may or may not be appropriate to extend the content into a "Frank Ricci" article. (My instinct is no -- it seems unkind to the man's private life -- but whatevs.)

If you can find sources that are less partisan than Slate, that would be great.

Regards,

Agradman talk/contribs 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS will I see you at the NY Wiki meetup this month? I'm a rising 3L at Columbia Agradman talk/contribs 15:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your suggestions about relating Ricci to the Sotomayor article(s) seem sensible, but coverage there wouldn't replace having some information in the article about the case. As for the meetup, I probably won't attend. JamesMLane t c 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ok. btw, here's a helpful source  Agradman talk/contribs 18:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

more editorial help requested: Michael Shall, origami maven
Hi, James, How the heck are you doing? Could you give me a hand? No one asked me to create this page, so I don't really have a natural editor for it, but could you do the honors and then move this page from my sandbox to the real wikiworld when you deem it ready? User:Celiakozlowski/Michael Shall love and hugs, --Celia Kozlowski (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Commas
Thank you for your correction regarding Wikipedia's use of commas. JEN9841 (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Gene Robinson hatnotes
At your request, I expanded the hatnote at Gene Robinson to include the football player, and I also went ahead and converted the hatnote you'd inserted at Eugene Robinson to use the otheruses4 template. Propaniac (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! The way you did it looks like the way I remember trying to do it, except that mine didn't work.  I was messing something up somehow.  Thanks for correcting the situation.  I agree with you that I've often seen the journalist referred to as "Gene", so your hatnotes may help some readers who are confused. JamesMLane t c 20:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Palin and Health Care
In the interest of full disclosure, this philosophy closely matches my own with respect to health care. For 35 years, I have participated in only a government-administered, single-payer system (TriCare). While I don't have any perspective or basis for comparison with private models, I can tell you the hyperbole of the benefits and the problems of a single-payer system (on both sides of the debate) is outrageous. In summary, it's cheap and it works. Fcreid (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Palin
I feel the wiki-blood coursing through my veins again. No Rex this time though to make things interesting. ;) --kizzle (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! If you insist on editing pages relating to Palin, you'll find Palinistas who are just as zealous as Rex was, but are more sophisticated about how to fight for their POV.  It makes it interesting, just in a different way.  For my part, I admit that I've cut back on the effort I expend concerning Palin.  Including the slightest thing that might reflect badly on her takes way too much work.  Glad to see you're a better man than I.  :) JamesMLane t c 10:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wilson
Sensei, your level-headedness would be appreciated on a few matters. --kizzle (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just posted something on Democratic Underground, chewing out the people who thought the "douchebag" vandalism of Joe Wilson's page was funny. Are there serious disputes about our treatment of his heckling of Obama?  I'll try to take a look. JamesMLane t c 20:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's like this one infantile bastard I once knew who thought it was funny to change the picture of George Bush to an image of a pierced penis. What ever happened to him? --kizzle (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Last I heard, he was hanging by his heels from the ceiling of the dungeon in Jimbo's basement. Or maybe he was on-air "talent" for some cheesy TV station.  I forget which. JamesMLane t c 01:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have a moment, sensei, Talk:Joe Wilson (U.S. politician). We are leaning towards a consensus and have a few stragglers. --kizzle (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

POV problems, Soapbox-ing at Death panel
The lead section of Death panel, which you created, currently contains content that misrepresents the origin of the term "Death panel", and provides a misleading summary of an article by Nangia and Wilson in Foreign Policy. Most of the problematic content appears to have been added by an editor or editors at IP 209.6.238.201, possibly in violation of WP:SOAP. I am calling on contributors to the page to revisit this issue and either come to a consensus on the proper content, or propose it for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. I don't think the page should be proposed for deletion, because the topic is a notable one, but it's best served by a simple redirect to where it's already discussed.  I agree with you that the additional material by the anon IP was soapboxing. JamesMLane t c 17:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Woolworth Building
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woolworth_Building&diff=314127595&oldid=314122921 Ooh, sorry about that]. -- RG2 20:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. I appreciate your spam reversions. JamesMLane t c 02:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about the Palin thing
You indicated more than once that Palin's death panel comment had little to do with Ezekiel Emanuel. Please explain what TIME, ABC News and the Atlantic are missing when they indicate otherwise.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As TIME said, ''Within days, the Post article, with selective and misleading quotes from Emanuel's 200 or so published academic papers, went viral. Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann, a fierce opponent of Obama's reform plans, read large portions of it on the House floor. "Watch out if you are disabled!" she warned. Days later, in an online posting, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin attacked Emanuel's "Orwellian thinking," which she suggested would lead to a "downright evil" system that would employ a "death panel" to decide who gets lifesaving health care.''

As Palin said, ''Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. ''

Palin posted a link to a YouTube video of the Bachmann speech at the bottom of her facebook page.

As The Atlantic said, ''Reading the post, it's hard to see what Palin actually meant. Her political spokesperson later confirmed that Palin was referring to the principle of "community standards," which she linked to a New York Post piece about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.''

As ABC News said, Palin refers in her statement to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who in a speech on the floor of the House, Palin said, described the "Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff. ... I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors."

''Bachmann's speech was based on an op-ed article in the New York Post, titled “Deadly Doctors,” by the former lieutenant governor of New York, Betsy McCaughey, that took a number of leaps of fact when discussing the academic writings of Ezekiel J. Emanuel, health-policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. ''


 * You've devoted a lot of effort to refuting a position I never took. What I've actually said is that the Political positions of Sarah Palin article should present her positions on major issues.  It can't, for reasons of space, include all the arguments that she presents in support of those positions; if it did, it would become just Collected speeches and writings of Sarah Palin, which is not a proper Wikipedia article.  For that reason, her mention of Emanuel isn't worth including just because it's one of the arguments she makes in support of her position on a political issue.  Her mention of Emanuel also isn't worth including for its own sake, because whether one particular doctor is evil or not isn't a significant political issue on which readers will be seeking information.


 * Of course, the presentation of the position goes somewhat beyond just "No on H.R. 3200". It's reasonable for us to elaborate that, according to her spokesperson, the basis for her charge was the section about reimbursement for counseling about living wills.  That identifies which part of a huge bill she was criticizing.  We have to draw the line somewhere, though, and not include everything she says about public issues. JamesMLane t c 16:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hola Lawsmith
Can you take a look at Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific and Slaughterhouse to make sure it doesn't read like it was written by a non-lawpenter? --kizzle (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut for Lieberman
You might consider including information from this article

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/17/connecticut-for-lieberman-not-so-fast/

when you revise Connecticut for Lieberman entry in Wikipedia. Also, considered the comment regarding Wikipedia self-reference made recently.

Tschuss! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.62.58 (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Manhattan 3 photos
Hi James. The photos are currently being processed in our drop.io box off-site. I'll keep you updated when we import them here!--Pharos (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I hope you can make it to our Meetup/NYC event on Sunday November 15!--Pharos (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Weigh in on an article deletion???
Hello, James. Could you weigh in on whether this article (which I wrote for the reasons stated on the delete page) should be deleted? Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 27 It is about a horrible crime, a horrible person, but I don't think that should make him immune from inclusion on Wikipedia. I certainly do not think this is 'run of the mill.' Celia Kozlowski (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look James. I suppose I could resuscitate the page as something like "sexual abuse in the Church of England". There are some other cases that were infamous, widely covered, noisily commented upon by the powers that be in the church etc., and so that would really be the way to go. Sexual abuse has had such a profound effect on the credibility of the church as a whole ... and financial impact as you point out for the RC church. I should think the RC experience with sexual abuse is a contributing factor to their shortage of priests and this in turn a reason why the Pope has said COE priests and now congregations who want to come over to the RC will be welcomed into that church.

