User talk:Rja13ww33

Welcome!
Hello, Rja13ww33, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Adding the POV tag to Gary Webb
Hi! I removed the POV tag you added because you never explained why you added it, in the edit summary or on the article talk page. Why do you think the article is POV? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind... I found your comments. So what I did was ping several editors who had edited this article in the past. That way they'll take a look WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your concerns have been addressed. Please don't hold this article WP:HOSTAGE.  If you have new concerns, use the talk page.  Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No they have not. (Including the fact Garvin's criticism is evaluated and while others are not. Even another editor agreed with me on that.) Also, I have linked to an article that says Webb was not vindicated (and I plan to post more). Please stop removing the issue at the top of the page. Furthermore, your comments in the article demonstrate that you are not impartial. A third person should be involved in a re-write.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your concerns were addressed. I have not made any comments in the article. My comments on the talk page are about sources. You've pointed to an editorial by a person who is not impartial, and who has personally waged a campaign against Webb. This is not a reliable source for a BLP. There is currently no neutrality problem and the tag will be removed again. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comments in the talk section were of a personal nature about someone's background and inappropriate. I feel someone else besides you should be involved in this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You appear to be very confused. Evaluating a source for reliability is not a comment on the "personal nature about someone's background" nor inappropriate.  It is what we do when we determine which source is best for the encyclopedia.  I suggest you read and understand WP:RS. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Gary Webb. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you review the page and the issue at hand....this editor keeps removing the neutrality issue despite the fact that it remains unresolved. And also (when you read the page) he is hardly impartial....we need help on this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You were given explicit, specific instructions in how to deal with what you perceive as a "neutrality" problem. You refused to take any action.  Instead, you have consistently and persistently accused me of bias for no reason.  You can't continue to add a neutrality tag when you refuse to solve the problem.  The tag is only used to alert others of a problem and then to fix it.  It is not used to permanently tag an article. The tag will be removed again. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The RfC tag is out there....there is no point in discussing this with you further.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I kept the NPOV tag on there and I've now initiated the RfC deal is I was hoping to attract as many editors as possible (so far its' been mainly two besides myself) to the page to get a discussion going as to how to approach this. You might think I don't respect wiki's rules, but the fact I didn't jump in and start messing with the article (when I felt it was an overall issue) shows the opposite. If nothing happens with the RfC, I might take the editing path.....but first clearing it on the "Talk" page.Rja13ww33 (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

September 2016
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 article's 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. ⁓ Hello  71  16:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I will not change it again without reaching consensus. But it appears the other user is doing just that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Reaganomics
Your comment on the information you removed from Reaganomics was "see talk page". What part of the talk page are you referring to? NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just added. Didn't think anyone would follow up that quickly.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Just semi-idle curiosity on my part. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2018 (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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Skjoldbro (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Reminder about 3RR exemptions
Looking at your reverts at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, I do not see how an exemption to WP:3RR immediately applies to them. Please bear that in mind before you revert again. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will not mess with it again without resolution on talk page. I have added a section.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't revert more than three times for any reason other than obvious vandalism, copyright violations or violations of the biographies of living persons policy - ever. Two reverts at most is best practice. Apart from feeding the revert cycle, it makes it a personal contest of wills when community consensus should declare itself, with more than one editor involved. It also gives disruptive editors a target, when we should be asserting policy and consensus.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Point well taken.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

(Concerning your selective notification of editors at Talk:Ronald Reagan) –dlthewave ☎ 18:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Ronald Reagan. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Toa Nidhiki05 18:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Message received.....but let me point out: Rjensen and Drdpw already expressed their opinions before this RFC. Just need them to record it formally. But will respect this rule in the future.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Michael Ruppert
Your identity and location have been noted. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that means.....but if you continue to do what you are doing....you will be reported. You need to find RS for your claims.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC
There is a RfC on the Reagan article on a subject in which you have previously commented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ronald_Reagan#RfC:_Reagan_and_Apartheid Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks!Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Important notice
- Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why exactly has this been issued to me at this time? Because of my participation on the talk section of the Jared Taylor page (weeks ago)? There are other participants there who have not gotten such a notice.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As the notice somewhat clumsily explains, the notice is not meant to imply there are any issues with your contributions, only to make you aware of a policy in effect on this article.
