User talk:NickCT/Archive IX

Hillary Rodham Clinton
I'm glad that you have weighed in there. Unfortunately, GregKaye and I have been at loggerheads on some other issues, and I seem to have gotten on his bad side. In any case, if you do some work on this proposed move, please feel free to borrow liberally from the Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Move rationale page that I set up for the last discussion. Also, one issue that was raised in opposition to the proposed move in the last discussion was usage in "high level sources", which opposers contended favored the current title. I did a little research on this issue, looking at the highest-level sources available, peer-reviewed academic journal publications. My findings are at User:BD2412/High level sources, but they are now about a year out of date. Still, the trend is pretty clear for the usual sources of these kinds of publications. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - Awesome mate. As you may have already seen, I'm going to try to prevail on GregKaye to not be at loggerheads.
 * I will take look at your "Move rationale" and "High level sources". You may have to give me 24hr to get really involved. I have limited time to devote today.
 * Let's hope this effort isn't stymied by the BLP fanatics again........ NickCT (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline. The news reports suggest Hillary will announce on Sunday, and I would actually wait a couple days beyond that to allow the news to be carried around and reactions to be reported. Don't worry about my dispute with GregKaye. I don't need to work with him directly, and don't want side issues to get in the way of encyclopedia issues. Also, I note that in the last RM, the admins considered the number of editors who seemed to support each proposed rationale. I would phrase the move request itself to say whatever the complete set of rationales is (common name, recognizability, conciseness, etc.) and to clearly request that supporting participants to specify if there are any of those with which they do not agree. That will indicate that supporters are supporting for all reasons stated, unless they specify that some of those reasons are not a basis for their support, and will avoid that sort of confusion. bd2412  T 14:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "that will indicate that supporters are supporting for all reasons stated" - Ok. That seems reasonable. My only concern might be that we make the mechanics of the RM so complex that people have a tough time offering a simple Support position.
 * I wonder whether we should just simply ask the question again, and show again that a super majority is for the move. Maybe a 3-admin can overturn a pretty firm consensus once, but twice.................?
 * re " Don't worry about my dispute with GregKaye. I don't need to work with him directly" - Sure. But trying to smooth over frayed feelings rarely hurts, no? NickCT (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think supporters generally "support" without too extensive an explanation, and generally do not object to specific arguments provided as a basis for making a move. I would also structure the RM with separate sections for ===Support===, ===Oppose===, and ===Discussion===, with an admonition that discussion should be kept to the section designated for it. I have closed many lengthy RM's and such a structure makes it much easier for admins to see all the arguments put forth by each side in one place, and to keep lengthy diatribes from obscuring the consensus of the community. I would actually have the entire discussion on a separate subpage, as we did with the second Chelsea Manning move request. bd2412  T 14:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "I would also structure the RM with separate sections for...." - Yes. Agree. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I have a fairly complete list of participants in the previous discussion at User:BD2412/sandbox. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - So noted. Thank you. NickCT (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to let you both know that, now that I know the level of involvement from nationals, I won't personally be submitting an RM but will be happy to chip in contribution such as I have done recently. As mentioned I am more than happy for you to use any portion of my text or not.  I do not see why we should publicly soapbox a name that she does not soapbox publicly herself.  GregKaye 16:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "why we should publicly soapbox a name that she does not soapbox publicly herself" - Tad confused by that statement. Does that mean you no longer support rename? It think the problem is that the article does currently soapbox a name the subject is soapboxing. NickCT (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Hillary (I guess for purposes here we are on first name terms) has the perfect opportunity to soapbox the name HRC on her webpages but doesn't. There is no moral issue regarding the presentation of a maiden name if she does not use it herself.  GregKaye 17:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah. Ok. My recollection from the last debate was that there was some reason to believe that HRC was the subject's preference. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's people contacted her people about it. I don't think that should have much bearing - we have ignored subject preference in Cat Stevens for a very long time, and the community declined to move Pink (singer) to P!nk despite the artist's consistent use, so there really is not much weight to that. By the way, in light of "gaming the system" comments in the talk page discussion, I have opened a discussion at Village pump (policy) to determine whether this move request should be allowed at all. That should settle any potential objections to initiating such a move, but a move discussion should not be initiated until that boils down to some degree. bd2412  T 19:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - I agree re Jimbo. As much a I revere and respect the Jimbo, I felt his involvement in the HRC debate was completely unhelpful. Show me the policy that says subjects of BLPs get to choose their articles' title. If there is none, why go to the trouble of asking the subject? Jimbo didn't seem to be acknowledging policy at all.
 * Honestly, I would have just ignore Tarc's objections. Guy objects to everything. NickCT (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want an RM disrupted by arguments about whether the process itself is appropriate. The Village Pump discussion that I have opened should settle that the community favors allowing another request. bd2412  T 20:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have created a subpage at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request using the format from Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request. bd2412 T 17:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the Chelsea manning sequencing format has systemic bias towards "support". GregKaye 21:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We almost always sequence discussions this way, if they are expected to be lengthy and complicated - Support, then Oppose, then Discussion (or Abstain, then Discussion). If there is a bias, I have not seen it play out in discussions. bd2412  T 16:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Think I concur with bd2412 . I've seen this format in a number of places. If there's bias in it, then a whole bunch of discussions have been flawed. NickCT (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have moved the list of past discussion participants to User:BD2412/sandbox2 (this should be everyone from all the discussions, except that IPs and currently indefbanned users are stripped out). Cheers! bd2412  T 16:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - Includes folks from recent village pump discussion? I can send out a notification that looks something like this. I know there's some software out there that allows for mass notification, but I'm not sure what it is. Can I do that in Huggle? NickCT (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would go with AWB. That's a perfect draft for the circumstances, by the way. bd2412  T 17:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The move request has launched. Do you want to do the notifications? I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment. Cheers! bd2412  T 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Is there a reason you notified some people already? I accidentally double notified a couple folks. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I notified some people of the discussion last year! I presume that's the notification still lingering there. bd2412  T 20:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - Lol. You're right. I saw some of those notifications and assumed they were new cause they were the most recent ones on the talk page. Woops. Need to look at time stamps. NickCT (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming attractions in DC
 Hello!

