User talk:RightCowLeftCoast/Archive 7

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Elementary and middle schools
Hi, RCLC! At the recent AfD for Balboa Elementary School, several people told you to boldly redirect, but nobody really explained. As you now know, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES suggests that elementary and middle schools that do not meet GNG should be redirected to their parent entity (such as the school district), or failing that, to their locality. Some people just go ahead and do the redirect - bang, done. I'm not quite that bold. On the other hand, I don't bother going through the formal redirect-proposal process, since this is a commonly accepted precedent. Instead, on the talk page of the school article I post a note which says: "Redirect proposal: I propose to redirect this page to school district if no one objects. That is the usual Wikipedia practice for elementary and middle schools unless they have received an unusual amount of coverage to make them notable." Then I make a note to myself, to redirect it after one week. If someone objects (which rarely happens), I take it to AfD (where it almost always gets redirected anyhow). If nobody objects, I do the redirect after a week. Thanks for helping clean up Wikipedia! --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please see my comment above under "Demographics of Filipino Americans". --MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Demographics of Filipino Americans
Hi there. I think you've taken the FilAm San Diego narrative to a highly excessive level and I believe it should be cut by half. I realize that you are a FilAm living in the San Diego area with perhaps a military background, but apparently you've literally transposed your own personal experience into this Wikipedia article. When I nominated you for the Barnstar, it was because I felt you had done noble work representing this community onto Wikipedia. But I would not have done so after seeing this excessive WP:UNDUE expansion. No personal offense intended, just pointing out what I continue to see evolving. Just a suggestion - why don't you shrink the San Diego text and expand the Hawaii section? One might guess you could conceivably have familiarity with that "Left Coast" geographic entity and its military involvement as well. I'd be happy to expand the Hawaii section myself, but unfortunately I don't have enough topical experience with it as I would like, and that's what it comes down to in this instance. Best regards, Castncoot (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , I am looking to expand the rest of the California section, perhaps to the point of creating a Filipinos in California article as a sub-article. 43% Filipino Americans live in California, and I admit, at this point the San Diego County paragraph it is Undue for the section, but over the course of time, I will expand the rest of the section. Therefore, for now I have hidden some content, and will unhide it when other paragraphs are expanded.
 * All content added was referenced to reliable sources, and actually there is a great deal of content regarding Filipinos in Hawaii. Actually far more than what is utilized in the Filipinos in Hawaii article. The University of Hawaii Manoa has a good deal of resources to expand the Hawaii section. Perhaps here is a good start.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , on a side note, I am working on this: User:RightCowLeftCoast/sandbox/Pensionado Act
 * It side tracked me from working on the article you're talking about. If you'd like to help me build out this article before moving to the main space, I'd like that. The reason why I do that is so it'll be nominate-able for WP:DYK; placing a well written draft into the main space allows one to meet all the requirements of DYK, and provides a better "start" for the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to help build an article on Filipinos in California, Hawaii (which already exists), New York, New Jersey, Texas, or any other state with a large and growing Filipino American population. (As I'm sure you're aware, the phenomenon of dispersion is occurring within the modern-day Filipino American populace, which is now gravitating to where the jobs are and away from the old and historic loyalties; and the 43% number you quote was well into the mid 50's as recently as the 2000 Census and continues to decline. (See Supplemental Table 1, and even 2, at, which demonstrates where overseas Filipinos are moving to in the US.) Regardless, I would question the wisdom of creating a giant, unwieldy section for any  jurisdiction within the parent article. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , this article is a sub-article of the main Filipino American article, mots Filipino American articles are (expansions of a previous article split due to the article's size). This has been the ongoing evolution/expansion of articles of Filipino Americans as a subject. The article Filipinos in Hawaii is an exception. Therefore, although it is not the only route for creating articles about this subject which we're both interested in, but it has been my primary way of doing so (the way I am doing it on the Pensionado Act is new, and is more akin to the separate creation style which is closer done by the creator of the Filipinos in Hawaii article).
 * Also the 43.2 comes from the 2010 census. I am not pushing a California centric article, however, given the present population concentration of Filipino Americans, it should be given more weight than other population concentration areas.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping in here, but I was saw this section while I was here at your talk page. Could you please take a look at History of San Diego? Somebody created that section, consisting of a whole lot of Original Research and personal experience, back in June. I trimmed it by about half, but it's still unsourced and I don't know how reliable any of it is. Sounds like you have been doing some referenced work in this area, maybe you could clean it up. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see the work I had done at Demographics of Filipino Americans. I will see about taking the references that I have found, which are considerable, and see about verifying the content there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that the content was added in June of this year. However, looking at the source, it is nearly identical to a source that I use in the San Diego County section of Demographics of Filipino Americans. I added the source to the section, but also tagged it due to copyright violation. Instead of duplicating efforts, instead the article History of San Diego, can wikilink to the section I have worked on.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great work you have done on the Demographics article! Yes, although I did some rewriting back in June, I see that the remaining info is still a copyvio. Go ahead and link to the San Diego County section of your article, but I do think some content should be left at the History of San Diego page - to parallel the existing paragraphs about the history of other ethnic and cultural groups in San Diego County. I'd be glad to help with that. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