Meanwhile for the rest of society at large, child-abusing priests have to be one of the main reasons they've gotten so draconian about police checks for any adult having any sort of contact with children. I was shocked when I had to have on file with my church in Bethesda a statement swearing that I had no criminal record or incidents of child abuse in my background. That was to teach one Sunday school class with 3 other adults present -- 5 years ago! I got over here and learned that I would need a police background check in order to lead an origami paper-folding exercise in church if we were located any place except where the parents were. I couldn't even go to the bell tower at the back with the door open so everyone could see and hear what we were doing! Sheesh. Before this year you had to apply every year for this check, and had to have another check if you had contact with children in some other setting, for example, babysitting for hire. This year they made the check more exhaustive, put it all in a database, so you only need to do it once for all purposes, and they update it automatically (which of course means you are now Big Brothered and god forbid they might make a mistake and enter someone else's misbahavior on your record...)

There was a huge row when people in the U.S. anglican church tried to delete a wikipedia page about an anglican priest over there who abused kids...

At any rate, I still think it's a story and Sexual Abuse in the Church of England is the way to go on Wikipedia... but at this point I just don't care. I put in my two cents' worth. I did my best writing a wikipage about that moron and a force that is undermining a major institution that once shaped how people lived their lives. I've lost the will to fight any more on this sensitive subject. Easier just to put my head back in the sand and get back other, more appreciated volunteer efforts. hugsCelia Kozlowski (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Joel4wiki.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Joel4wiki.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Zoo Fari  04:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 Zoo Fari  04:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Project Runway 6.
I was searching WP:MOS, but I couldn't locate any mention of a requirement to use a surname in episode summaries. In bio pages, it's most definitely common, and proper, practice. But on reality shows, there's a familiarity with the hosts, and it seems to be standard practice in all Project Runway, Top Chef, Survivor, etc. articles to call the hosts/mentors by their first name (particularly because it's constantly repeated). What are your thoughts, considering my input?

On a random note: Hello, fellow James.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 05:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right that the rules about names are stated in the Manual of Style (biographies) page, but I've always seen the same rules applied across the board. I edit many political articles, and, even in non-bio articles, we routinely remove "Mr." and "President" and the like when inserted by people who find it disrespectful to refer to "Bush" or "Obama" by surname only.  The only exception I've seen is that fictional characters are often referred to as they're called in the work being discussed.  Real people, though, are governed by the "Biographies" rules, even in non-bio articles.


 * There are many pop-culture articles that are written in a fannish style. That includes bio articles.  In writing this response, I thought about where I might find an example, and for whatever reason the first name that popped into my head was Joni Mitchell.  Sure enough, there were several references to her as "Joni".  I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joni_Mitchell&diff=324227842&oldid=323603179 fixed] those in one section but I think there are others remaining.


 * So, as to reality shows, I don't think there's an exception to Wikipedia's general rule on names; rather, I think the editing of these articles tends to attract fans, and they tend to write in a fannish style, as do some of the fans of Joni Mitchell and other musicians. (Also, it's understandable that they're influenced by the common usage on the show, but that doesn't enter into our policies.)  You and I agree that using the given name is an error in the Mitchell bio.  It seems to me that it's an error in all cases.  As you point out, it's a prevalent error, but error it remains.


 * Now, having said all that, I'm not going to get into an edit war about it. I'll leave it to you and the regular editors of the Project Runway articles to decide how to handle this momentous issue.  If there's an RfC about it, ping me.  :)   JamesMLane t c 06:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, you won't get an edit war from me. Oftentimes, an editor, even an esteemed one, when reverting such edits would tend to do it in an obnoxious way--which, of course, ignites my inner twatwaffle into battle mode.


 * But alas, your edit wasn't provocative, so I was able to analyze it from your perspective and in basically anything I've written, even so much as comments on blogs, I've used the last name for most people. So, the guidelines should apply unilaterally. I guess it's difficult for some, because saying "Gunn" or "Klum" seems strange. I'm actually intending to edit it so that I can avoid names as much as possible =P.


 * You're definitely spot-on about fantards flocking to these articles. And they occasionally make their own rules along the way. You've swayed me, so I feel that from now on, the only time first names should be used are for reality contestants, because they're never referenced by their surname (except with AI or SYTYCD, because they're more popular). So I shall integrate this into my editing mindset for the future and modify past articles where necessary.


 * And lastly....That's amusing regarding Joni Mitchell. It must be a hippie thing. I'm kind of a neo-hippie, but I wash my hair, so perhaps that explains my capability of seeing the alternate side of an issue ^_^.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 06:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you can see both sides now. :)


 * I really was going to let this thread die, but you set me up with that straight line, and I'm just a slave to temptation. JamesMLane t c 07:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I can't see referring to you as anything but James. You are going to have to change your last name. Kozlowski ha ha haCelia Kozlowski (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

radar
so ... the article on the magazine is wrong? per it, there was no magazine that month.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question. All I can tell you is:
 * I was the one who [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Goldberg&diff=187680388&oldid=183654509 added] the original citation to the Jeffrey Goldberg article, and I wrote "date = January 10, 2007" in the citation template, so that must have been the date that was displayed on the Radar website.
 * The Internet Archive has the article here with "2007/01" in the URL.
 * At that Internet Archive link, there are readers' comments on the article, with the earliest being dated January 12, 2007.


 * I wasn't familiar with Radar. Maybe the magazine posted some articles as they came in, instead of dumping a whole bunch at once onto the site?  Maybe an issue was deemed complete when enough articles had been posted since the last one?  I'm not sure what constitutes an "issue" for an online magazine. JamesMLane t c 07:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to take a look at it. (you may be surprised by two things; 1) it looks like the National Enquirer; and 2) the first thing you read on the page is a solicitation for tips -- call or write, day or night.).  Second, if you take a look at the Radar article on Wikipedia (and since you know how to get underlying articles, you will more easily than I be able to see if the refs support this), "the magazine folded after publishing only three issues in November 2005. ... Roshan ... The relaunch issue of Radar, dated March/April 2007, appeared on newsstands on February 14, 2007"--Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Alas, I have no special technique for getting underlying articles. I happened to pull the article about Iraq War commentators while it was still on the Radar site, so, for that particular article, I had a URL to plug into the Wayback Machine.  Still, the passage you quote seems consistent to me.  The Iraq article was presumably completed on January 10, 2007, and posted on the website that day or within a day or two thereafter.  It was then included in the dead-tree issue that appeared on newsstands on February 14.  That scenario seems plausible enough to me that I don't think our Radar (magazine) article is clearly in error. JamesMLane t c 23:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Robert Byrne
It was just a personal opinion change. If you like it better with the space you can put them back in, no big deal to me. Wizardman 04:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008)
Hi there. You added some material to Prop 8 that I think should be removed, and I've started a thread at the talk page explaining why. You might like to add your thoughts. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello JamesMLane! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Robert Jackson (scientist) -

Wikipedia Day NYC
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DegenFarang
Please take a look at this ANI notice. User:DegenFarang has a long history of abusive edits, particularly BLPs like John Roberts, and has stated that the only rule he will abide by is ignore all rules. He violated 3RR today, and abused another BLP. His abusiveness needs to finally be dealt with. 2005 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Democrat/democratic, capitalization of senate
Hello James- Just wanted to let you know I didn't make those changes willy-nilly to Scott Brown. I changed the adjective Democratic to the noun Democrat because I think the latter makes it more clear, especially for non-American and non-anglophone readers, that we're talking about the American Democratic party and not the type of government. As for senate, I looked in a few style guides and dictionaries to verify my sense of when to capitalize the term. Those sources aren't unanimous, but I generally fall on the side of restraining the recent American tendency toward over-capitalization. Regards, Eric talk 18:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I agree about making the reference clear, but I would think that the best way to do that is to wikilink the first use to Democratic Party (United States), and to wikilink subsequent uses if they're far enough away from the first that the link might be missed.  Some people would just go whole hog and wikilink the first occurence within each section.  I haven't checked where the links are in this particular article.  In general, neutral sources tend to say "all-Democratic" or "Democratic-lead".  The frequent use of "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" is a distinctly right-wing meme -- see Democrat Party (phrase) -- and Wikipedia should avoid it.