Here are some upcoming DC meetups in April and May:


 * Tuesday, April 14: National Archives Hackathon on Wikipedia Space with American University – 2:30-5pm
 * See the latest work on the Wikipedia Space exhibit in the new NARA Innovation Hub and brainstorm on new ideas for a public exhibit about Wikipedia
 * Friday, April 17: Women in Tech Edit-a-thon with Tech LadyMafia – 5-9pm
 * Team up with Tech LadyMafia to improve Wikipedia content on women in the history of technology.
 * Saturday, April 25: April Dinner Meetup – 6 PM
 * Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!
 * Friday, May 1: International Labour Day Edit-a-Thon – 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
 * An edit-a-thon at the University of Maryland

Hope to see you at these events! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Cheers,

James Hare To remove yourself from this mailing list, remove your name from this list. 22:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Corona del Mar High School
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corona del Mar High School. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

HRC
You should probably indicate somewhere on the request page that you notified past participants. Calidum T&#124;C 19:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - ✅ NickCT (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brown rice
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brown rice. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - Sorry I didn't see this in time to comment. That seemed like a rather crumby attempt to poison the conversation at the last moment. NickCT (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that was also my impression. I think that the unanimous response from those supporters who were able to respond before the discussion was closed makes the point that this was a nonfactor. Cheers! bd2412  T 14:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Check what this whole issue is about before even consider getting involved
i can see that by giving "oh poor malik ..." you immediately throwh yourself on his side, as if wikipedia is a place where friends support each other. you might know each other or be friends. but your friendship should not influence the work in wikipedia and its neutrality and corectness in any way. if malik edits or deletes something with the argument that it does not fit into the list ALTHOUGH it qualifies for BOTH criterias the listM wants, then it is a sort of vandalism, especially if he does not let himself engage in any form of exchange or talk. that is the end of story. this arrogant guy does not even "discuss", argues or does anything towards the site, but merely deletes without logic or reason. if this is the wikipedia you like and you just support this mischief fine, then you better should consider to quit. wikipedia IS NO FACEBOOK2.0 yet many of its editors behave like it, putting more effort in making their own site "nice" or use discussion pages as chats or forums. so before putting some dumb on my site and just hook up with your buddy without even discussing with me or actually checking what is this whole thing about, you should not even consider getting involved into this. have a good day, and may the day come you will work on wikipedia correctly. without crap as "poor malik...".it is no instagram,Joobo (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * and yes i offered him to use the discussion page several times but he never engaged in any form in discussion. so you dont have to show me the bold revert discussion cycle... if there is only one person who wants to dicuss and the other simply ignores it.Joobo (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I see you have not made a single edit to the article's Talk page concerning your addition to the article. Please see WP:BURDEN. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * - Malik Shabazz and I rarely interact. We've probably more often found ourselves on the opposite side of issues than on the same side.
 * Where we are "on the same side", is in our attitudes towards tendentious and fractious editors like you.
 * Take a look at WP:BRD. Malik does not need to discuss or argue anything with you. If you want to make a change, YOU need to convince him that the change is OK.
 * Now quit yelling. It looks like some of the edits you are making are probably OK. You just need to sit down and discuss them first. If you do that quietly and respectfully, you are more likely to succeed. I will listen to and give careful consideration to quiet and respectful discussion, and I'm sure Malik will too. NickCT (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.
Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see  and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charleston church shooting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charleston church shooting. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Guy Fawkes_Night
While I understand you sentiments, stating option 3 is not helpful in resolving this divisive issue, and to help the project, I suggest that you reconsider and opt for options one or two. -- PBS (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Ok. Done. I think the RfC is a little misleading though in that it didn't allow for the opinion that "Guy Fawkes Night" is a celebration or commemeration of the "Gun Powder Plot" which was the event. I'm surprised others didn't pick up on that. As I'd stated, this seems self-evident to me. The RfC ought to be redone. NickCT (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view, but the article is about the celebration, it just that most of it at the moment is a about the history of the celebrations not the present celebrations. If you look back at how it was back end of September 2010 you will see a far from perfect article but one that contains a lot of information about the state of celebrations in the 21st century. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Yes. I see what you mean. The article should be about the present celebration. If there's a lot to say about the history of the celebration, that should be a subsection or a different article. Maybe there should be a simple RfC to just establish the primary topic of the article.
 * Hmmmmmm.... Scanning over the old version, my initial impression is that this article has rotted a bit. The older version seems more consistently and logically laid out. Sorta sad to see the decline really.
 * This looks like a classic example of what I personally refer to as "article rot" (i.e. a situation where an article which is sorta "good" gets picked to pieces by a series of well meaning but unfocused editors). Frankly, I wonder whether we should just consider a blanket revert to an old version of this article. NickCT (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Interstellar probe
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Interstellar probe. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vantix Diagnostics