 * Periodically, I take a look at who has recently been involved in discussion on some topics and make sure that they have been notified. Today, that was you, Jaxso71 and 98.164.86.105. The three of you are the most recent contributors to that talk page. The IP's comment was today. Jaxso71's was one day before yours. The three prior contributors were InferableSpy, Doug Weller and Drmies. Doug Weller notified InferableSpy (with a related notice), ensuring both are aware. Drmies is an admin; I know he has issued blocks based on the ruling. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. The fact that Drmies didn't get one caught my eye.....but I did not know he/she was a admin.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The newbie
The new editor on the Reagan topic has less than 20 edits yet seems to know how to use Wiki syntax. I'm concerned they may be a previously blocked editor though I wouldn't know who. Currently they appear to be a WP:SPA. Springee (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that too. Not sure who it could be either. It's probably premature to put the SPA tag on it because they have posted elsewhere (over the last month).Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - ANI
Hi Rja13ww33. Please consider joining the discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I'm trying to get all the disputes and edit-warring under control. Are you aware of other spillover around this dispute in other articles? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've see the arguments on other articles. I may join the dispute on the admin board.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey MacDonald
Thanks for keeping an eye on my edits. Sources can contradict. There is not too much on the list, but I don't wish to needlessly use up too much of your time. Btw, Fatal Vision is extremely well-written and researched. Trying to keep a NPOV on the article here, but even though I was convinced of his guilt beforehand, McGinniss has further solidified my opinion. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fatal Vision is a good book. I do (however) want to present the other side of the story (in the interest of NPOV)....because at the least, a reader may wonder why this has dragged on forever in the courts and what some Mac's arguments are. To that end, I'll probably wind up quoting from 'A Wilderness of Error' some. Regards.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Objectivity, and that is what we strive for. I do not own that book, but can obv. appreciate (and wish for) an equal balance, from reliable sources. The casual reader needs everything explaining. I do find the forensics of this case fascinating. All the best.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have Wilderness....so I can cover us there. (Definitely a case where the book was better than the movie/mini-series.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Be my guest, :) I enjoy collaborating with other users on Wikipedia true crime articles. I did note your 2019 NPOV concerns in areas. There is so much exhaustive info. about this case already within the article, and online. Some of the presented info. is biased (either way). Just need to balance and construct and adjust the available info. to the article. Maybe we can, in time, bring this to at least a GA nominee?--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully we can get it to that level.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I've added what I want for now. (Might tweak it some more later.) Thanks for cleaning up some of my edits. Regards.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Again, I hope we can get this to GA standard. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll create the note you mentioned on the article. I'll trim very little or nothing between the Grand Jury and Ongoing Legal Efforts sections as obviously more eyes as opposed to just mine and yours need to review the article and judge what deserves merit. I do believe the constant year upon year (or should I say decade upon decade) appeals need trimming or condensing. Somewhat tiresome and repetitious, but maybe that is just myself. Regards, and thanks. :)--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome!Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... Does anyone know the proper way to cite the page number from a reference that has unnumbered pages? Do you just mention the section in a special note for the reference? Thanks. Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If there's no page number, then you don't need to indicate the page on which the information is located. If you want more help, change the help me-helped back into a help me, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You may be looking for the  parameter that can be used to specify a location in a document using something like section number or stanza.  — jmcgnh (talk)  (contribs) 00:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Is it appropriate to have just a general statement after the "at="?Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any restrictions on what you put there, but to keep other editors happy you should make sure what you write succinctly helps a reader locate the desired item in the document.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again jmcgnh.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Potential discrepancy
Hi. Sorry to contact you. There is a potential error in the article which I believe you can rectify, if a valid error, as you own a copy of A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald. According to Fatal Vision (p. 610), the blond hair found in Colette's palm had been her own. Later in the article, text reads: Although a single hair found stuck to Colette's left palm was cited by MacDonald as belonging to one of the alleged intruders, DNA testing revealed the hair to source from his body (p. 474 of A Wilderness of Error: The Trials of Jeffrey MacDonald). Are we referring to two separate body hairs? Thanks for your time. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem . I think we are talking different hairs. There were a number of them recovered from each family member. There was a hair found on Colette that was hers. And the article is correct that another found on her was sourced to him. But there were other hairs that were not matched to any known family member or suspect. The passage (on p.474 of Wilderness) reads: The [March 10, 2006 Department of Justice] press release also pointed to a limb hair, found in Colette's hand; MacDonald had argued that it surely belonged to one of the intruders, but testing showed that the hair was in fact MacDonald's. But there were three unsourced hairs mentioned only in passing. One of them -Specimen 91A- was found under Kristen's fingernail. MacDonald's lawyers argued that it might exonerate him. Specimen 91A was "in a location that shows that during Kristen's attempts to defend herself, a hair from her attacker was lodged under her fingernail. The DNA results establish that this hair is not the hair of Jeffrey MacDonald.