 * As for the capitalization, I don't think this is a recent tendency. I went to elementary school in the 1960s and I was taught that a reference to a specific body should be capitalized ("Brown spoke in the State Senate") but that lower case is appropriate for a generic reference ("in most states, the state senate is the smaller house of the legislature").  I think that's standard Wikipedia practice.  Without doing a thorough search, I checked the bios of my state legislators, Liz Krueger and Jonathan Bing, and in each the name of the body is capitalized. JamesMLane t c 18:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't like that the right-wingers tainted "Democrat" that way, but they have successfully put the English language on the defensive in many ways. Liberal meant open-minded before masters of the dark arts took gleeful advantage of the ignorance of our proudly illiterate citizenry.
 * I had the same schooling re capitalizing the legislative body when it's in name/title form, and I agree with that, though I err on the side of Massachusetts Senate but state senate, while not passionately. My over-capitalization comment was general, e.g. Government, Federal, and rampant use of title case instead of sentence case, etc. My work gives me way too much exposure to bad usage and grammar in U.S. government documents, and I see it spreading out like a virus everywhere I look.
 * Note: it should be Democratic-led, not -lead.Eric talk 18:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As to your last point, that occurred to me also, but this is a fine point of usage where I have a blind spot. My guess was that this could be -lead or -led, but I wasn't sure, so I decided I'd just leave it alone and defer to other editors who don't have my problem with this one. JamesMLane t c 20:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party move/editing
Hello JamesMLane, there is a substantive edit/merge discussion occurring over at Tea Party protests, 2009 and Tea Party movement. Given your significant contributions in the past, I thought you might want to drop by and check out what's going on over there. Many thanks for any help! --Happysomeone (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you help revert an article?
Hi, James, and how are you? Could you revert the Mark R. Dybul page, maybe to the last "bot" visit. People have been using mark-through on the page, first on some references and then on the body of the text. cheers and hugs, Celia--Celia Kozlowski (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. It wasn't "people", though, it was just one newbie, who's made no other edits.  I've left a first-level vandalism warning at User talk:Heretic536. JamesMLane t c 22:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks xxx Celia Celia Kozlowski (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC
If you have any thoughts on this matter, you might want to participate in this RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of William Rivers Pitt
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is William Rivers Pitt. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/William Rivers Pitt (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

social security
Are you going to edit the article like you said? The deadline is today.174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Punctuation Changes
I am belatedly responding to reversions that you made to my punctuation changes. It is my policy to never revert another user's material without first communicating with them, which did not occur in this case. In any event, I am surprised that you would take the time, and potentially generate ill will, just to change punctuation which was accurate, in order to revert to a punctuation method that cannot be found in any style manual. Despite the fact that Wikipedia policy may favor leaving such material unchanged, I see no harm in making corrections.

I am sure that you are occasionally irritated by grammatical errors, such as the use of the objective case when nominative is appropriate, or nonstandard terms like "ain't." I am mildly irritated when I see quotation marks positioned before periods, commas, question marks, or exclamation points. Moreover, it is helpful for me to correct such solecisms, since as an attorney I know that my pleadings might go unread if I were ever to punctuate in the manner which Wikipedia apparently tolerates.

Perhaps Wikipedia policy should be changed so that: (1) Nonstandard positioning of quotation marks (e.g., (1) ". (2) ", (3) "? (4) "!) would be acceptable, but (2) changes to standardized form (e.g., (1) ." (2) ," (3) ?" (4) !") would be tolerated, and not subject to blanket reversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAlawMedMBA (talk • contribs) 02:18, 21 March 2010


 * I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LAlawMedMBA&diff=351122141&oldid=351121028 responded] on your talk page. JamesMLane t c 08:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Apparently you're a Marxist thug. User:Magnus Johansson is apparently a supporter of Orly Taitz, and has informed her about the article. She's specifically targeting you in this blog post. (www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=9047) I'm not going to link to it because of possible malware associated with her website, but I thought you should know. There's also a delightful followup (www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=9158). If you need any help dealing with this, let me know. I'm not sure being attacked by Taitz is necessarily a bad thing. You're in some pretty distinguished company. AniMate 23:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * AniMate, many thanks for this heads-up! You've made my day!  I don't think I've been this giddy since 1/20/09.  (I remember how jealous I was when my friend Joe Herzenberg was attacked by name by Jesse Helms.  This isn't quite in that league, but it's up there.)


 * Trusting to my protective software, I ventured to Orly Taitz's website. For those not willing to take the chance, here's a summary.  AniMate's first link is to a blog post by Dr. Taitz in which I'm named, in the headline no less: "One of my supporters tried to post truthful info on Wiki. The answer can be seen first. Help me find out who is James M. Lane. We need to identify all responsible."  It goes on to quote a message to her from User:Magnus Johansson about the editing of the Orly Taitz article.  He certainly is a supporter of hers.  Nevertheless, his message is about 90% fair and accurate, seeking the kind of information that could actually help improve the article.  She responds by characterizing me as "[t]his criminal Lane" and "[t]his Marxist thug Lane", charges she backs up by imputing to me a raft of edits to the article, most of which I had nothing to do with.  She concludes by mentioning her complaint to the U.N., so I suppose I'll soon be summoned to appear before the Security Council and defend myself.  (My defense will invoke the information that I included in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orly_Taitz&diff=352104728&oldid=352060175 this edit] to Talk:Orly Taitz.)  The second link is to a further exchange between her and Magnus Johansson, which, in terms of comedic value, falls short of the high standard set by the first one. JamesMLane t c 04:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

On a much much more mundane level...
Could you fix the references 25 and 26 in the treatment section of the Rheumatoid Arthritis page for me? I'm hopeless at these. And how are you, by the way? cheers and hugs, Celia Kozlowski (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on MUFON. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Twinsday 14:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your welcome message. It's a bit late, though, as I've been editing here for more than six years.  I'm familiar with the AGF principle.  An assertion of a violation is generally more constructive if it includes specifics.  I made two substantive edits to the Mutual UFO Network article.  In both cases the evidence was sufficient to overcome any presumption of good faith.
 * By [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mutual_UFO_Network&diff=281437072&oldid=275670912 this edit] an anon inserted an unsourced statement about "The Legendary Danny O'Doul". The same anon had inserted similar silliness about this person in other articles (see, e.g., [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Steinman&diff=prev&oldid=281853169 this edit]).  The edit referred to the nonexistent town of Wemphis on Long Island.  A quick Google search found no support for any connection between MUFON and O'Doul.  I removed that text.
 * The text at one point said that one of the predecessor organizations to MUFON of Ohio was founded in 1990. By [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mutual_UFO_Network&diff=273849708&oldid=273243811 this edit] an anon changed that to 1890, without citing a source.  I'm assuming the good faith of the original contributor, rather than assuming that a UFO organization was founded in 1890.  If you have a source for the rather surprising assertion about 1890, feel free to revert my edit and cite your source.
 * I must conclude that you were a little quick on the trigger with your accusation of an AGF violation. JamesMLane t c 17:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi I understand that you had contributed to the George W Bush page. I would like to add to the section that GWB withdrew from the ABM treaty by adding that he also signed a treaty that reduced the deployed warheads from 6000 to 2200. Follow the link http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USRussiaNuclearAgreementsMarch2010 which was the largest reduction of any signed treaty.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfisgd (talk • contribs) 17:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

About the article "Duvet"
Hi. I'm the author of Duvet Cover Kings and although it resides on a .co, I sell no merchandise on the website. There are only articles describing useful information related to the subject of duvet covers. Thank you.