CA 54
Sorry about removing the references earlier; since on average a "completed" freeway article runs around 100 references (i.e. California State Route 52), we have to make the most of the ones that we do use (same with the content as well). --Rschen7754 07:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that there was a maximum number of references to use in an article. No worries though, good work on the work done to bring the San Diego County freeway articles to standard.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not that there's a "maximum" per se, but when one uses too many on an article that isn't something like Barack Obama, it starts to get a bit suspicious. And thanks! --Rschen7754 07:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Native Hawaiian image in Culture section
Just deleting the image makes you the second editor to remove that so I will not return it this time, however I will start a discussion as I can't find the information in the link you provided to justify the deletion as a matter of due weight by illustrating a subject mentioned in the section with an image and a caption that expands on why that particular person was a good example of that culture. It could just as easily be illustrated in a different manner but the I believe that the first nations being mentioned give them a context that can and should have an encyclopedic illustration to accompany it.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe your concerns are more based on WP:BALASPS and even that does not say that an image would create an unbalanced article. At any rate I have decided that the image should be excluded for a number of other reasons, sensitivity being one.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

War on Terror revert
Hi, you seem to have reverted my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_on_Terror&oldid=prev&diff=637390401 citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_entering_textual_information_as_images. I think you missed that I linked to the full report on the commons, which has no relation to the cited wp. thanks. Mehmetaergun (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , an image of the cover of the report, text, is against MOS. Please mention the report in text in the section of the criticism and abide by MOS. Please due not give the report undue weight, and keep it neutrally worded and concise.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please double check the link, it is not the image of the cover, it is how wikipedia thumbnails PDF files that are on W Commons when linked in a W page. Your criticism of "undue weight" (and thus the implied argument that linking to that senate report using wcommons' thumbnail utility is pov), on the other hand, is difficult to understand. The report is extremely significant in the section it has been linked to at the wiki page in question. Mehmetaergun (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators,

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

RFM United States
There's a Request for Mediation pending at Requests_for_mediation/United_States on a discussion on which you had some comments some weeks ago. The listing editor did not see fit to include you in the list of parties, probably because you've not been recently involved in that particular discussion. But I note that you are still involved with the article at the talk page on other matters. If you would like to participate in any mediation which may arise from that request or wish to express opposition to it, please feel free to include yourself in the list of parties and register an "accept" or "reject" (and list any additional issues you believe should be considered). If you don't have any strong feelings about the matter which might bother you if the mediation does go forward and ends with a consensus result opposite to your opinions in the matter, then you might just let what will be will be. If you do have strong feelings or want to provide your input, please list yourself and "vote" to accept or reject no later than December 25. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Notability of Chinese in Seattle
Hi! I saw that the article was tagged for notability.