A tag has been placed on Vantix Diagnostics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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 deleting administrator. Peppy Paneer (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mizrahi Jews
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mizrahi Jews. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Volkswagen emissions violations
Majority unanimously opposes the proposal. Withdraw? --George Ho (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of corporate collapses and scandals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevron. 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) 10:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II
I think there's no doubt of one thing. There's definitly a consensus against "Queen of 16...". PS - Thank goodness for that :) GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Well, I'm not counting my chickens until the "Queen of 16"er's relent. This page and the debate about the lead really tops my list for contentious debates about nothing on WP. I think a lot of the shenanigans is caused by a minority of very committed POV pushers. NickCT (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the "Queen of 16"er's will fall in line. They've got Canada in the intro, afterall :) GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I served a one-year ban from Wikipedia (April 2013-May 2014) & so I always have to walk carefully around potential mindfields. As result, I have to stay away from the revert button as much as possible & curb my temper in such discussions, like that Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - Hahaha! You "served time" huh? Don't worry. You ain't "down" on the WP street unless you've served time. NickCT (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It might be best if you control your emotions, like I had to do. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - What gave you the impression my emotions were'nt controlled? NickCT (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your expressed frustrations over how the Rfc turned out. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - Frustrations? More observations really about the circumventing of RfC's. NickCT (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I just don't want to see you getting blocked or worst. Anyways, I'll just watch how things go there (at Elizabeth II), as I don't want to end up banned again. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the concern, but I don't the issues that led your ban are relevant here. NickCT (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ford Pinto lead
I get what you mean about highlighting one paper in the lead section, but could you participate in the talk page for that article a bit? Right now it's just going back and forth and not really getting anywhere -- we need to establish at least some basic compromises that everyone can stand. --Aquillion (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Full Service (book)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Full Service (book). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eagles of Death Metal
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eagles of Death Metal. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, NickCT. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Paul Singer. Thank you. -- FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muhammad. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Nisour Square massacre RfC
Hey Nick, wanted to let you know that I reformatted the RfC on Nisour Square massacre per your suggestion and went ahead and removed your comment with your permission. Good idea! We can now keep the RfC discussion in the associated subsection. I will respond to your comments here shortly. Have a great night. Meatsgains (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, NickCT!


Happy New Year! NickCT, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thanks Liz . Hope this New Year brings you good fortune! NickCT (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Paul Singer. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

== Please comment on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes#rfc_C79C105|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany... ==

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History/RfC on Third Reich-only military units using Germany or Nazi Germany in infoboxes. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

February events and meetups in DC
Greetings from  Wikimedia DC !

February is shaping up to be a record-breaking month for us, with nine scheduled edit-a-thons and several other events:
 * On Friday, February 12, NPR will host a Black History Month First Edit event.
 * On Saturday, February 13 and Sunday, February 14, we're working with the Wiki Education Foundation to hold a series of four edit-a-thons at the AAAS 2016 Annual Meeting.
 * On Tuesday, February 16, we're holding the Smithsonian American Art Museum and American University WikiWorkshop with Professor Andrew Lih's class.
 * On Saturday, February 20, the Smithsonian American Art Museum will host the African American Artists Edit-a-Thon.
 * On Friday, February 26, Howard University will host its second annual Black History Month Edit-a-Thon.
 * On Saturday, February 27, we have three different events. In the morning, we're holding an Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.  In the afternoon, we'll host our second February WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.

We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at [mailto:info@wikimediadc.org info@wikimediadc.org] !

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

''You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.''

Editor behavior on Ford Pinto]
Please refrain from making vaguely denigrating comments in your talk comments (e.g., referring to Gary Schwartz as a 'character') and making "or else" threatening comments in your edit fields. We are all working on this together and these behaviors fail to demonstrate the GOOD FAITH it will take to sort out the direction of the article. Thanks for your contributions. 842U (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Not sure referring to someone as "a character" is denigrating. That's probably more an issue with your perception than my intent.
 * 2) Your revert-without-discussion behavior is tendentious, fractious and not in keeping with the idea of WP:BRD. If you want to demonstrate good faith, when someone suggests having a conversation about something on the talk page, try doing it. NickCT (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't a discussion about the Ford Pinto, it's about your behavior. If you want to be respectful, then you'll refrain from comments that are accusative and vague: "are you related to this Schwartz character?"  You yourself have also participated in the reverting behavior -- and have also made it clear that others may not revert "or else" (which is entirely an act of Ownership). Let's work together.  If that's going to happen, you're going to have to not only refrain from being sufficiently vague in your comments as to be easily misconstrued, as well as refrain from strong-arming -- you're going to have to be respectful.  I think we have a chance to improve the article.  Let's.842U (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - It's actually a discussion about your behavior. You've been on that page, trying to insert the Schwartz reference over others' objections for YEARS. Literally YEARS. Take a look at WP:OWN or WP:SPA. Your behavior here has clearly been a little extraordinary.
 * I didn't say "others may not revert". I said YOU may not revert. I would be happy to see that information go back in if others felt the content was appropriate, but I'm not going to let it be re-inserted without some kind of demonstration that's it's supported by more than just two editors who happen to watchlist that particular article.
 * I also think we have a chance to improve the article, but if you want to have the Schwartz content put back in the same way it was in there before, you will have to demonstrate WP:CONSENSUS for that. Again, I share your willingness to work together and would be happy to help you craft an RfC or a poll to test consensus on this point. I'd also be happy to discuss re-inserting the Schwartz content in some more limited way. NickCT (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think we have a chance to improve the article, but if you want to have the Schwartz content put back in the same way it was in there before, you will have to demonstrate WP:CONSENSUS for that. Again, I share your willingness to work together and would be happy to help you craft an RfC or a poll to test consensus on this point. I'd also be happy to discuss re-inserting the Schwartz content in some more limited way. NickCT (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This relates to this edit. Please do not repeat it. --John (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the note John. You'll notice though that I was attacking a large group of peoples rather than any individual person. I'm not sure the attack was meant to be personal. Also, probably best not to issue warnings b/c ones sense of national identity may have been offended. Dangerous ground. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climate change denial
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Katherine, Crown Princess of Yugoslavia
Can you explain why you reverted this edit? AeroAuxiliary (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - B/c I'm huggling too darn fast? Thanks for the catch. NickCT (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Haha no worries... :-) AeroAuxiliary (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Brandon Wade
Hey, check out my latest edits to this article on Wade. It looks like a PR flak or Wade himself is reverting my cited edits, including the addition of his well-documented birth name.

