User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc/Archive 22

Orphaned non-free image File:Fluka logo.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Fluka logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect link
I don't think the link in [this message] is correct. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoops. You're quite right. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks, Beeblebrox! I appreciate the recognition. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious two years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks to you as well! I appreciate the recognition. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops
Maybe you haven't noticed, but on my talk page I paraphrased you in a way that made complete nonsense of what you said -- just want you to know I corrected that. EEng 03:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hah. I hadn't noticed the mistake until you pointed it out. I'm glad to have been cited in any event! —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case reminder
You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. We would like to remind you that the case is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

wikithon worksheet
Hi there, I was hoping you might find a chance to look over the sort of worksheet that I made for people participating in wikithon I'm helping out with? Any thoughts appreciated. Gabriel syme (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
for this I know we got off to a rough start on our WP interactions, but I'm ready to let bygones be bygones. As I've mentioned to a couple of others, the worst thing that is ever going to happen to me in my life has already happened, and I'm not afraid to stand for my principles. I think RO got railroaded not because her behavior was any worse than many other editors (I mean, look at this shit) but because she doesn't have the chits that more devious editors have accumulated. Oh well, keep fighting the good fight. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this message, Lynn. I appreciate your reaching out, and would be happy to let bygones be bygones. :) I think it's admirable of you to stand up for someone you believe has been treated unfairly, even if I don't agree that's the case on the merits. But, I've long come to believe that procedural unfairness can be as bad as an unfair outcome, and I definitely believe a lot of Wikipedia processes are procedurally or structurally unfair.I was going to write quite a bit more about this matter, but I came to realize I was more brainstorming out loud and that much of my thoughts on the matter weren't quite developed yet. I will say that I believe the time is coming for blocking and banning policy reform, particularly on the sort of "future consensus preempting" sanctions that have come out of AN/ANI in recent times. I'm also hopeful that we're headed away from the era of the would-be "philosopher kings" at those boards making decisions in a disorganized and potentially-inconsistent manner based almost entirely on how they personally perceive the merits; that we are moving towards consistent process, and procedural protections for people accused of misconduct. I have some concerns about how we're achieving that (particularly AE and DS regimes), but I believe that as Wikipedia gets older we're starting to ask for procedural fairness first. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, the only reason RO ever came on my radar was when I was blocked for being a sock of ItsLassieTime. I was a fairly new user, had no idea who ItsLassieTime was, and no real concept of socking until I logged in one day with a block banner on my talk page.  I don't even know what evidence was used, because the discussion was all done through emails between a certain editor who was crowing immediately afterwards that I was a troll and had gotten block, and the Blocking admin. I had no way to defend myself, and since the blocking admin had also revoked my talk page access, no way to appeal.  Here I was, posting with my real name, anyone could google me and find I was a real person that did not in anyway resemble the dox of ItsLassieTime, but I'm sure that the only evidence provided to the blocking admin was that that pointed to my guilt.  So there I was, trying to figure out who the hell ItsLassieTime was, and why would anyone think I was him/her, when I saw that another SPI had recently closed trying to tie RO to ItsLassieTime.  That was the first I saw of her.  I finally managed to get unblocked, and lo and behold, since neither RO nor I could be tied to ItsLassieTime, we're being accused of being socks of each other.  It was the craziest nonsense imaginable.  So, I know that people get railroaded in WP, especially when evidence is secreted.