I wanted to make it clear that the topic is notable by mentioning the books in the "Further Reading" section. Do you think that the existence of books about Chinese-Americans in Seattle (particularly Ron Chew's book) is proof of the topic's notability? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article does not appear to be very large, and the few books mentioned in the article, makes me think that the subject is not significantly notable to warrant a stand alone article, and might be better integrated into the article History of Chinese Americans. Potentially recreated as a WP:SUBARTICLE due to WP:SIZE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a ton of information available on this subject; it is clearly notable and just needs to be expanded. I added links to Wikipedia coverage at History of Seattle and to a project at the University of Washington. I don't have time to do the research this morning, but I'll see if I can help later. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for expanding it! From experience, the presence of one book entirely about the subject may be enough for notability when it's paired with enough newspaper articles or other resources. Once you get to two or more books it's almost certainly possible to write a standalone article. The article on Japanese in Seattle needs to be expanded too. I'll see if I can find more resources about it from Seattle papers. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

 * Your response to the Request for Mediation says that unless two participants agree to arbitration (and one has agreed to arbitration), it will not resolve the issue. I think that you used the wrong word, although I think that your meaning is clear.  In this case, the request has been for mediation, not for arbitration.  In any case, thank you for consenting to mediation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hawaiian, Samoan and Chamorro. 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) 09:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages German Russian and Celtic diaspora. 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) 09:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation/United States
I've agreed to mediate this case and we are ready to begin. Please join on the case talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/United States. Sunray (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Lieberson
Lists Hahn in list 4.3. He says he made that list based on Fuchs, Learsi and unnamed other sources. As Learsi does not make the specific claim about Hahn (or any claim, in fact) and Fuchs does not specifically state Hahn was Jewish, and we can not rely on unknown sources, and Lieberson does not make the claim in anything other than the list, the claim fails IMO. We need a real source - if one exists. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC) -
 * , where in the text is all this? I did not see those claims?
 * As this is a single reliable source that makes the statement, I attributed it, which, IMHO is the proper thing to do attributing the statement to the source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read his section where he specifically makes that statement about his list at 4.3?  It appears to me to say that he does not assume any responsibility for accuracy - but lays it on Fuchs and unnamed sources as Learsi manages not to make anything near a claim that Hahn was Jewish.  As we already have a source saying we know nothing about his family, that should ice it.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Found  citing  NYT as having an Episcopalian funeral. Collect (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That website may not be great, wonder if we can get it from the original source, the NYT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lets carry on this conversation on the article talk page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Estado de ...
2600:1006:B165:44D1:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A word of advice
'Citing' sources that entirely fail to support the material supposedly referenced, as you did in the No-go area article, is a sure-fire way to get into trouble. This source for instance says nothing whatsoever about Islamic extremists creating no-go areas in France. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Prager U / TED
Is your question about the difference between these two templates directed to me? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Eight-Nation Alliance
Greetings! I noticed your edit at Eight-Nation Alliance where you restored the linking of United States. See, I've removed it because it's a "major geographic location" per WP:OVERLINK. The other nations in the article are historical states and kingdoms that no longer exist, and therefore it's quite reasonable to link them. "The United States", however, is something that I'd assume to be known by 99% of the population. Also, that alone is very tangentially related to the topic. I hope this helped to clarify my edits.

Anyway, I won't engage myself in reverting the edit in question any further, but perhaps we could ask Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking for an opinion? =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately, what occurred by the deletion of the links was that the U.S. name in the caption for the page's first image, was leave the U.S. flag without a name next to it. and normally OVERLINK isn't applied to captions (in my personal experience). Therefore to remove the link from the lead section was one thing, but an error was caused when removing the link and the name from the caption. Thus why in my edit summary I stated "good faith". I understand what was attempting to be accomplished, even though a good faith error occurred due to it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh boy... In my first edit I didn't get myself involved with removing the name from the caption. Apologies for that.
 * It seems that the name from the caption was missing even before my edits, but User Grunners fixed that while also adding United States to the lede.
 * In a nutshell, I was meant to remove the link from the lede, but I also accidentally removed the name from the caption. IMHO; United States still falls under overlinking though. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply here
talk:Lookout Mountain Air Force Station