exeunt (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Yeah OK. Looks like you're right. Let's see if we can get him to come to the talk page. He may have legitimate concerns that we should try to address there. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - See here and here. Good catch on the WP:AUTOBIO BTW. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policy is very clear on this: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.  Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.  Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. ==> This user's changes simultaneously on both the main and talk page suggest the author did not write conservatively, with regard to the subject's privacy, and instead wrote to spread of titillating claims about people's lives with the possibility of harm to said living person. Jacksparrow92881 (talk)
 * - Hi. Thanks for getting in touch so quickly. You're absolutely right that we shouldn't include poorly sourced material and potentially contentious material about living persons. Can you go to the subjects talk page, and identify the exact material you feel is contentious and poorly sourced? If there is contentious and poorly sourced material there, I'll make sure it gets removed immediately. NickCT (talk) 18:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - I think I have to agree with Mr. Sparrow, that your edit here might have created legitimate BLP concerns. You may want to ask an admin to delete that revision in the history. NickCT (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Actually, I think I'm going to go ahead and ask a couple admins to look at this.
 * - Hey guys, could either of you review this edit and consider rev deletion. It seems there might be some WP:BLP concerns here. NickCT (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think pure speculation about whether an individual is the same person as one convicted of the crime mentioned in that edit isn't appropriate at all. Consequently, I have applied revdel to that edit.  I see the possibility that there is whitewashing going on, but without a reliable source confirming any connection I don't think it is appropriate at all to speculate.  If there is a advice needed about how to pursue such questions within the bounds of policy (WP:BLP), I would recommend seeking assistance at WP:BLPN.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thanks mate. NickCT (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thanks, seems reasonable. Sorry, didn't realize putting it in the talk page violated BLP, which is why I kept that cite out of the main article. exeunt (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human sexuality
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human sexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

March events and meetups in DC
Greetings from  Wikimedia DC !

Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:
 * On Wednesday, March 9, we'll host our first March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle.
 * On Friday, March 11, the National Archives will host the Women in the Civil War Edit-a-Thon.
 * On Saturday, March 19, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian will host the Color History with the Smithsonian! event, and we'll hold our second Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.
 * On Sunday, March 20, the American Chemical Society will host the Computers in Chemistry Edit-a-Thon.
 * On Saturday, March 26, we'll host our second March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.

Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at [mailto:info@wikimediadc.org info@wikimediadc.org] !

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

''You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.''