 * Now, as far as what RO was blocked for, she had unwisely questioned the eligibility of the winner of the Wiki cup. I believe that he had put his real name on WP or maybe commons, and she did some digging and found out some more information that indicated the pictures were professionally taken.  She was taken to ANI for it, and during the course of the ANI, she posted the info she had found on the other user.  That was how she outed him.  It wasn't malicious, it was just very bad judgement.  The ANI basically got out of control, with a editors with old grudges coming in to duke it out.  The hard feelings directed all over the place were pathological.  So pathological that I would not put it past some of those editors to set RO up by making the IP posts Diannaa talked about.  It's too obvious.  If she were going to maliciously out someone, I think she would be smarter than to leave a trail that someone could drive a Mack Truck down.  And, knowing the quality of evidence I've experienced to be used as a definitive connection between users, I simply do not take anyone's word that it proves anything.  So, no, I do not think she was treated fairly.  The block was for outing due to poor judgement.  If she was going to be unblocked, the only thing that should have been considered is whether or not two years of being banned was sufficient time for her judgement to improve.  As I pointed out, the atmosphere here has improved, with several of the editors that were so nasty to RO either no longer editing, or having been the subject of sanctions themselves.  The question should be reopened with some ground rules against unsubstantiated accusations and aspersions.  That that was allowed to occur the way it did was appalling.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to say I'm still intending to respond to this thread further now that I'm back from the roadtrip I've been on the last couple weeks. This has been thought-provoking, and pushed me to get off my duff and actually start formulating my arguments for reforming ANI and the banning policy, especially in terms of how discussions should proceed, and the countervailing need for procedural protections for the accused versus avoiding magnifying the harm to victims of harassment (at least in cases where there is harassment). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It just seems like all the ANIs go off the rails and become free-for-alls. Admins need to keep them on track to the complaint made, come to a decision if the complaint is valid, request proposals of sanctions from uninvolved editors, then consider the input in imposing sanctions.  WP:BOOMERANG is bullshit.  If an OP doesn't have clean hands in a dispute, a separate ANI should be opened while the original one is resolved.  Mixing the two in one discussion ends up in a convoluted discussion that is sure to end up with unfair results.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

On one hand, I do think that a "rule of law" and a better structured form of due process on WP is long overdue (though the disorganized mass of essays and guidelines does get interpreted as a common law of sorts). And, I also agree that WP:BOOMERANG is sometimes misapplied in a way that has a chilling effect on people who have genuine concerns. But in the case of RO, that individual is one of the most toxic personalities that I have ever dealt with in my over a decade of Wikipedia editing. Although they were officially blocked for outing a user, it was kind of like getting Al Capone for tax evasion, this was an editor who had a long history of hostility with multiple other editors and who badly needed to be banned from the project. So, while your thinking about reforms for ANI and the various blocking/banning policies, RO's case is definitely not a hill you want to die on. Montanabw (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Uh, no she was definitely not the most toxic personality I've ever dealt with. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way Lynn, I must thank you for some common sense. I say that sincerely.  Perhaps as you have been closely watching my edits this last couple of months, now you see why I have been a little twitchy about the socking situation.  I did apologize to you quite some time ago (a couple years ago at least...) about the mistaken identity (as did Dreadstar when he unblocked you, if memory serves). Though your subsequent acts suggest that you did not view the apology as sincere, it was and remains so. As for RO and whether he or she was a sock, that's a very different issue, though it has become clear that RO was not the LassieTime sock either. (Sorry to hijack your page, Mendaliv, but this seemed the best place to comment for the moment)  Montanabw (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I accept your apology, and yes, it is the first one you've made, although you did make statements along the line of your no longer believing that I was ILT or a sock of RO, but that you still thought I was a returned user. Regardless, it was your actions that linked me to RO, and led me to advocate for her.  I think she is still being blamed for actions that she did not do, and that the pathology of her actions have been exaggerated with time.  So, she may be hill I die on, but I will die fighting for what I think is right.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Um, this was an apology, though you didn't take it as such with the response you posted there. If memory serves, somewhere around that time we had a discussion about how you had edited for quite a while as an IP or something, which is why you seemed to already know the ropes when you created your account. But if you are cool that there is an apology now, that's good to know.  As for RO, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.   Montanabw (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "If memory serves, somewhere around that time we had a discussion about how you had edited for quite a while as an IP or something, which is why you seemed to already know the ropes when you created your account." Your memory serves you poorly.  I never said any such thing. I created my account in 2010, started to create an article, then decided I didn't have the time to learn how.  Four years later I decided to tackle a stub article, so revived the account I created in 2010.  I have always edited under my current account, except for a few edits that I inadvertently made while logged out. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying that, there's been a lot of water under the bridge, and across a lot of different pages. No wonder my memory was imperfect.  So I guess my original suspicions were raised because you created the account in 2010 — the original LassieTime sock was blocked in 2009 and kept socking, so it must have looked to me at the time like one of ILT's "sleeper" accounts. (That was all prior to the pattern change of the sockmaster in 2015).  But you aren't ILT, you were on the receiving end of a case of mistaken identity, and I acknowledged that it was a mistake, as did Dreadstar when he unblocked you. I do think it is well past time to bury that particular hatchet.   Montanabw (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to note that I have removed some problematic materials from this section. Alex Shih (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Event coordinator
Hi, the English Wikipedia recently created a new user permission for editors involved in off-wiki outreach work, event coordinator. This new permission allows users to mark accounts for confirmed for up to 10 days, and also allows them to create accounts for events without rate limits without some of the features of the account creator right that aren't used at edit-a-thons and other events. I have added the event coordinator permission to your account and removed the account creator permission, as you appear to have been using it mainly for outreach work.This should have no noticeable impact on your ability to create accounts, and will give you the extra ability to temporarily confirm accounts if you need to. For more information, you can see the information page on the right, or you can ask me if you have any questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Commandos 1968 poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Commandos 1968 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Days Inn.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Days Inn.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Honoring your request that I return
About ten years ago, you requested on my talk page that I not leave Wikipedia, or that I consider returning at some point. Well, I did return a couple days ago, and my very first post was deleted as I finished it by User:Guy Macon, without asking any questions or offering any assistance. My post was a personal message to Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger containing a draft proposal for a new project on global climate change, and requesting their input. That is, it was a personal message requesting advice. But they never saw my message. It was deleted from their talk pages almost immediately by someone who apparently did not like the proposal and was unwilling to allow it to even be seen by Wales or Sanger. Let's be clear, this was not an edit to an article or creation of an article. It was merely a request for input on an idea that was not yet ready for editing.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon was not content to merely delete my message. He started stalking me around Wikipedia and posting derogatory comments everywhere I left a message, including on the talk pages of Coppertwig and Elonka, and added abusive comments to my talk page, calling me a liar, baiting me, and generally being an uncivil person. Don't be surprised if a similar comment shows up here. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