Carlc23 (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not all that's on the site -- there are the advertisements that I immediately saw when I went there, and which supported my initial conclusion that this was commercial linkspam. Upon looking at the site more closely now, though, I see that you're correct that nothing is directly for sale.  The Google ads give it a commercial appearance.  Nevertheless, I think our policy is that Google ads alone don't render a site inappropriate for external links.  The informational content on your site could be of value to some readers of our Duvet article.  Therefore, I'll restore the link. No need, I see you've done so. (You might have a better chance of making it stick if you'd waited.) JamesMLane t c 08:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

BOR RFC
Best of luck with those two. I suggest that you go ahead and call the RFC yourself, or you'll end up with a poisoned well. By the way, you have my complete support regarding the policy and content points you've raised. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Good Faith Notice: Removing Comedy Central section on Talk:Gretchen Carlson due to NPOV BLP
You are one of the two people who opposed removing the section I cited as violating NPOV for a Biography, Living Person. After two days, the consensus was three supporting removal, two opposing removal. In the spirit of protecting the principles of BLP, I am moving the text of that paragraph in the article to the talk page pending further discussion or location of more sources indicating more significance. I have notified the other opposing editor as well. Veriss (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Pete Grannis
I have added more information and citations. Can you add more? I think this is good enough for WP:DYK. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You've made several of the changes that occurred to me but that I didn't have time to tackle. The article is much better now.  Good job!


 * I'm not very familiar with DYK but I think that a substantial expansion like this qualifies, so I'd say go ahead.


 * The major change that occurred to me that you didn't do was to move the article. I would favor Pete Grannis but even Alexander Grannis would be an improvement.  The current title is like saying "William Bill Clinton". JamesMLane t c 23:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved it per your suggestion, and sent it to Template talk:Did you know. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP
Please review WP:BLP and WP:RS; blogs are not an acceptable source in BLP articles.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samuel_Alito&action=historysubmit&diff=396299982&oldid=396157618] - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ThinkProgress is edited, not self-published, so it's more of an online magazine than a blog. In any event, the purpose for which I cited it was to report a criticism of Alito.  We don't need a reliable source to establish that the criticism is sound; all that's needed is reliability as to the point that the criticism was expressed.  Please review WP:NPOV -- we report facts, including facts about opinions. JamesMLane t c 22:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't mistake it for a suggestion, James. Vandalize the article with this blog-sourced liberal cant again and administrator intervention will sought. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't mistake this for a suggestion, either: I would welcome administrator intervention. I'll begin by pointing the admin to the actual language of the guideline you cite, which reads in part: "'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."  As I pointed out to you, ThinkProgress is edited, not self-published, so it could be used as a source for the truth of a factual statement contained in it.  As I further pointed out to you, though, it's not being used that way here; it's being used as a source for the proposition that a particular opinion has been expressed, a proposition that we can report per WP:NPOV ("It is expected that articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects...."). JamesMLane t c 06:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh snap. --kizzle (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Abbott
I noticed that you added some stuff to the article when it was first starting out, and I wanted to let you know that I am trying to get the article to a point where the argument could be made that it is complete. I've written a bunch of stuff for it, and I wanted to let you know that if you have anything that you can add, it would be greatly appreciated. Hi 8 7 8  (Come shout at me!) 03:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bell of Chersonesos
The bell of Chersonesos – that's an article you requested on Wikipedia. I have also uploaded there some of my photos from my trip to Crimea. :) This thing is part of Taganrog's history, which is why I am very interested myself. If I can be of any assistance – please let me know – there is a lot on this in Russian sources. ISasha (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4
Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Article probation
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Sarah Palin, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.'' -- Kelly  hi! 07:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a reminder that Public image of Sarah Palin is a protected article. Please stop edit-warring disputed material into that article.  You mentioned recently that you're upset about how John Kerry was "swift-boated", and I hope this is not a game of tit-for-tat.  I didn't edit the Kerry article, I have no idea if it was edited poorly, but in any event that was a long time ago, and remedies were available to deal with it.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your helpful little note. Like you, I've been editing the Sarah Palin bio since even before McCain picked her, so I'm quite familiar with the multiple controversies that resulted in the probation.  I've never seen an article with such a fierce set of editors who fight tooth and nail against anything that might reflect adversely on the subject.  In this instance, in the BLP/N discussion, there were, believe it or not, those who wanted to keep the subject out of the Palin articles entirely.  When that position became untenable, they wanted a sanitized version that would omit any of the serious bases for criticizing Palin.  They had to abandon that view as well, but that didn't diminish their editor for including every conceivable bit of pro-Palin spin, while objecting to anything (no matter how well sourced) that cut the other way.  Under such circumstances, edit warring is inevitable.


 * I'm guessing that, from your point of view, it's perfectly OK for you to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin&diff=next&oldid=407288901 add] the statement that, when it comes to campaign imagery and rhetoric, there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. When I add a properly sourced sentence asserting the contrary opinion, and you remove it, and I re-insert it with an explanation on the talk page, then I'm edit warring and you're not.  By that logic, if I had removed your initial addition, instead of presenting more information to our readers, then any re-insertion of it by you would have been edit warring.  Somehow, though, I doubt that there's any set of circumstances in which you'd admit that you're edit warring.  Anyway, this particular hypothetical didn't arise, because I don't follow the Palinista philosophy of relentlessly deleting anything that might support a political viewpoint I don't share.  Instead, I simply provided the other side of the story.


 * As for Kerry, you quite misunderstand what I wrote. Of course I was "upset about how John Kerry was 'swift-boated'", but that was in my capacity as an American citizen.  In my capacity as a Wikipedian, I didn't try to expunge information about the mendacious attacks on Kerry.  They were lies, and deplorable, but Wikipedia describes the world as it is, not as we wish it would be.  I'm just applying that same principle to Palin.  We saw especially in the BLP/N discussion that you and others kept arguing that the criticism of Palin was ill-founded, and that therefore it shouldn't be mentioned inWikipedia.  The example of swift-boating is merely to show that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.  Naturally, I picked an ill-founded but important attack on a liberal, in the hope that principled conservatives would thereby have an easier time understanding the general principle.  My optimism was misplaced. JamesMLane t c 03:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If and when you find a reliable secondary source that reports as fact that Palin's type of imagery and rhetoric are not common in both parties, then I'll be interested to see it. Nice chatting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We report facts about opinions. There is no policy, guideline, or common-sense principle that imposes the requirement you support.  You'll see Wikipedia articles citing opinions (properly attributed, of course), with regard to many controversial public figures not named Sarah Palin. JamesMLane t c 04:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Scalia
I'm starting to think the Bachmann thing has taken on enough of a life of its own to deserve inclusion, but why not start a discussion at the article talk page? I do oppose the reaction to it, I could find you five law professors to support, oppose, ignore, waffle, and say that Scalia violated the Treason Act of 1789. Thanks for your contribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My edit isn't limited to "the Bachmann thing" -- the whole subject of Scalia's right-wing activism off the bench was omitted from the article, except for his membership in the Federalist Society. I don't think it should be necessary to have a talk-page discussion over every substantive addition to the article.  I was tempted to simply restore my edit, because you stated no substantive objection to it, but in the interest of averting an edit war I've laid it out on the talk page.  If you want to add a quotation from a prominent law professor who disagrees with Turley, I would of course have no objection. JamesMLane t c 19:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't edit war, I am an admin and am above such things. I am singularly unimpressed with law professors, having had a few in my time.  I think we should mention the Bachmann thing when it occurs (today or tomorrow isn't it?) and perhaps brief partisan reaction on either side.  But having a whole section on, er, right wing activism just isn't on.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No point to continuing this here -- see further discussion at Talk:Antonin Scalia. JamesMLane t c 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're being discussed at WP:AN3
Hello JamesMLane. See the complaint about your edits at WP:AN3. You may reply there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL, this is too funny. Jæs and his or her allies want the Public image of Sarah Palin article to present only one side of a disputed issue.  They keep deleting the countervailing viewpoint.  Then Jæs accuses me of edit warring, and, contrary to the express instructions at the WP:AN/EW page, doesn't notify me of the complaint.  Well, I guess that's one way to reduce the danger that unwelcome opposing viewpoints will clutter up a beautiful presentation.