Pinto article
I would appreciate your input on some of the recent Pinto edits and concerns that I have attempted to raise on the article talk page. Certainly getting a long time article voice might help. In 4 days the new editor has added over 150 edits! Springee (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Hi mate. Sorry I've been out of the loop. I have limited time at the moment, though I would like to assist. I'll attempt to take a serious look at this in the next 48 hours.
 * Thanks, and apologies again for falling off the grid. NickCT (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have a concern that the new editor (disclosure, said editor and I don't see eye to eye on previous articles) has flooded the page with changes without really discussing his plans.  It would be helpful to, among other things, have a view of what is and is not encyclopedic.  We don't have to agree on all these things but it's a lot better when people put the brakes on when other editors object.  I look forward to your take.  Springee (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey NickCT, I wanted let you know a few things about the status of the Pinto article. First, HughD has done a lot to clean up references, bring in some additional sources and honestly, add a lot of citations.  Sadly, Hugh has also brought in 200 article edits in just 5 days a level of incivility to the editing and talk page.  The article is currently locked due to my 6RR complaint against Hugh.  As a point of reference [].  I've been accused of following him to new articles so I'm surprised he thought it was a good idea to follow me to the Pinto article.  Regardless, sorry for the mess we have created on the talk page.  I don't blame you if you want to stay away but I would welcome your thoughts on the article and a few parts in particular... if you are brave enough to read the walls of text! Springee (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Hey mate. Again apologies for my lack of involvement. Can't say I disagree with most of Hugh's edits, but he definitely went about it in a fairly fractious way. We should have a strategy for cooperative editing that will mitigate any potential debates once the page reopens. NickCT (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sadly HughD is using this same confrontational style on the Chrysler article.  There is an open 3RR against him related to that article.  If he steps back and actually collaborates and listens to other editors I think we could have a good article with his help.  He does a good job of cleaning things up and I like the bibliography type citations he added.  Anyway, I look forward to your input on the talk page.  Perhaps with a few more involved editors we could ask that the lock be lifted with an understanding that if HughD's continues as before it will be locked again. Springee (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Possibly. Hold a second. Let me glance at the talk page. I'm curious why this was a lock rather some action against the "guilty" editor(s) in this case. NickCT (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can answer that question, I asked the locking Admin the same question . Where the issue becomes clear is when we look at a 3RR filed by  .  Same behavior.  Anyway, EdJohnston basically said that in a case where we have two primary editors it is easier to lock things down vs decide who is guilty or not.  Given admin time is limited I don't think that is an unreasonable action.  However, I think HugD's editing history (and the controversy he has caused on the Chrysler page) speak for themselves.  Springee (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Ok. Well far be-it from me to encourage edit warring, but when the page opens again, if HughD continues the kind of editing he's been doing, we can simply double team him (or potentially triple with Greg) and push him over 3RR. Hate to resort to this but I'm not sure I see a better mechanism.
 * He seems communicative on the talk page though. We should try to speak softly for a little while. I think there is every chance he might come around.
 * Remember that I too was a bit dubious over the emphasis on the MJ article, but I think I've come around on that point-of-view after reading into the whole event a little more deeply. Of course, I'm still a little dubious on how much emphasis you were giving Schwartz. Though I think we may have found some common ground there..... NickCT (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By double or triple you clearly mean group consensus will not support disruptive edits. A group consensus against a change isn't baiting or teaming against an editor.  If HughD is disruptive then the correct coarse of action is note the issues and go to ANI boards.  Given my history with HughD I don't think he will listen to me but I think he may listen to you as an outsider.  When things are difficult is when there aren't that many editors on an article.  For example, look at the issues I had a while back with the Corvette Leaf Spring article.  I certainly felt I was correct in claiming the topic was notable but it is hardly a high traffic article.  All it took was one editor to propose killing it then I had to try to find some other editors to support restoring the article.  I think the Pinto page is like that.  If we had just two people working on the page (HughD's 50 edits per day and one other) then any disagreement would be solved simply by the shear volume of edits.