So my return to Wikipedia was met at the door by an arbitrary lack of civility, stalking, and later a threat to delete my sandbox (which was subsequently deleted), where I had placed my proposal for further work, threats to block me, and an ANI complaint, generally harassing me and attempting to bully me into submission. As a result, I may not stay here very long, due to systematic efforts to drive me out of Wikipedia, for reasons unknown to me. And the upshot is that editors are now apparently discouraged from communicating with each other about ideas on talk pages, something I find at least ironic and not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Take a look at recent entries on my talk page and you'll see what I mean. So now I don't know what to do, short of leaving again. Anyway, just wanted you to know that I did hear your request and I did return, if only briefly. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Diamond Offshore.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Diamond Offshore.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A quick question for Mendaliv.
I was hoping you could help me with something. Could you kindly tell me where you got the picture for that 1956 or 57 Ruger .357 Flattop pistol of which you posted a picture of in an article about Ruger .357 on Wikipedia? I'm curious who did the engraving. My father had one almost exactly like that only his had the Japanese Chrysanthemum Flower Seal on one side of it. Do you own that beautiful pistol or did you source the picture from on-line or a friend. Any information would be greatly appreciated. My e-mail is kcleroy@gmail.com or Kubby47@yahoo.com. Thanks in advance  Kevin LeRoy Kevincharlesleroy (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Kevin. I'm sorry, but it's not my original photo. I think you're referring to File:APG custom blackhawk 2003.jpg. That photo was originally uploaded by User:Mcumpston, who unfortunately no longer edits Wikipedia (so reaching him would probably not be easy). Sorry I can't be any more help, I really have no information about the gun other than the file description ("American Pistolsmith's Guild annual guild gun built on Ruger Blackhawk.") and that the photo was originally from January 2003. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

re: suggestion on that other site
Please do it, and I hope I see where it's posted. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sui generis
Let's not make dialog on the case request page. I think ArbCom should plow ahead as if this dispute came to them in the first place. Ordinary dispute. Ordinary procedure. They should literally ignore WMF and pretend they aren't special. Just get the facts and decide what should be done about it. That's my hope. Maybe I'm wildly optimistic, but that's what would satisfy many people. Please think it over. As for exculpatory evidence, I know of some, and you will be able to find more if you wish to. Jehochman Talk 05:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh I wouldn't object to that, and why I supported a Fram case the last time you opened a request. But you and I both know that this is gonna be a pandora's box moment: They're not going to open the case without taking the evidence and everything the Board attaches to it. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what they will do. At least they have a clean slate to work with.  The WJBscribe request is so long and tangled that it's better to just toss it overboard and start fresh. Jehochman Talk 05:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I suggest you two watch it with the talk of suing people lest you run afoul of NLT. EEng 05:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Res ipsa loquitor. Jehochman Talk 06:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? Well your Eli mater wears army boots! EEng 07:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the Foundation a person? —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Only on Tuesdays. Jehochman Talk 20:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