 * Props to EdJohnston for doing what Jæs should have done and notifying me. Perhaps WP:AN/EW needs more rigorous policing against ex parte accusations.  That charge against me shouldn't have sat there for 23 hours before I found out about it. JamesMLane t c 06:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not notifying you, it wasn't an attempt to get anything done "behind your back," but an unintentional oversight on my part. Nonetheless, article probation requires no further notification before remedies or sanctions are implemented.  That being said, I have no "allies" at the public image article, and have taken no position on whether or not the other content should remain, simply that the Manchin content is irrelevant to the public image of Palin herself.
 * That being said, you, frankly, should know better than to repeatedly reinsert content over a number of days, especially at an article subject to probation. You can make any number of secondary points, but that fact remains.  jæs (talk)  10:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to accept that a veteran editor, working at one of the most contentious articles at WP, can forget such a simple step as notification. Forgetfulness seems like an inadequate but convenient excuse. I don't know what do about it more than share my observation with you. Just last week, I too was being discussed at WP:AN/I (re:SP, of course) (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) without being given the courtesy of a notification. Thanks to Horologium (the subject of the AN/I who courteously let me know, I was able to defend myself.
 * Congeniality is a fragile thing. Requests for Administrative intervention are not conducive to remaining congenial, especially when common courtesy is forgotten. My guess is we need to grin and bear it for the sake of the customer, the visitor to Wikipedia. Buster Seven   Talk  15:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Asa "veteran editor," my recollection is that there once was a time when notifications were not required for wp:an/ew, specifically because of the fact that the content dispute then gets dragged over to there (which it should not be). Whether my recollection is correct or not, again, the point stands that edit warring is unacceptable, whether you've been notified about it every time or not.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  20:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * O! I agree! We should slap Editor:Lane's little pee-pee for his boldness and send him to his room without dinner for even considering edit warring. What a vile and nasty thing to do...to remove a fellow editors submission with only a edit summary. Of course, if other editors had been more congenial and not undone Lane's edits he would not have edit-warred. But, I guess that depends on the working relationship between editors. We need someones Mom to teach us how to play nice. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  22:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was really weird and upsetting. Please try to keep your personal issues off Wikipedia. 24.177.123.74 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to see my refutation of the attack, including specific diffs showing the falsehood of the allegations, can find the whole thread here. The denouement was that, in the course of the ongoing discussion on the talk page, I had suggested a compromise, before I even knew that Jæs had taken it to AN. That compromise met general acceptance and was implemented. Overall, though, I've largely stopped editing Palin-related articles. There are just too many Palinistas here who are ferocious in their protection of Palin. Making the slightest improvement to an article tends to take way too much effort. JamesMLane t c 07:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!


This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape ( directions ) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA
JamesMLane, first "pusher" and now "disingenuous". 3's a charm. Please desist with the ad hominems. The rancor over this article is already excessive. Please don't add more to it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you're concerned about my comments, given that, according to one of your sometime allies, I'm one of the editors who should never be taken seriously again, and according to another I'm not a thinking human being. Turning to the specifics, I didn't say "pusher", which I suppose might have a connotation of a heroin dealer.  You shouldn't put a word in quotation marks unless it's a verbatim quotation.  What I actually said was "people pushing 'vulgar'", which meant "people who are advocating a text that characterizes the subject with the word 'vulgar'."  That should be clear from the context.  (Granted, getting the context is a little daunting given the size of the discussion, but you've been involved enough to know it.)  As for "disingenuous", I didn't say that about you as a person.  It was about the specific statements to which I applied it.  This is a very important distinction -- love men, slay errors, as St. Augustine said.  For example, you argued for the importance of Savage's intent, an argument that on its face seemed to assume that I disagreed with you.  As a corrective, I pointed to the language in my comment that rejected the position you were apparently attacking.  If I misunderstood your comment (your analysis began with an ungrammatical sentence fragment so I had to do some interpreting), I apologize, but on reviewing the thread it still seems to me to be a fair reading of your comment. JamesMLane t c 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"santorum" consensus – Meta Discussion
I've noted your comments related to the "santorum" consensus process appended to your comments on the question. Please consider refactoring them to the newly designated "Meta" discussion above where they are more appropriate, less distractive to the question feedback and can be more properly addressed. I waited several days for you to respond in that section but nothing further was forthcoming so I posted my intent to move on, then did. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I had commented in that section before you redesignated it as "Meta". I don't know which of my other comments you're referring to, but I'm happy with them where they are.


 * I appreciate your taking the time to attempt to structure the discussion productively. You need to recognize, however, that not everyone will necessarily find your structure to be the be-all and end-all.  Other people will continue to make comments that disagree with your opinions about what should be in the article, and even comments that don't fit into your ideal organization of the talk page.  For example, while you're redesignating sections, my previous proposal for specific language (toward the bottom of this section) has now been archived, even though it received more support than opposition.  Maybe it should be resurrected. JamesMLane t c 13:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your measured response.
 * You need to recognize, however, that not everyone will necessarily find your structure to be the be-all and end-all.
 * Well recognized already as reflected in "Meta Discussion". I've made a concerted effort (short of canvassing) to foster editor input (including your own) and I think I've been pretty above board in that regard.
 * Other people will continue to make comments that disagree with your opinions about what should be in the article,
 * My attempt to both facilitate and encourage the expression of those opinions is, hopefully, evident.
 * ...and even comments that don't fit into your ideal organization of the talk page.
 * Which is why I requested your consideration privately. You are, of course, free to post wherever you desire and to discuss further, if you're so inclined, my suggested process...wherever you desire. However, I'm simply not inclined to comment on that process within the designated "question" space as it's, IMHO, distractive. Should others wish to engage the subject there, that's fine too.
 * As to the archiving of prior content, I did nothing, to the best of my knowledge anyway, that could have somehow impacted the archiving parameters already in place. If I did so inadvertently, then my sincere apologies (and I would be most appreciative if you might advise me of just where and how you believe that occured). As to resurrecting archived content that you feel warrants further discussion, just fine by me. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI – "santorum" consensus
JamesMLane, FYI I've posed Question #2 here. I would appreciate any consideration you might care to offer. Any credible resolution will require significant editor input and your observations would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Province" vs. "Voivodeship"
You have previously taken an interest in the question of using "province" on Wikipedia in lieu of "voivodeship." The matter is again under discussion at "Talk:Voivodeships of Poland," in case you would like to participate. Regards, Nihil novi (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Deficit crisis
You wrote "Wikipedia should certainly report the right-wing view. We should not, however, adopt it as fact, and we should also report the opposing points of view -- including the view of most economists, that all the debt-reduction provisions being discussed would have contractionary effects at a time when unemployment is already far too high." I've seen the contractionary effect point in the article. Why not propose a new lead or other specific changes? -- Jo3sampl (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

David Beckham
Is a global phenomenon – Santorium is not, its a localized partisan and activist slur. Is it used a lot at the Sierra club? Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Budget Control Act of 2011
Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here !--Pharos (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fox
There is potentially an(other) editing conflict brewing at Fox News Channel controversies related to your last edit/addition there. So might want to take a look and possibly comment (see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News_Channel_controversies&action=historysubmit&diff=462168396&oldid=462151285]).

regards

--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. I no longer watchdog each edit's fate as carefully as I once did, so I might well have missed this.  I've now weighed in. JamesMLane t c 21:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Might be of interest for you too, that there is currently an edit war/argument whether the FDU poll should be included in the Fox News Channel. Personally I'm somewhat neutral as long as it is mentioned in at least one of the article, but the "fox friends" are out in force, so it might a good idea to keep both articles under observation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * GMTA -- I just happened on that one and was writing my contribution when I saw your message here. JamesMLane t c 04:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

BLPN
There is a discussion at the BLPN about your edits about Roger Ailes.Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard Niteshift36 (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User:JamesMLane, stop expressing personal opinions on Wikipedia, including articles, talk pages, user pages, etc. In particular, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News_Channel&diff=next&oldid=463582594 these opinions] you should keep to yourself. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your request is noted, but I decline to grant it.


