User talk:Neutron/Archive 2

Re: Succession
Here in Alaska, the governor is allowed to appoint the third person in the line of succession. That choice has to be confirmed by a joint session of the state legislature, however. Check out this link: JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting. But since the appointment was apparently just made on Friday, and has not yet been confirmed by the legislature, wasn't she jumping the gun by announcing that he "will" become lt. gov.?  And by extension, weren't the media (and ultimately, Wikipedia, starting with me) doing the same, by reporting that he will take that office without mentioning that it still requires legislative approval?  Neutron (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And by the way, although there are templates all over the place (including on the article's talk page) about the DYK, I don't see it on the main page, it's not in the archives, and I checked the "queue" and it isn't there either. Unless I missed it.  Neutron (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably missed it. I think it was on at 9 a.m. GMT July 7. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Meg Griffin (radio personality)
Neutron - Good catch on the WRXP article. I created a short article on Meg Griffin, the DJ (no more red link), but there's not a whole lot of info in there. I'd appreciate anything you might be able to add. Thanks. -Sme3 (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Parliamentary procedure/authority merge tags
I notice that you have placed merge tags on Parliamentary procedure and Parliamentary authority. In each case you have proposed that the article in question be merged into the other (by using the "mergeto" template), so I think the first thing you should do is decide which one you think should be the "surviving" article and change the template on that article to "mergefrom". The second thing I hope you will do is to start a discussion about the proposed merger, on the talk page of one of those articles (with the "Discuss" link pointing to the same talk page so there is only one discussion of the proposed merger.) The justification for merging these articles is, to say the least, not readily apparent to me. But if you give your reasons I will be happy to jump in, one way or the other, and help get the discussion started. Maybe this could even spur a few other members of the dormant WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure into action.

I also notice that you have merged Rules of order into Parliamentary procedure, apparently without discussion. I can understand why you would think those articles need to be merged, due to the similarity of the subjects and the substantial overlap between the articles. I could live with it either way. However, don't you think it would have been better to make that a "proposed" merger, rather than just doing it unilaterally? A quick review of the history of the now-redirected Rules of Order article indicates that it had been an independent article for about seven and a half years, which in Wikipedia-time makes it almost prehistoric. It seems to me that something more than one editor, with no discussion, should have been involved before it was swept into the dustbin of history. Neutron (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I meant to use mergefrom on parliamentary procedure. Thanks for noticing that.  I've provided a rationale on Talk:Parliamentary procedure as requested.