incoherence, ha!
There's that. Also, she dropped off her petitions to them about 1/2 hour before posting the 2nd thread. So that's repetition. and trepidation too  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well to be fair, I’m talking about more Sovereign Citizen levels of repetitiveness and incoherence, not just assertiveness and crossposting. Sure, tell her that it’s not helpful and isn’t likely to work, but I don’t see it as disruption. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

current issues
You helped me out when I was first starting to edit, and it's because of editors like you that I will soon edit again, and let me say that I really appreciate you going to the wall in this current um dispute? Either way thanks for your hard work, I lost my login but I used to be gabriel syme. 206.53.88.85 (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the words of encouragement! I don't know if I'll be sticking around much longer myself but best of luck going forward if you do decide to return. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This project needs you more than ever. Stick around much longer. I know there's a bunch of other editors I could send that to that I'm unaware of, maybe you could do me the courtesy if it happens to come up. It's one of the top five most important things human beings are spending their energy on today. Yall are up there with Greta, keep it up. 206.53.88.85 (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I appreciate the vote of confidence. I'm just trying to see the right thing done. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the suggestion regarding User:Elisa.rolle. I see this morning that she has followed it. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

direct participant or party
Hey, Mendaliv! Didn't want to start an irrelevant tangent at the discussion, but I am a frequent participant at DYK, so I wasn't sure what you meant by not a direct participant or party? --valereee (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC) In litigation where amicus curiae briefs are submitted (typically before a high court) it's often the case that amici are aligned with one party but there's not an exact match-up in views on a particular issue; an amicus might want the court to go farther, or not so far on an issue, or reach the same outcome in a different way. So sometimes parties and amici will view each other with consternation despite being on the "same side". My intention was to point out the alignment of interests (not that I thought you needed to be reminded) without being pushy about it. I thought your commentary was quite insightful over there. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I should've been clearer. I meant "party" as someone who was a party to the ArbCom sanction regime, or "direct participant" someone who was WP:INVOLVED or directly opposing the proposal. It was meant to point out that you really had no dog in the fight, so to speak.
 * He did not mean party as in a gathering where people have fun, that's for sure. EEng 22:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, lawyers do tend to have fun when there are parties involved. I mean, if by fun you mean income. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

CBAN
I can live with that.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm just mentioning it to short-circuit the inevitable complaining when the indef gets enforced as a ban. Just saw that happen a couple weeks ago with a failed community appeal. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting times, we live in
You might be interested to see this thread .... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Turning redlinks blue
Redlinks are good, we are told, as they encourage bluelinks to be made. And not just in article space. I assume you've been asked (told?!!) before to turn this blue. I would wholeheartedly support this colour change, it could only be for the betterment of WP. Apologies for the outrageous intrusion though, if this is unwanted. Hope all's well! —— SerialNumber  54129  15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. I’ve been talked to about this recently actually. Having only recently returned to being active, I think it’s a bit too soon to consider stepping up. My thinking is if I’m still around by the new year and my content creation has gotten back up to normal, I may consider a run. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI
If you haven't already seen it, you might enjoy this page which I wrote a few years ago. You can start with question #3. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have actually seen it. Now that I’ve been challenged I might actually have to answer it. Haha. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Word limit
I just wanted to let you know not to hold your breath for that world limit extension. I asked for one as well via email and was denied. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I wasn't sure if it'd happen, but better to ask than let it be thought I've got nothing more to say. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about compliance vs. legal defense
Hi Mendaliv,

I have a quick question I'm wondering if you could help me with. I'm involved in a rather intractable difference of opinion with someone over a question of legal language and how to represent this article.

The basic question is: is it correct to talk about money used for legal expenses related to compliance with a Senate probe/investigation as legal defense? In the text of the article the noun compliance and the verb comply are used but neither defend nor defense are used. The headline is the only place where one finds the term legal defense and in these days of clickbaity headlines, I'm hesitant to source wiki-text to a headline.

Is this splitting hairs? I'm quite loathe to imply that Stein was being prosecuted when she was not, and I wonder if it is standard to use the terms legal compliance and legal defense interchangeably. Since I believe you have some legal training I thought I would ask you for your expert (volunteer) opinion.