 * There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline prohibiting users in general from expressing their own personal opinions on talk pages, user pages, etc., where those opinions are relevant to the goal of improving an article. (Indeed, if you look at the thread that sparked this, you'll see quite a few expressions of personal opinion, including those by NiteShift36, my accuser in this matter.)  Wikipedia does permit, indeed encourages, the reporting of facts about personal opinions in articles under certain circumstances, although in general a user's own personal opinions would not qualify.  (See Neutral point of view.)  If you believe that my conduct has been so abominable that I should be singled out for a permanent blanket prohibition on the expression of personal opinions, that bolt will have to come from another quarter. JamesMLane t c 10:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead with an arbitration request. But you are totally misreading just about everything: you are not singled out for a permanent blanket prohibition on the expression of personal opinions. None of us have the right to "express" ourselves when that intervenes with our BLP policy, and you called a living person a liar. Wikipedia is not a free-speech zone; God invented Facebook for that purpose. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I did not call a living person a liar. I said that one particular statement of his was a lie.  There is a huge difference.


 * As for arbitration, you misunderstood me. I was not intimating that I might bring an arbitration request.  I meant that, if you think I should be restricted in the way stated in your first post here, then you should bring such a request, because you as a lone admin do not have the authority to ban me from all expressions of personal opinion on Wikipedia.  (Note that your first post stressed "these opinions" (with link) but didn't limit the purported ban to such opinions.)


 * In the parallel thread on your talk page, you've begun to attempt to justify your position by invoking something more substantial than personal preference. Your argument thus far is unpersuasive -- oops, I meant to say that your argument thus far is unpersuasive in my opinion -- but I'll pursue it there to keep the discussion in one place. JamesMLane t c 12:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear JamesMLane, I have reverted your latest addition to my talk page. Your walls of text, in this case a wall with some hypothetical case, is not of interest or concern to me. I have no interest in wikilawyering either; I am sure that you would win a wikilawyering contest with just about anyone. You have seen what I think our BLP policy allows and disallows, and you have seen that another administrator agrees with me. That is all. We are not laying down the law; we are stating our opinion, and I have no interest in pursuing this with you on my talk page anymore. You are free, of course, to test the boundaries and see if your hypotheticals will lead to a block: I truly don't care. I can only give you one piece of advice: don't. That's not a warning, a directive, or an ukase, it's a piece of advice. Feel free to engage me anytime, but please be brief. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My now-deleted addition to your talk page (copied below to preserve it) did not, contrary to your statement, deal with "some hypothetical case". As I thought I made clear, it dealt with actual text currently found in Wikipedia article space concerning three actual named living persons.  Nor is it correct to say that I have seen what you think the BLP policy allows and disallows, because what you have said is inadequate to convey that (at least to my limited intellect), and you have, as is your right, declined to take the time to elucidate your view.


 * On your talk page, you asserted that similar questions had come up often and had been answered as per your interpretation. I wrote, "I would greatly appreciate it if you would refer me to the discussions you have in mind."  You responded with only one example, which was vastly different.  I remain open to being persuaded by rational argument.  Links to such alleged prior actions, provided by you or by anyone else who cares to, would be a start.  The reasoning might or might not persuade me, but I would read it with interest.


 * Below, for the benefit of any passersby who are interested, is the (non-hypothetical!) question that you chose to delete from your talk page, except that in this version I've boldfaced the specific question so that it's easier to find in what you call the "wall[] of text":


 * OK, here's a comparatively brief question for Drmies, EdJohnston, and anyone else who supports this novel interpretation of BLP. Right now, in article space, Wikipedia has the following text about a study by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA):


 * In response, Fox News frequent guest Ann Coulter characterized the PIPA findings as "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids" and called it a "hoax poll."[57] Bill O'Reilly called the study "absolute crap."[58] Roger Ailes referred to the study as "an old push poll."[59] James Taranto, editor of OpinionJournal.com, the Wall Street Journal's online editorial page, called the poll "pure propaganda."[60] (from Fox News Channel controversies, wikilinks omitted)


 * The footnotes provide links for the quoted deprecations but no other support for them.


 * Earlier text has described the PIPA study, with a link, so that the footnote (note 55 right now) names the study's authors: Steven Kull, Clay Ramsay, and Evan Lewis. On the PIPA website, all three are still listed as staffers and so are presumably still alive.


 * The indented passage makes negative and contentious statements about living persons and is not supported by any factual information. Does the indented passage violate BLP as you interpret it?


 * I'm not posting this on BLP/N because, in my opinion, the indented passage is clearly proper under BLP, but I raise the question because the passage seems to be improper under your version of BLP. JamesMLane t c 01:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Sitush (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yukon Green Party
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yukon Green Party. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thanksgiving
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Thanksgiving. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of George W. Bush substance abuse controversy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George W. Bush substance abuse controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 09:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:South Asia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:South Asia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Periyar (river)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Periyar (river). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taliban
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Taliban. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of Azerbaijan
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:History of Azerbaijan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christmas Eve
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Christmas Eve. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Dick Morris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles D. Baker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Burning of Washington
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Burning of Washington. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgia (country)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgia (country). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Palestine
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Palestine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metro Walk
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metro Walk. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Schiavone
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Schiavone. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Recreation of Seamus article
Thanks for contacting me. I have reviewed the arguments and closed it as no consensus – although as I am about to leave for work, I cannot move the article back, etc (although I have update the AfD result on the article's talk page). Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 16:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help. I am going to recreate the article because there was no consensus, and no consensus on an AfD is supposed to give the same outcome as keep.Debbie W. 18:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Seamus (dog) article has been restored.Debbie W. 18:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relevant/follow-up discussion at ANI. Your input there or at the article talkpage would be appreciated. El duderino (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of John Kerry VVAW controversy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Kerry VVAW controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Occupy Marines
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Occupy Marines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Louis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you comment ?
Hi! Can you comment in Talk page of "History of Azerbaijan" ? Thank you --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Romanians of Serbia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Romanians of Serbia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:7 World Trade Center
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:7 World Trade Center. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI – Courtesy Notification
As I was intent on changing my position to a simple Keep in the Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy petition, I have asked the closing admin to consider re-opening the AfD to accommodate that position change. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hunnic Empire
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hunnic Empire. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Berlin
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Berlin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gopalanand Swami
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gopalanand Swami. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PNS Ghazi
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:PNS Ghazi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ushuaia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ushuaia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genesis creation narrative
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indigenous peoples
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Indigenous peoples. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Perambalur
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Perambalur. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miloš Obilić
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Miloš Obilić. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Palestinian people
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Palestinian people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:University of Pristina/RfC: split proposal
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:University of Pristina/RfC: split proposal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Texas Revolution
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Texas Revolution. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Northern Ireland
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Northern Ireland. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed
Hi. Input would be appreciated at an RfC regarding Foley Square trial. I randomly selected you from the History section of the RfC feedback request list. Please disregard this request if you are too busy or not interested. --Noleander (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PNS Ghazi
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:PNS Ghazi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of kings of Iraq
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of kings of Iraq. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:September 11 attacks
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:September 11 attacks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carlingford Lough
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Carlingford Lough. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Radical Right
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Radical Right. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pakistan
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pakistan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sri Lanka
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sri Lanka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Controversies relating to the Six-Day War
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Controversies relating to the Six-Day War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taipei
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Taipei. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Balochistan conflict
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Balochistan conflict. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sri Lanka
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sri Lanka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mount Everest
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mount Everest. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Three-dimensional chess
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Three-dimensional chess. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States war crimes
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States war crimes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgian
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgian. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pogrom
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pogrom. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus (dog)
I noticed that you have made edits to the Seamus (dog) article. There is a survey to determine whether the Seamus article should be kept, renamed, merged, or deleted. Thank you. HHIAdm (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Talk:Seamus (dog)