 * As for rules of order, Help:Merging says:
 * Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merger, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merger purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.
 * Given that the article claims that "rules of order" is simply the American term for "parliamentary procedure", it seemed unlikely there would be any objections. I think asking for discussion would have been considerably less efficient than simply implementing the obvious, especially given that anything changed in the wiki can be easily undone.  The long-standing content was not destroyed, simply merged, and if there is no objection, then I guess that particular matter is settled. -- Beland (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Marianne Espinosa
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Need formatting help
I've never used this help-me box or seen anyone else use it, I hope it works. The documentation suggested this should be placed here, not where I actually need the help. Okay. I added a caption to the infobox at Craig Campbell (politician) and the caption is really small. I'd like to increase the font size but I couldn't figure out how to do it. I did look at WP:TYPESET and saw discussion of similar issues, but not simply increasing the size of a particular set of words. (Or maybe I missed it among the technical mumbo-jumbo.) Can anyone point me to a simple how-to on this? (Emphasis on simple; or am I just dreaming?) Neutron (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never done this personally, but looking at Template:Infobox, it appears you can add the captionstyle parameter to use CSS on the caption; for example, try using "captionstyle=color:#ff0000;" I can't guarantee that'll work as I've never tried it, but try fiddling about with it in the sandbox or your userspace. If you need any further help, feel free to either replace the template, contact me on my talk page, or come to IRC.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
In case you missed it in the cacophony at Jimbo's thank you for your clear explanation. Anthony (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thank you for the compliment. I had not seen it before you pointed it out.  I do try to write clearly.  :)   Neutron (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Blog vs radio and sports nicks
Again, please reference wp:DISAMBIG--which doesn't ask us to do personal research to determine which use is primary but simply to determine if one is referenced in news accounts exponentially more than the others. The number of Google News hits for the combination "the blaze" and "glenn beck" from July 15, 2010, to January 15, 2011 is about 43 results. This does not count opinion journal references or times the blog was mentioned but Beck was not. I tried to scroll downa and find a SINGLE Google News hit that would be in refernce to any of the other nicknamed entities or individual but was unable to find one. The blog has 5 million unique visitors a month. By comparison, Andrew Sullivan gets a third o' mill. (However, FWIW, it's my opinion that use of such stats amounts to wp:OR, but what doesn't is straightforward Google News hits, as in the present case....)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * S - t - o - p ! lol"it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term"Nothing about which existed prior to 2010 here....--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, most people entering "Obama" into a WP search bubble mean the US president not the town in Japan.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So now you can nominate the article for deletion, so people can discuss what you want to do. Neutron (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Paulskirchenverfassung
Ping on Talk:Paulskirchenverfassung. I think the article should be renamed to something in English in the interim. I do not think the debate for changing it back to "Paulskirchenverfassung" from something like "Frankfurt Constitution" would hold much sway, which makes it evident to me it can be changed safely. Int21h (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Healing
May your eyes mend :) All the best Hekerui (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Voting
Re - it also implements a Utilitarian Social welfare function where every voter has equal weight in that function. Well, almost - I think (I'd have to think about this a bit more) - it gives a somewhat greater weight to editors with more intense preferences than ones with "weak" preferences.  Volunteer Marek  23:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Committee of Five
I noticed your concern that this article may include copyright violations. Is this concern based simply on the style of the article, or something else? Also, have you raised your concern directly with the editor who created most of the article? If not, I think you should probably do so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply the style of the article, particularly the last two paragraphs, and to some degree the one above that (before I edited it.) It seems highly unlikely to me that that wording was created by someone specifically for Wikipedia, but rather is an older style of historical writing that was probably just copied into the article.  But you are correct, it should be discussed further.  I removed the tag that I placed on the talk page and will check the page history when I get a chance (hopefully over the weekend) and determine who that editor is and write to him/her.  I guess the other issue is that I wasn't quite sure what to say to the editor:  "Did you plagiarize this article, and if so, how much and from where?"  But I will come up with a slightly more diplomatic way to ask the question.  Neutron (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The writing does sound old-fashioned, but many of the references are modern. The article history reflects that most of the article was added by a single user in a few dozen edits over a period of two years, which (1) makes it easy to know whom to ask for the background, and (2) doesn't strike me as a method that would be used by someone who was copying the article wholesale. Also, interestingly, this user doesn't appear to have edited anything else (except for some typo fixes). I am sure you will come up with an appropriate way of eliciting the information we need, and hopefully also urging the editor to contribute further (assuming this was indeed his or her own work). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: ‎Editing under the influence?

 * There have been incidents that could hardly be explained any other way, though I wouldn't be too sure about the "legal" part