I would very much appreciate your input if you can spare the time.🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 01:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC) So yes, based on what's in that article, I would tend to agree that "defense" or "legal defense" isn't really the right term. I might prefer "compliance" but might also prefer to say something like "legal representation in connection with a Senate probe into election interference." Something like that might work as a compromise solution. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, my first point would be that I really don't know anything about election law, so my opinion might be incorrect. I know we're just talking about whether a particular word is correct, but even as to that point I'd prefer to be cautious, since we're talking about the use of election funds. I think your impression is correct, that it's mostly a clickbaity title, and that there's not really "defense" happening. That said, a legislative committee asking for documents is much closer to "litigation" than "transactional law" (litigation and transaction being the two general pigeonholes US lawyers tend to use to categorize all legal work), and so there's probably something that looks like defense work in responding to those document requests. But if the Stein campaign sent people to testify, in many ways I'm sure that participation looked equally as much like attack as defense (if you've watched many legislative hearings, it's pretty common to see the witness's approach have to shift depending on who's asking the questions).


 * Thanks very much for your reply, Mendaliv. I think I've succeeded in obtaining a minor concession, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy... sometimes when you're told you are "full of it" enough, you begin to doubt yourself. ^^  Personally, I think the whole thing is recentist muckraking, since all three experts this Davis guy interviews say she can do what she wants with the recount money as long as it's for legal expenses given the impenetrability of FEC regulation. But I suspect that will be a tough sale, as opposing counsel is rather stubborn. ^^ 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 02:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, by no means was what you said crazy. But yes, I do get the feeling you're talking about. Good luck, and if you've got more questions feel free to ask. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Board statement on ArbCom review
Hi Mendaliv, regarding your Fram Arbcom workshop proposals, I wonder whether you have seen the Board statement saying, "We support ArbCom reviewing this ban. We have asked T&S to work with the English Wikipedia ArbCom to review this case. We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee."? EllenCT (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I quoted that in the discussion of one of my points. See here. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on my new article?
Hi,

I recently wrote this Wikipedia article: Unconstitutional constitutional amendment. What are your thoughts on it? Obviously it's still a work in progress, but do you believe that it's good so far?

Also, do you think that (from that very same article) United States law professor Richard George Wright is completely wrong about the idea of an unconstitutional constitutional amendment? As in, do you think that Wright is incorrect in his analysis that the US Supreme Court should strike down a hypothetical new US constitutional amendment that abolishes freedom of speech and/or legally enshrines white supremacy? (The odds of either amendment passing would be close to zero, but the beauty of hypothetical scenarios is that they don't actually have to be realistic. Else, one could simply hand-wave away Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist scenario on the grounds that it's utterly unrealistic and implausible.) Indeed, what are your thoughts on this?

In addition, as a side note, do you believe that it is illegitimate for the judiciary in any country to declare a part of their constitution to be unconstitutional without an explicit authorization to do this? (By "explicit authorization", I mean from either the constitutional text or from the draftsmen and/or ratifiers of a particular constitutional provision--not from judges giving themselves the authorization to do this contrary to the intent of the draftsmen and/or ratifiers of a particular constitutional provision.) Futurist110 (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Superjail!.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Superjail!.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Diamond Offshore.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Diamond Offshore.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sigma-Aldrich logo.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Sigma-Aldrich logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Mendaliv! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey
What happened to you? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What indeed? Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Ditto. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 00:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Taurus Forge.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Taurus Forge.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Payscale.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Payscale.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

You're invited! Wiki Loves Pride in Indianapolis
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 19:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC).)

July 28: You're invited! Food Deserts & Food Policy in Indianapolis editathon
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 08:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC).)

You're invited! Environmental Justice editathons in Indianapolis & Bloomington
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 01:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC).)

You're invited! In-person WikiConference North America Meetup in Indianapolis!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 17:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC).)

Orphaned non-free image File:Payscale.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Payscale.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

March 17: You're invited! Indiana Women in the Arts editathon
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 21:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC).)

You're invited! Indiana Politics & Government Editathon on Saturday, May 13
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 01:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC).)

You're invited! Wiki Loves Pride in Indianapolis
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 16:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC).)

You're invited! Indiana State Fair Wiknic on Sunday, July 30
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 13:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC).)

You're invited! Underrepresented Artists of Indiana editathon on Oct. 11
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 00:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC).) "

Orphaned non-free image File:Infogrames logo.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Infogrames logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)