 * The "not" above was underlined (not in bold) in the original text but underlining is discouraged on wiki. On p. 471 of Wilderness the breakdown of the testing done on 28 hair samples was: 9 were inconclusive, 13 were from Kristen, Kimberley, and Colette, 3 were from Jeff, and 3 were not matched to anyone.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe a note to explain in the article will be apt. Bold text or underlining can convey as being somewhat abrupt. I just put the text as bold to highlight the discrepancy here. Thanks for your time. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Finished
Hi,. I think I am finished with the Jeffrey MacDonald article. There may be some minor edits, here and there, going forward, but it is safe to say I have exhausted the printed references I own. I have spent three months largely devoted to the expansion of the article. I believe this may be one of the most informative articles I have devoted focus to in the twelve years on Wikipedia. All the best for 2021. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks good . You've done a wonderful job. I have a minor tweak or two I want to make. But I should get that done promptly. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... Is there a group or possibly a committee I [someone who isn't a administrator] can bring up some concerns about article content to? I know there are a few committees here.....but I am unsure which ones (if any) to bring this up to. Thanks. Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ; is there a specific issue or concern that you are able to mention here? The answer will likely change depending on that. Perryprog (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me . I specifically want to discuss the articles that deal with politics (and politicians). I think there are some bias issues here that I would like to discuss with the powers that be. Thanks again.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ah OK, that I can help with. What might be the easiest thing to do (if you're still unsure if there are bias issues) is to bring it up on the neutral point of view noticeboard. The other option, if you're confident there's a bias, is bringing it up on the article's talk page and possibly tagging the article with the POV template depending on the severity. If neither of these options seem to cover your situation, then feel free to change back the help me-helped template back and/or ping me in a new reply. Perryprog (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you again . Those are good options.....BUT those options tend to focus on a article at a time. This is a overall issue. If there is no group to present this to....that is fine.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Could you expand a bit on what the issue is? That should allow us to help you better :) CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. In short, I think there is a issue with the articles here relating to politics that reflect a real problem with a lot of activist editors. There are a few who go from article to article with a agenda. (And yes, in many instances it is a left-wing one. And yes, I do realize the supposed "liberal bias" of wiki is something that has been kicked around quite a bit (and even has its own article).) The end result is something I think no one who observes NPOV wants. I could give a lot of examples....but it may be best to save it for now. You may be reading and thinking well, if these "activists" are observing RS [and so on]....what is the problem? The problem with that is it ignores how malleable and open to interpretation the rules here are. (That is (after all) one of the reasons we have RFCs.) Some I have talked to feel that more editors is the answer. I fall more into the category of thinking some concrete, overall article standards are in order. Some articles are veering into tabloid category at this point. In wrapping up my points (for now), let me point out that sometime ago I was arguing with someone (an admin as scary as that sounds) about article content.....and I had to remind him/her that we are supposed to be a ENCYCLOPEDIA here. And I challenged him/her to find a single article in a source like Britannica that matches the kind of content he/she was endorsing. (He/she couldn't of course.) I think this is a real issue here. I say this not only as someone who grew up reading encyclopedias (granted a few generations old now).....but also someone who has poured some hours/money into this project. If you need me to elaborate further....let me know. Thanks for hearing me.