Please comment on Talk:Mexico
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexico. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chernobyl after the disaster
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chernobyl after the disaster. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Azad Kashmir
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Azad Kashmir. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Pashtuns
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Pashtuns. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Монголын хаадын төр барьсан жилийн жагсаалт
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Монголын хаадын төр барьсан жилийн жагсаалт. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pakistan
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pakistan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taiping Island
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Taiping Island. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Correlates of crime
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Correlates of crime. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murasaki Shikibu
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murasaki Shikibu. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mitt Romney
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitt Romney. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greek genocide
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Greek genocide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lower Babur
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lower Babur. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Khosrow Sofla
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Khosrow Sofla. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jerash
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jerash. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Australia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Australia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage in Quintana Roo
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage in Quintana Roo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Right-wing socialism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Right-wing socialism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

== Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues == Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bronyetransportyor
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bronyetransportyor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yugoslavia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yugoslavia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Germans
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Germans. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Confederate States of America
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Confederate States of America. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cigarette holder
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cigarette holder. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Srebrenica massacre
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Srebrenica massacre. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sino-Indian War
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sino-Indian War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Republic of Ireland
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Republic of Ireland. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pakistan Zindabad
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pakistan Zindabad. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Darrell Issa
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Darrell Issa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Perth (disambiguation)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Perth (disambiguation). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murujuga
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murujuga. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mali
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mali. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orleigh Court
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orleigh Court. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2012 Pacific hurricane season
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2012 Pacific hurricane season. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Srebrenica massacre
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Srebrenica massacre. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Macclesfield Bank
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Macclesfield Bank. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bloody Christmas
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bloody Christmas. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of India
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Flag of India. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Olympic Committee
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International Olympic Committee. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gulf War
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gulf War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Burma
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Burma. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White people
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:White people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kosovo
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kosovo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Tea Party politicians
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Tea Party politicians. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Byrne
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Byrne. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited True the Vote, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Walker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples
You are being contacted because you participated in this RfC in February about the scope of the article on Indigenous peoples. The discussion has now been revived at Talk:Indigenous peoples and your input would be appreciated. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harold Simmons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Perry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your deletion of Jerrold Nadler coin minting position
Please see Talk page of Nadler article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.191.5 (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

2012 House of Representatives elections Gerrymandering
Hi Do you have any plans following you comment on talk page about inserting new details etc about this issues. --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Trump
I modified slightly your comment so that it didn't break the carriage return. Hope you don't mind. Arzel (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14
Hi JamesMLane! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 18:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter

''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming Saturday events – March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Your comment in the "Talk" section of the F-35 article
I thought your comment on the Talk page there under "Criticism as a separate article?" to be valid and very timely. I hope you'll continue to keep an eye on this topic. Though I'm new to editing the F-35 article I'm concerned there may be an ongoing effort by the people who've edited it most recently to obscure criticism of this weapons system, as I believe I've experienced with my attempts to include commentary on the recent engine explosion.BLZebubba (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

BLP Violations
Those are BLP violations. Show me where Crooks and Liars is a reliable source. Why do you feel the need to trash a living person? Arzel (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I must point out to you, O enforcer of rules, that your use of my Talk page to attack me with a non-neutral section heading violates Wikipedia rules. As to the substance, I've explained my edits at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson.


 * Your post is also an impermissible personal attack in that, instead of assuming good faith, you assume that I "feel the need" to trash poor Ms. Attkisson. I note that she has trashed quite a few living people.  Wikipedia properly reports the facts about her opinions, but where others dispute her attacks, NPOV requires that we also report those responses, instead of letting her smears stand uncontested.  Regardless of whether I believe her to be a liar, I don't believe that Wikipedia should say she's a liar. JamesMLane t c 08:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You have been here quite some time, and know quite well that a source like Crooks and Liars is not acceptable. That source basically caller her a liar and you included language that would indicate she is a liar.  You put in a BLP violation.  But as you say it has been discussed on the talk page, and as has been indicated your source has backtracked as well.  Please be more careful in the future about including sources and language of such claims.  Arzel (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Attkisson is calling the DoJ people liars, based in part on what she alleges she was told by a computer "expert" whom she won't name and whose exact qualifications and conclusions we can't review, and you have no problem with that.


 * As for Crooks & Liars, it certainly has a political orientation -- as does the New York Post, which is relied on heavily in the article, and as do many other right-wing outlets that get cited. Whether C&L is reliable enough to cite depends on the statement.  If C&L asserted that an anonymous source told them that Attkisson had hacked C&L's computers, I'd be dubious about including that.  In this instance, however, C&L was asserting only that the video showed a particular episode of DWTS and that that episode aired in September.  Those are objective facts that can be checked.  If C&L had been making stuff up to support its political agenda, it could be busted in short order.  Of course, the latest clarification from C&L confirms that its assertions about the content of the video were completely true.  The only inaccuracy was that C&L relied on Politico for its information about what Attkisson was alleging about the video, and either Attkisson didn't make things clear to Politico or Politico bungled its reporting of the video.


 * The latest piece by the left-leaning C&L is like the article I added by the right-leaning Kyle Smith: A notable, non-self-published source has read the book (which I have not) and reports on what's in it. That's not a situation where the report should be quickly discounted based on the reporter's bias, unless it says something extraordinary or opinionated about the book.  C&L is a good source for clarifying what Politico omitted -- that Attkisson presented the video as evidence of September 2013 hacking, and that she is therefore alleging a further hacking incident that occurred after her original charge. JamesMLane t c 18:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vote Climate U.S. PAC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary Peters. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

April 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

June 10: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

July 8: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sunday August 2: WikNYC Picnic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

August 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

September 16: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday October 3: WikiArte Latin America Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Oct 28: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday Nov 22: Soviet Jewry Edit-a-thon & Women In Science Edit-a-thon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

== Dec 9: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC; Dec 12: Art & Law editathon + Dec 13: Black Film editathon ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dickinson's Real Deal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Real Deal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Saturday February 6 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

== Feb 16: Art+Feminism Training / Photo-Poetics @ Guggenheim Feb 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday, March 5: Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

March 16: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

April 13: WikiWednesday Salon NYC and Mini-Video Opportunity
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday April 30: Contemporary Art of the Middle East and North Africa @ Guggenheim
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Mark Grossman listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mark Grossman. Since you had some involvement with the Mark Grossman redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

May 25: WikiWednesday Salon NYC / Enterprise MediaWiki Conference
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday June 5: Women in Jewish History Edit-a-thon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

June 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Wednesday June 29: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 10: WikNYC Picnic @ Central Park
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

August 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

September 14: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sun October 16: CommonsLab / Open House NY Photo Contest + Hackathon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday October 22: WikiArte Latin American Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday November 12: Women in Science Edit-a-thon @ NY Academy of Sciences (plus Sunday Indigenous People's Justice event)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday December 3: Contemporary Chinese Art Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

MfD nomination of User:JamesMLane/RfC re Fox News
User:JamesMLane/RfC re Fox News, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JamesMLane/RfC re Fox News and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:JamesMLane/RfC re Fox News during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Double listing in dab page
Hey,

I received your message and, as wanted, put it up to the respective projects at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. Thanks ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Input requested
Hello, because of an edit war on And you are lynching Negroes, and an on-going stalemate on its talk page, I am going through and notifying people who have previously worked on the article, and are still somewhat active to comment on the current state of the page. It is my intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Thank you. --evrik (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

December 21: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (plus Wikipedia Day on Jan 15!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

February 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

March 11: Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon @ MoMA (and beyond!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday March 26: Action=History Wiki-Hackathon @ Ace Hotel
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

April 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday May 21: Metropolitan Museum of Art Edit-a-thon + global online challenge
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

May 24: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thursday June 22: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Help me!
I'm a longtime Wikipedian but I never knew or have forgotten what I need to know to create a new article without messing up article history.