You might be surprised. Contrary to what we're told in the media, the hard data shows that the biggest problem comes from legal pharmaceuticals, legal tobacco, and legal alcohol use. Problems with illegal cannabis, for example, don't even register a blip on the radar, yet the DEA spent $10 billion fighting it in 2008. Any idea why? Nobody really knows, but some theories suggest that this kind of useless and meaningless enforcement stimulates the law enforcement and prison industry in a self-perpetuating spiral. That $10 billion could be better spent educating people about the true dangers of drug use and its real effects on the body and mind. If the U.S. were serious about fighting drugs, all they would have to do is put up 151 billboards, television and radio ads illustrating the actual violence and murders caused by supporting the drug trade, and fund no-fault treatment programs linked to job training. I'm guessing it could be done for under 1 billion. Of course, nobody is interested in actual solutions to problems, so they create ineffectual laws and build more prisons. Drug use is and always has been a public health problem, not a law enforcement issue. Drug addiction is a disease, not a crime. Once again, we've got the wrong people in the wrong positions making the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons. I'm reminded of a famous quote from Leonard McCoy, Star Trek's chief medical officer: "What is this, the Dark Ages?" Viriditas (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Disambiguation link notification for November 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bungle in the jungle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jethro Tull (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) 12:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Court of the United States
Just a heads-up to let you know that I've now had a chance to respond in greater detail to your questions. Please see the bottom of my talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary procedure
I just linked one of the RONR articles in a comment I made on the requests for arbitration page. I thought you might be interested. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good job, maybe we could generate greater interest in the parliamentary procedure project by giving out awards for correct usage of p.p. concepts and motions in non-article space. Within reason, of course.  :)  Neutron (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Look Mickey lead
Tks for picking up on "his" in the lead, it was actually just a typo as I was originally going to put his name in that spot, decided it didn't need to there after all, and of course forgot to add the "his" back in before I saved my edit. Best laid plans... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looked like it was probably a mistake. The funny thing is, if the article had not been the featured article of the day, with the word "his" in there, and if I had not read the blurb first and then went to the article itself, I never would have noticed it was missing.  I wonder if anyone else would have noticed?  Anyway, thanks for letting me know.  Neutron (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions
A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=560642144 your edit] to Rush D. Holt, Jr. may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Hopewell 1 - Flickr - USDAgov.jpg|upright|right|275px|thumb|Holt at an event with a USDA
 * Fixed. I don't even know how that happened, as I did not intend to edit the caption.  (Actually, I have a suspicion that in trying to use the beta visual editor, I did something I didn't even know I was doing.)  After further review, however, I am going to delete that photo entirely.  It is of very poor quality and basically duplicates the much sharper photo in the infobox (except that it shows him with less grey hair, but I don't think we really need visual proof that he has gotten greyer with age.)  Neutron (talk) 20:28, 19 June 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 21:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Wikipedia_talk:Reward_board
Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 9 November 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 15:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kozinski
I don't object to your deletion of the section, but I have a feeling Kozinski might. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When I get a chance, I plan to write a new version of that section that discusses what he was really talking about, which is mostly Legal Realism and related issues. I will try to work the "breakfast" line in there, but in the context of the actual issue.  However, I do not see any particular urgency in doing so; this is just one of many law review articles written every year by prominent judges or law professors, and I don't think it's imperative that we include this specific one.  I am sure this judge has written other noteworthy things (such as in some of his opinions), but we generally don't try to include all of those sorts of things.  Neutron (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Green Bag Almanac and Reader for 2014 has a "law and breakfast" theme; maybe we can find some information in there when it comes out. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Filling vacancies
I've just pointed out on the noticeboard that the election procedures (from the 2012 RfC, carried forward for 2013) make it clear that vacancies occurring after the voting starts aren't to be filled from the election results. What I didn't mention on the noticeboard, but thought you'd find interesting, is that the proposal to handle it this way was written by you. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's pretty funny, isn't it? In my response to your post (which I put above your post, because it was sort of an addendum to my last post) I did mention that I thought I may have written that sentence, or at least heavily edited it. (I guess you actually looked it up and confirmed my suspicion.) I'm pretty certain I did not intend that sentence to mean what you are citing it for, but like some long-dead Framer who didn't leave behind a diary of his thoughts while at the Constitutional Convention, the words I used (and their fairly plain meaning) control over what I thought they meant when I was writing them.  The only difference is, I'm still alive to see the result.  Neutron (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, even though you didn't mean to cover the situation, if you think it through it follows as an a fortiori case that it should be covered. I've just explained in response to your comment back on the noticeboard, q.v. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Democrat vs. Democratic
You might want to read newspapers in NJ, most of which abide by the usage Democrat except when referring directly to the party using the adjective when it is Democratic. I understand some Democrats consider it an epithet, but the article was written with the usage in northeastern dialects of English (ref: Frederic Gomes Cassidy and Joan Houston Hall. eds, Dictionary of American Regional English: Volume 2 (1991) pp. 37-38, 1036). As a Democrat in NJ, you would think I would know.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun control Arbitration statement
Thank you for calling the typo to my attention. Corrected. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

== Removing gibberish; and the source is behind a paywall so I can't try to make sense of this based on the source (also moving the first-reference for the source == - Engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory have recently demonstrated ion drives able to function !awlessly for more than three years of continuous operation. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slide guitar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Real Love. 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) 08:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Boy Scout Controversies
Since I saw you are currently editing the article right now, I figured I would mention it here instead of on the talk page. I think the recent statement doesn't currently belong in the lead (or at least should be shrunk a lot.) First off it stinks of recentism and the line about it in the main article is smaller then the article in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, not the other way around.Marauder40 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't write it, I just split it off to a separate paragraph and edited it. I think a mention of it does belong in the lead because it is not merely a recent event, it is essential to understanding the current status of the issue.  This was not some Scoutmaster from Boise (apologies to any Scoutmasters from Boise) saying this, it was the national president of the organization.  He is a very influential person with the power to get his recommendation considered, though not necessarily adopted.  Having looked at the article again following your comment, I do agree with you that the descriptions in the lead and the body are somewhat backwards.  I am going to switch them, but I may come back later and add a bit to what I am putting in the lead.  I think any further discussion should be on the article talk page.  Neutron (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I realize that most discussion should take place on the article talk page, just figured I would give you a heads up here since you were actively editing the page when I was looking at it, figuring you might incorporate the changes into what you were currently doing. Can always discuss things on article page ;)  Marauder40 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thank you. I had actually moved on to another article I discovered while editing that one - Chartered organizations of the Boy Scouts of America, which needed (and still needs) some attention. Neutron (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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