178.167.131.17 (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Medal of Honor
Do you intend to respond to my question on the rescinded/never used "V" device on the MOH article? If not, I'm going to take that as confirmation that no one will be posting a good faith rationale as to why we should continue to keep outdated/obsolete material in the same portion of the article that explains the current appearance of the medal and its accoutrements. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have been busy with the world outside of Wikipedia, and haven't had an opportunity as of yet to respond. Please be patient with me.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I'm not constantly on Wikipedia myself either. I see you've responded, so I will take the next step there.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In re: A continual mix of 28+ years USA/USAR, both prior service NCO and commissioned (I'm presently a field grade in command of a USAR unit). Many military members regard the short-lived idea of using the "V" device to additionally signify multiple MOH's to have been a mistake.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So back to the double ribbon wearer. Unlikely, given that most double recipients were for the same act, by different services, and there wasn't the extensive list of lesser valor medals that now exist. Furthermore, only one CPT Swenson, remains active duty; it is unlikely that higher ups would put him in line of fire again.
 * Thanks for your service. There are not enough active duty, national guardsmen, or reservist active on Wikipedia. I had proposed to the foundation to propose having a Wikipedia panel @ San Diego Comic Convention International, but no answer :( .--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And the same to you. There are probably more who just don't disclose their affiliation, and they (we collectively) tend to be drawn to editing articles connected to the military and service related topics.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At WP:MILHIST there appears to be many who are active from Australia, who are either active duty or reservist, and it appears that there is some official support for their servicemembers to edit Wikipedia, including support from their historical sections. It doesn't appear that there is a lot of that in the United States. Each branch, has rich unclassified collections that would bring so much depth to articles connected to them, that editors from their units (while possible WP:COI issues) could surely get their articles up to B, if not GA or beyond.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Accidental removal of my talkpage comment
Could you redo this change so my comment is not removed? Thanks. Brianhe (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , sorry, that was unintentional. It was corrected here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. Brianhe (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter Aduja
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peter Aduja you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Rollbacker
I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ARightCowLeftCoast granted] rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the confidence displayed by granting me this responsibility. I hope that the trust is kept, and that my usage is proper. I do not plan to use it often, and when sparingly done, done so for good reason.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight: Retirement of project member WD Graham
You are invited to join the discussion at WikiProject Spaceflight. &#x0020;WD Graham, formerly operating under the editor name of GW Simulations, has retired from Wikipedia. Please pop on over to offer a remembrance, or thanks, or ... (...maybe talk him in to giving it another go.) Thanks. N2e (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter Aduja
The article Peter Aduja you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Peter Aduja for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Afghan war 1978-present
Just wanted to say something. I only just now noticed the merge/rename discussion you started two weeks ago on the talk page of that article because it wasn't tagged. I will of course oppose. No need to reply to my comment there since we rehashed the issue hundreds of times and frankly I'm worn out already. However, this is what I wanted to say, if you do somehow manage to reach a consensus to merge/rename I will not insist anymore that they are all to be considered part of the same war on Wikipedia. Because, contrary to what you have said, I do abide by consensus. EkoGraf (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated there, I had appropriately canvassed and informed wikiprojects of the discussion. Any editor is free to add their opinion, even those that may oppose my own.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. In any case, even if you do decide to reply at my comment there, again, I won't, because like I said, I'm done with this issue. No more strength to fight over such a trivial thing. EkoGraf (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracies
While I think it's a deeply flawed SPI (and that as someone who very rarely agrees with Collect on content) I don't think conspiracy allegations are either helpful or appropriate on the SPI page. Guettarda (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since being on Wikipedia I have seen non-liberal editors prosecuted, and harassed until they have lost interest in the project. While I have not saved each diff to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, I have seen it enough times to believe it is a possibility, even if those prosecuting believe it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to have non-liberal editors become inactive or outright banned. So while others might see the comment, or even this comment, as inappropriate, there it is.
 * Collect has been banned, and now to see what sticks, his opponents are beginning a sockpuppet investigation. Who knows what is next.
 * Hopefully the ban will serve as a cooling down period between the two editors, hopefully they will both learn from the experience. However, while is away, as pointed out on his talk page, a great amount of effort has been made to make edits to the article which he views as making the article non-neutral. If this is the case, as I have not looked at the article which caused the situation that led to the ban, or the SPI, but I have known Collect long enough through their edits on Wikipedia to given his statements a benefit of a doubt if not believe them at face value.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect was blocked for a week (rather than "banned").
 * Thank your for your thoughts  at the SPI. I agree that, through his many years of service, Collect's concerns about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP have earned the respect of editors. I don't necessarily think that those opposing him are motivated by liberal politics (or left politics).
 * The question is: Are editors finding the best reliable-sources and trying to write a NPOV article, or are editors starting with a POV (perhaps based on weak sources, like blogs) and then using Google to find only the sources agreeing with their original POV? The latter sounds like a strategy that can lead to trouble.
 * Dear ODear ODear (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

On the reversion of edits to the Transhumanist Party main article
Hi RightCowLeftCoast,

I would like to inform you of an issue that is ensuing with a page in the main article namespace. As it becomes more controversial and triggers larger discussion, it should be brought to the attention of administrators and higher-ranked individuals on Wikipedia.