There are two different bands called "Celtic Thunder". Our article on Celtic Thunder is about the Irish band, but it has a section -- Celtic Thunder -- about the U.S. band, which is decades older. I want to create the article Celtic Thunder (United States), begin it by cutting and pasting the material from that section, and hatnote the Celtic Thunder article. How can I cut and paste that material into a new article without losing the edit history? Obviously I don't want to move the whole article, but it's silly for the material about the U.S. band to remain in the article about the Irish one, and if I just delete it then the history will be gone.

Thanks for any help you can give to thirteen-year newbie. :)JamesMLane t c 03:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for WP:PROPERSPLIT? Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's exactly what I needed! JamesMLane t c 13:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Celtic Thunder (United States)
Hello JamesMLane,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Celtic Thunder (United States) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Celtic Thunder (United States) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Celtic Thunder (United States), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please take note of the message I left on your talk page. The specific situation here is that the new article was created through WP:SPLIT from existing material.  Laundering it through the draftspace will make it harder to preserve the history.  Instead of my spending my time arguing about this, how about if you give me some time to turn the split material into a proper article?  WP will survive if the article in its present state is in mainspace for a couple days, even if it's eventually deleted. JamesMLane t c 10:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sunday July 9: WikNYC Picnic @ Governors Island
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

July 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 30: Action=History Wiki-Hackathon @ Ace Hotel
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

August 30: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

September 27: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
 * P.S. On the weekend before the annual meeting, you can join: Action=History @ Ace Hotel (Sunday, September 24, 2017)

Sunday October 15: Wikipedia @ Open House New York / Weekend Photo Competition
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

October 18: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Metropolitan Museum of Art Edit-a-thon (Nov 19) and global online Wikipedia Asian Art Month (Nov 1-30)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

November 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC @ NYU ITP
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

December 13: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

February 21: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

March 21: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

CANCELLED: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

May 23: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

== June 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (and Pratt Women Wikipedia Design this Saturday June 16) ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thursday July 12: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ Jefferson Market Library
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 29: Annual Wiki-Picnic @ Prospect Park
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

August 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

September 26: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

== Sun October 14: Open House New York Weekend Upload Party @ NYU ITP and Indigenous People's Justice Edit-a-thon @ Interference Archive ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

October 24: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday Oct 28: Wikidata Birthday Party
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

December 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

January 13: Wikimedia NYC invites you to Wikipedia Day 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Feb 27 WikiWednesday Salon + Mar 2 MoMA Art+Feminism and beyond
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

== March 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + March 23: Asian Art Archive/New York Public Library ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

April 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + April 4 and 5: LaGuardia Community College Translatathon 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

May 22: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

June 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (stay tuned for Pride on weekend!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday June 23: Wiki Loves Pride @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday July 14: Annual NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Roosevelt Island
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

August 28: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (+editathons before and after)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday Sept 7: Met Fashion Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with 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. [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) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

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. [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) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Sept 25: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

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) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Oct 23: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday Nov 16: Wikipedia Asian Month Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Nov 20: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Dec 18: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Jan 22: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Saturday Jan 25: Met 'Understanding America' Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Feb 19: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

March 18: First ever ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Speedy deletion nomination of Steven Donziger


A tag has been placed on Steven Donziger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Articles for deletion/Steven R. Donziger. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jtrainor (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

April 22: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sat May 9: Symposium on Wikipedia and COVID-19
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

May 20: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 15:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

June 17: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sun Aug 16: Great American Wiknic NYC & Beyond
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 22:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sat Sep 26: Met Fashion Virtual Edit Meet-up
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 17:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

October 21: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 04:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

October 18: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC (plus weekend editathons)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 17:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

December 16: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Friday Jan 15: ONLINE Wikipedia Day NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

February 17: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thursday Feb 25: ONLINE Black Wiki History Month at the Schomburg Center
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 07:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sat Mar 6: Met Women's History Month Virtual Edit Meet-up
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 01:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

== Sat Mar 13: Asia Art Archive in America: Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 00:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

March 17: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC with Wikimedia Community Ireland for St Patrick's Day
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

April 21: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC with with Environmental focus
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 00:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

May 19: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 03:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

June 16: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 16:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

July 14: Virtual Coney Island Meetup + NYC monthly collaboration
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sat Aug 14: Wikimania Wiknic NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 18:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

August 25: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

September 29: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon + Annual Members' Meeting NYC
Upcoming events:
 * Prospect Park photo contest, ongoing
 * Latinx Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, October 6
 * Wiki-Pavilion Picnic NYC in Prospect Park (with WikiProject Craft + WikiConference North America), October 10

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 04:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sunday: Wiki-Pavilion Picnic NYC (part of WikiConference NA, Oct 8-10)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 17:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Dec 15: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 18:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Saturday Feb 5: ONLINE Met Afrofuturist edit-a-thon (and monthlong campaign)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 05:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC: Strategic Planning Survey for our community
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 18:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Feb 23: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 19:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Mar 27: Wiki-Tent Brunch in Brooklyn
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 04:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiWednesday tonight + Sunday Wiki-Tent Brunch
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 13:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Apr 24: Wiki-Picnic and WikiSeder in Brooklyn
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Annie Moore (immigrant) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Annie Moore (immigrant) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Annie Moore (immigrant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I gobble clocks for a living
Especially Hunter Bidens. 70.109.153.159 (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Apr 27: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 02:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

May 22: Wiki-Picnic and Hackathon in Brooklyn
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 02:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

May 25: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 00:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

NYC Wiknic, June 26
Hold the date. Meetup/NYC Wiknic in Crotona Park, Sunday June 26.

Watch Meetup/NYC/Wiknic June 2022 for further details as they become available.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

June 22: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team 14:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Sun June 26: Bronx Wiki-Picnic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thu July 14: Astoria Beer Garden Wiki-Picnic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

July 27: WikiWednesday Salon NYC (+Aug in-person for Wikimania)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Fri/Sat/Sun Aug 12-14 with Saturday flagship Wiki World's Fair at Queens Museum
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Aug 24: WikiWednesday Salon NYC (+Sep annual meeting)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Sep 28: Wikimedia NYC Annual Election/Members Meeting (+October 2 picnic)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sun Oct 2: WikiNYC Post-Election Wiki-Picnic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sat Oct 29: Wikidata Day in NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Sat Nov 12: WikiConference North America in NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Nov 30: WikiWednesday Salon in Brooklyn + online
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Dec 28: WikiWed Salon (+ Wikipedia Day on Jan 15)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Sun Jan 15: Wikipedia Day returns to NYC!
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Feb 15: WikiWednesday Salon in Brooklyn
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Mar 8: WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Apr 12 WikiWednesday + Earth Week (Apr 15-23)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Sat: Earth Day Edit-a-thon + Sun: Wiki-Picnic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

May 17: WikiWednesday Salon + Queering Wikipedia
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

June 21: WikiWednesday Salon back in Manhattan!
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

July 19 WikiWednesday + New York Botanical Garden Edit-a-thon (July 29)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiWednesday (Aug 23) and Governors Island Wiki-Picnic (Sun Aug 27)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sunday: NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Gov Island
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sep 20: Wikimedia NYC Annual Election Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Sun Oct 1: NYC Hispanic/Latinx Heritage Month 2023
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki.NYC Pavilion for Open House New York (Oct 21–22) and Wikidata Day (Oct 29)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Nov 15: WikiWednesday Salon + Wikimedia NYC Executive Director job
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Wed Dec 6: Hacking Night + job listing
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thu Jan 4: Hacking Night + Wikipedia Day soon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thu Feb 8 NYC Hacking Night + Feb 21 WikiWednesday
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Tue March 5: Wiki Gala NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiNYC: 3/14 Hacking Night + 3/16 Queens Name Explorer
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiWednesday (April 10) and City Tech Library LGBTQIA edit-a-thon (April 11)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thu April 25: WikiNYC Hacking Night
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

May 8: WikiWednesday Salon with new Executive Director
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2: Hacking Sunday (+preview of June 8 Wiknic)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sat June 8: Governors Island Wiknic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

June 26: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Fri July 19: Wikicurious in NYC, Editing Wikipedia for Beginners
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)