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Fixing bias on Wikipedia is not a simple thing. Many folks are aware of our various biases, and have spent a while trying to fix them. Ensuring that the Encyclopedia is neutral is an everyday task. It requires individual editors to tackle individual articles. If you want Wikipedia to change its standards, you will need to propose that and get the agreement of the community at a venue like the Village Pump, or at the page for the relevant policy. Wikipedia does not have a single group or committee that controls content, editors act as one direct democracy that solves issues. Without some more specific idea of what you want to fix thats all I can say. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. The one-article-at-a-time approach may be best.....but I have seen virtually no overall reaction from the powers that be as to how these articles are being systematically changed....ergo, that is why I felt a need to comment. Thanks again.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you ascribe too much power to the "powers that be". There is no central control of content on Wikipedia. What sort of standards are you looking to implement/change? CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What would make sense to me is some sort of oversight committee (for a lack of a better term). What to oversee? A lot of the big name/high profile/historical articles are in decent shape (although I've always thought (for example) that when you put the MSNBC & CNN articles side by side with the Fox News article, you gotta wonder if it is intended as a joke)....it's when you get to the stuff that's bit lower that things start getting crazy. So, a group to monitor/edit a revolving list of articles (maybe a few consistently) would be (I think) beneficial. Typically when people show up in the news, that's when their page goes nuts. (And frankly, while we are on the topic, a lot of these pages have guard dogs that have very strong opinions (read: bias) one way or the other.) At the very least....a committee that can hopefully curb the (current) trendline and create consistency from article to article in subjects that deal with politics.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You could certainly try proposing such an oversight body, but I doubt it would gain traction. Wikipedia is decentralized, and the community likes it that way. If a page has issues, we have many pathways to fix it. Noticeboards for neutrality and living people, the admins noticeboard to report troublesome users, RfC's, dispute resoloution. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , any idea where I could make such a proposal? RFCs, individual article talk pages, and so forth are built around solving individual problems on single pages. This is a broader proposal.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:VPR I imagine. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Unsolved Mysteries
Hi.

Sorry to bother you. According to Wikipedia's List of Unsolved Mysteries episodes article, an episode focusing on the MacDonald murders was aired in 2010, but from what I can find online, it was aired Sep. 1992. Both are titled Final Appeal. Is the 2010 episode a revisit/rehash of what was broadcast in 1992? May also need adding to the article.

Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Kieronoldham....thanks for asking (and it's no bother at all). The 2010 episode was (IIRC) basically just a rehash of what came earlier. What they typically did was just have Dennis Farina say Robert Stack's lines in stories they had already done. Sometimes they did updates, but there wasn't one for this one IIRC. By the way, I know the original air date for the Robert Stack narrated episode is given at several sources (including here) as being in 1992.....but unless my memory is failing me.....I don't think that is right. I remember that being very early on in the series. (Maybe as part of the specials.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @....one thing I forgot to mention is (and you probably already know this if you've seen the show), Unsolved Mysteries use to use the "Final Appeal" title all the time for a lot of different segments. It was one of several different categories they would use. (For example, a UFO story might have the categorical title "The Unexplained".) So what I am driving at is: it wasn't unique to Mac's story.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I do recall this vaguely. I have seen a few of the shows, but not for many a year. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN for Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign
Hi @ I plan to nominate Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign, an article I have recently expanded for GA. It has been cop-edited and received a review in it's peer review page. It would be great if you can help me by reviewing the article and letting me know if anything major needs to be addressed. I intend to nominate it as soon as possible, as the GAN backlog drive is underway, and it has higher chances to be review quicker. No issues if too busy. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I will look it over ASAP. And by the way, I think you've done a good job with the article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Reagan obsessed editor Viriditas