In November 2014, the article "Transhumanist Party" was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transhumanist Party. A long discussion about its notability can be viewed at that page, resulting in the decision to replace the page with a redirect to a section of Zoltan Istvan's page, the founder and chairman of the party. The stated reason was that the article was too dependent on primary sources, and they couldn't confirm that it was "real".

After over 3 months of the party's publicity and media coverage, as well as work being done to Draft:Transhumanist Party to add those references and new information being made publicly available, the page was restored. Within hours, the user Dsprc, who was in favor of removing the page the first time, came and removed it again, even though the reference situation had been ameliorated and the party's website was also functional and provided more information and news stories.

Zoltan Istvan is now planning on writing a series of articles that will be published on national news media challenging Wikipedia and the users involved in keeping down the Transhumanist Party article. Among the subjects of these articles are users Dsprc, Stalwart111, Philosopher, their actions, and Wikipedia executive staff. Wikipedia's failure to support an article on this notable political party will not go unnoticed. In the meantime, the page will be properly restored so it can be seen by and improved by users and the public, as there is no doubt that it deserves its page on The Free Encyclopedia for people to see. Nobody is against making the page better, and there will be new additions and references all the time; the party's news coverage is consistently growing, and maybe its Wikipedia page's will soon too.

I hope you can be of help to Wikipedia and the Transhumanist Party by appropriately keeping up this article for the public so conflict does not become more severe.

Thanks, Mechanic1c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechanic1c (talk • contribs) 18:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Oversight at RfM unintentional
My alternatives summary leaving out one of your proposed drafts was unintentional. I mean for all the language proposals to be on the table. I attempted the summary only because Sunray suggested that it would be easy for one of us to write it, but it turns out it is not easy. Sorry. What language would you like to run up the flag pole? We have been agreed before, I see no good reason why I missed it. What would you like to try out in the group of alternatives for consideration? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I have made my opinion known, and we're slowly working out our issues as a group.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Diplomats
Your essay looks pretty good as a starting place. Should it be promoted to get a few more eyes on the essay? --Enos733 (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Reason for Benghazi 2012 deletion
I was not contesting the validity of the info in the footnote--it is just more detail than we need in an article which is already overly long. There are about 5 pages, including footnotes, devoted to the two security guys killed--far more than for the ambassador. I would shorten it substantially. In any event, getting to the level of discussing the cul de sac strikes me as getting to the point of parody. Tedperl (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan 2015-
Would appreciate your thoughts at this talkpage on the vexed question of NATO leading the war in Afghanistan. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Diego Police Department, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hispanic American. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Aduja
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Trying to thread the needle
At U.S. request for mediation, trying to thread the needle in the poll returns between B1-2 “national jurisdiction", and C1-2 “federal republic consisting of”, —


 * D.2. The United States is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, as well as a federal district and other territories in its national jurisdiction.[note]

This can be parsed in various ways which accommodates the major divisions among editors as I see them, with an eye to include ALL initial participants.


 * a) The federal republic consists of 50 states, as well as a federal district and other territories. or,
 * b) 50 states, a federal district and other territories are in its national jurisdiction. -- or —
 * c) a federal district and other territories are in a non-state status. — or —
 * d) a federal district and other territories in its national jurisdiction but outside the federal republic.

I do not believe d) is a correct inference from the ambiguous statement, so I would like a clarifying footnote citation from the State Department “Common Core Document” to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights, noting Item 22: "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions." and, item 27: “...outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.".

Any thoughts in response to this redraft, --- or any main principles up front, in response to Sunray's invitation below for a priori Principles-for-objection before trying to reach an accommodation or redraft among the poll responses? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened
Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)