 * Anyway, I've said what I believe HughD's motives to be but if he listens to you, well that's even better. If nothing else his actions prod others into action and the article gets better!
 * I totally understand the over emphasis on Schwartz concern. I'm hoping that is belayed a bit with the addition of other scholarly sources that say similar things (or vouch for Schwartz).  I'm sorry that Lee and Ermann is not easily available for most readers.  Springee (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Avoiding dangerous climate change
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avoiding dangerous climate change. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Request basis in policy or guideline
May I respectfully ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline, for your multiple reversions of a colleague's contributions to our project, with an edit summary of "undoing pending topic ban discussion for editor"? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - Of course HughD! You've persistently inserted disruptive material into Ford Pinto which led to that page being locked and also led to a lengthy discussion regarding a potential topic ban for you. In the course of that discussion, you took your disruptive material and attempted to evade the community's discussion of your behavior by inserting that content into pages related to the Ford Pinto article. Disruptive editing, re-inserting of disputed content and evasion of community discussion represents Gaming the system and is thus subject to summary reversion.
 * I explained my position on the Ford Pinto talk page and I pinged you into that conversation. You might want to consider moving this discussion there. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding your multiple reverts at multiple pages today, including, , , and , may I respectfully ask for a citation to the specific basis in policy or guideline behind your edit summaries "undoing pending topic ban discussion for editor"? May I repectfully cite that deleting "the pertinent cited additions of others" may be considered tendentious WP:TEND. Are you reverting edits or are you reverting an editor? Do I understand from your comments here you do not have any issue with the sourcing or due weight or neutrality of the contributions you reverted? If not, please self-revert your recent deletions. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - re "specific basis in policy" - Read my comments about Gaming the system.
 * Read my comments about "moving this discussion there" - Please do not continue this discussion here. NickCT (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I have no comment at this time on the content of article Ford Pinto, thank you for your suggestion of venue to Talk:Ford Pinto. I have a question for you regarding your justification for some recent deletions of pertinent, noteworthy, reliably-sourced content spanning a series of articles with identical edit summaries. Concerning your recent deletions of a colleague's pertinent, noteworthy, reliably-sourced contributions at articles:
 * "undoing pending topic ban discussion for editor"
 * "undoing pending topic ban discussion for editor"
 * "undoing pending topic ban discussion for editor"
 * "undoing pending topic ban discussion for editor"
 * ...may I respectfully ask again for a citation to the specific basis in policy or guideline behind your edit summaries of "undoing pending topic ban discussion for editor", or, failing that, a citation the specific basis in policy or guideline behind your deletions? Please be more specific regarding your application of Gaming the system to justify the deletion pertinent, noteworthy, reliably-sourced contributions at articles. If not, kindly self-revert your deletions. Other forums are available to you for your editor behavior concerns; please do not take your edit behavior concerns to article space in the form of baiting to edit war, or to article talk. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your comments on my talk page are no longer helpful. Avoid editing my or others' talk pages when you don't expect your edits to be helpful. Please move this conversation to whatever talk page you feel it best belongs on. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lazaro Mangubat
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lazaro Mangubat. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2004 U.S. Capitol Evacuation