Hey, thanks for you help defending the president lede page. I don't know who the wacho Viriditas account is but do you think he is gonna get away with destroying the article with left wing bias and lede editing? Let me know please and thank you for standing up to the left wing editor who is trying to destroy the strong standing of the Reagan article. 2600:1700:D090:3250:DC1F:8440:DB7E:BA5D (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, he is one of those people who thinks the rules are whatever he decides they are. So it is something to watch out for.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Supply side
Could you provide some rationale for your revert of my recent edit to the lead? "Supply side" is not an economic theory. It's a policy approach, which is quite a different thing. I appreciate your concern about editing longstanding text, but this particular article is full of content that does not hold up very well with respect to rigorous mainstream economic thought. If you have a specific objection, please present it on article talk and let's see what discussion develops. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll start a new section.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Oswald talk page
It's not appropriate for us to fill up the talk page regarding matters related to my tone or your tone. I'll respectfully ask that if you wish to make additional comments about that please do so at WP:ANI, a more appropriate place for such discussion. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It takes two to tango....if you have a problem with a "wall" of posts....I would suggest not replying and saying you are not having issues with CIVILTY....and clearly you are. But in any case, I agree it has probably gone on long enough.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As clearly you do also. BTW, no need to shout "CIVILITY". I know what it means. But we can leave it and move on. Sundayclose (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't shouting it. I just said it without the link. (I.e. WP:CIVILITY.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

February 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —  Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 05:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I didn't cross the 3RR line. But thanks for the reminder.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Allegations of CIA drug trafficking
Hello Rja13ww33. I have begun a thread Neutral point of view/Noticeboard about our discussion Talk:Allegations of CIA drug trafficking. You have repeatedly plainly altered what you claim to be copy and paste of a source. I see no other way to resolve this. Invasive Spices (talk) 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully what Thebiguglyalien told you will sink in.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Reagan's legacy
Hi Rja13ww33, I've made additional changes to Reagan's legacy section. Does that section look right to you or am I... making more mistakes? Also, I can't help but think that there isn't really puffery in there. Wow (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good to me. I am partial to the Thatcher and Walesa quotes....but I see you linked to them anyway. I realize you are working against length complaints....so I understand.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is there any chance you could verify all or most of the sentences I've rewritten? And, is it possible for you to finish changing the remaining references (around 90 left) to mostly books and journal articles? The only sections whose references need to be changed still are apartheid, Libya, Iran–Contra, Soviet decline, post-presidency, and legacy. I only ask this because I'm starting to run out of time. I saw you write that you wanted to add some material yourself, so this could be a good time to fix the issues other editors have raised. Wow (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can do that. It would probably be about a dozen a day. Can you give me the reference numbers (i.e. X through Y) I am to check?Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright, forgive me for this long list, but as of this revision, here are the numbers of each section that need to be checked:
 * Early life: 8–15, 24–25
 * Entertainment career: 30–31, 39, 41, 45–52, 54–68, 73, 78
 * Early political activities: 86, 93–96, 102, 113–116
 * California governorship: 119–134, 116–144, 146–152
 * Seeking the presidency: 153–170, 174–178, 180–183
 * Taxation: 208–220, 222
 * Government spending: 240–241
 * Civil rights: 255, 257–262
 * War on drugs: 273
 * Escalation of the Cold War: 287–289, 292, 296–299
 * 1984 election: 308
 * Response to the AIDS epidemic: 313, 317–319
 * Public image: 411–417, 277