The article 2004 U.S. Capitol Evacuation has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:NOTNEWS. Especially when it's old, dull news.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheLongTone (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

- Are you saying that I write dull articles? - The event wasn't all that dull for the folks who were involved. My sense is that this event would meet WP:GNG. You could put this on AfD if you'd like, but I'd like to question this with a wider audience. NickCT (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was snippy. What I meant was that there was nothing in the article to indicate why this event was of more than passing interest; & to avoid the WP:NOTNEWS thang it would seem to be necessary to come up with some ongoing coverage. TheLongTone (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - OK. So if I found a couple more recent publications that mention it, is that going make you happy? NickCT (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And P.S. Snippiness always welcome on this talkpage. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, more recent mentions would make me whoop with joy!TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoop with joy, huh? Well, I guess it's good to take joy in the simple stuff. I've added a couple books...... Is that enough to at least get this to AfD? NickCT (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And not to assault you with other stuff, but how about United States Capitol shooting incident (1954), United States Capitol shooting incident (1998), United States Capitol shooting incident (2013)? NickCT (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We could potentially merge here. NickCT (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Books are very good. I'll take away the PROD.TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - You are too kind. NickCT (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please comment on Talk:Laura Branigan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laura Branigan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Second law of thermodynamics
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Second law of thermodynamics. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orthopedic surgery
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Orthopedic surgery. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of LixiLan


A tag has been placed on LixiLan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 removed 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 deleting administrator. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 55 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African wildlife articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance. If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing any article related to a topic you often work on, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Might be a good way to work on fleshing out articles you've long been meaning to target and get rewarded for it! Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump allegations
I have responded to you at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump RfC
Because you commented in the straw poll !vote, I invite you to comment on the new RfC on Talk:Donald Trump. I apologize for any inconvenience in "re-voting". Your past input is appreciated. Thank you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dreams from My Real Father
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dreams from My Real Father. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Pamela Geller and counter-jihad
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Douglas MacArthur
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Douglas MacArthur. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephen Bannon
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Bannon. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

AfD - Dizzy diddy
I am still kind of new to AfD discussions but are the editors (specifically of self-created, self interest articles) of an article up for discussion on a current AfD page allowed to comment with regard to consensus for deletion/non-deletion? (see latest response from )? Chrissymad ❯❯❯  Talk   17:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - Absolutely! NickCT (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On WP, pretty much everyone is allowed to comment anywhere. ;-) NickCT (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm pretty sure the reviewer is going to be able to see the sorta obvious COI issues here. Don't worry. NickCT (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Milky Way
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milky Way. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Good addition. I was not sure how to phrase it but you did it perfectly.104.163.152.80 (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement!
Hi NickCT, please allow me to get in touch because you have stated sympathy with environmental causes on your user page. I would like to invite you to check out the Environmental impact project page on Meta, where I am trying to create some momentum to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. My first goal is to have all the Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy. Maybe you could show your support for this project as well by adding your signature here? Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:William McKinley
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:William McKinley. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sore Loser March


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Sore Loser March, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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 removed 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. Gluons12 ☢&#124;☕ 02:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - Yeah! That should be deleted! But I didn't make it :-(   Why am I getting this message? NickCT (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was probably because you were the first contributor listed in the page history after you moved it back to the original location (Women's March on Washington), since the notice was sent automatically by Twinkle. You can delete this notice if you want to. Gluons12  ☢&#124;☕ 02:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC).
 * - Nah that's cool. No hard feelings. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia safe. NickCT (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MAKS Air Show
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MAKS Air Show. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Clean coal technology
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Clean coal technology. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Napoleon Hill
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Napoleon Hill. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geert Wilders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 09:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erika Lauren Wasilewski
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erika Lauren Wasilewski. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Borderline personality disorder
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Borderline personality disorder. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox software
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox software. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:NickCT/Principessa


A tag has been placed on User:NickCT/Principessa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages 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 removed 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. 1989 12:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:En Marche!
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:En Marche!. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Combining an "undo" with the addition of sources
It would be better if you did not combine these entirely different types of edits. 2605:6000:EF43:8500:8D1D:42A:EA65:9EF5 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You incorrectly characterized what the source you added to Schistosomiasis actually said. 2605:6000:EF43:8500:4555:96F3:1944:A3EF (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * - Hey IP. Thanks for the comments. Couple notes;
 * 1) This conversation might best be had on the talk page for Schistosomiasis.
 * 2) I may well have misinterpreted the source, and if so, I do apologize. Glancing at this again, I'm seeing multiple sources which seem to credit Pirajá with the life cycle description. I've added another source. NickCT (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

3RR Violation on Richard Blumenthal
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and notability
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and notability. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emmett Till
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emmett Till. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sciences Po
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sciences Po. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Please comment on Talk:Matthew Gordon Banks
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Matthew Gordon Banks. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Oliver
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Oliver. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carbylamine-choline-chloride
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carbylamine-choline-chloride. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roman Polanski
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roman Polanski. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jianianhualong
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jianianhualong. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Disk storage
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Disk storage. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Please comment on Talk:Brexit
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brexit. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)