 * I think that's around 148 references. Thanks again. --Wow (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok. No promises on when it will get done (it may be a while)....but I'll get it there.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, you might want to consider finding a different source for this sentence in the 1980 election section: Reagan's supporters have asserted that this was his typical anti-big government rhetoric, without racial context or intent. Wow (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I may look around....but frankly I don't see the issue with it since we clearly identify this is coming from his supporters and it's not any hard stats. Btw, I am intending to get to what you gave me above. But I have been just slammed at work.....but it is on my "to do" list. (I.e. not a question of if but when.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not forgotten about this and I do intend to get to it. (I'm finally starting seeing the light at the end of the tunnel @ work.) I have also found some better sources on some of the other issues you raise above. Anyway....just wanted to update you. This will get done.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Beginning 3/6 I should be able to proceed with this. All apologies (again) for the delay.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * All good, I'll need to update this list by the time you get to checking. Wow (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have started.....but some of these references I don't have (i.e. Kengor is a good example).....and some of them you can't browse for free on Google books or Amazon (also with Kengor)....any idea where I can find them? Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure where else to find them. If a citation has a Google Books link, it's probably because it's not on archive.org or some database, but here's the new list based on this revision:


 * Early life: 8-13, 15-16, 24-7
 * Radio and film: 30-31, 36, 40
 * Military: 45-46, 48
 * SAG presidency: 52-54, 63
 * Early political activities: 82
 * 1966 election: 99-111
 * Governorship: 113-138
 * 1976 primaries: 139-157
 * 1980 election: 158-173
 * Taxation: 177-191
 * Gov't spending: 210-211
 * Civil rights: 236-243
 * Drugs: 249-250, 252
 * Escalation of Cold War: 275-276
 * AIDS: 298-300
 * Historical reputation: 379 ("Great Communciator" sentence), 385-386 ; I think the sentences need to be rewritten, I can't think of how to do it right now..


 * Kengor 2004: https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780060571412/page/210/mode/2up
 * Vaughn 1995: https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/27551378
 * Pemberton 1997: https://archive.org/details/exitwithhonorlif00pemb
 * Brands 2015: https://archive.org/details/reaganlife0000bran
 * Longley et al. 2015: https://books.google.com/books?id=NHJsBgAAQBAJ
 * Primuth 2016: https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/43855884
 * Cannon 2001: https://archive.org/details/ronaldreaganpres00cann
 * Cannon 2003: https://archive.org/details/governorreaganhi0000cann
 * Woodard 2012: https://archive.org/details/ronaldreaganbiog0000wood
 * Vaughn 1994: https://archive.org/details/ronaldreaganinho0000vaug/page/232/mode/2up
 * Putnam 2006: https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/25161839
 * Johns 2015: https://books.google.com/books?id=aaueBgAAQBAJ
 * Hayes, Fortunato & Hibbing 2020: https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/journals/journal-of-public-policy/article/racegender-bias-in-white-americans-preferences-forgun-availability/910B9B7DB07E538D588B956619C9F2DE
 * Carter 2002: https://books.google.com/books?id=H_RrLyV9rDUC
 * Garrow 2007: https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/30031608
 * Gould 2010: https://books.google.com/books?id=0yPdDZsjjJ4C
 * Clabaugh 2004: https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/42926508
 * Reagan 2011: https://books.google.com/books?id=kHnEMC2_KoIC
 * Cannon 2013: https://archive.org/details/geraldrfordhonor0000cann
 * Witcover 1977: https://archive.org/details/marathonpursuit000witc
 * Boris 2007: https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/27558050
 * Haney-López 2014: https://books.google.com/books?id=20QSDAAAQBAJ
 * Boller 2004: https://archive.org/details/presidentialcamp0000boll_a3l8
 * Crespino 2021: https://books.google.com/books?id=kB8sEAAAQBAJ
 * Karaagac 2002: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZFhGnjKqjgAC
 * Li 2013: https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.4.2.0218
 * Gerstle 2022: https://books.google.com/books?id=3PJbEAAAQBAJ
 * Graetz 2012: https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/23240277
 * Steuerle 1992: https://books.google.com/books?id=zxMl-rQNkosC
 * Bartlett 2012: https://books.google.com/books?id=tMco5vGOaiIC
 * Rossinow 2015: https://books.google.com/books?id=57NqDQAAQBAJ
 * Cannon 2000: https://archive.org/details/presidentreagan000cann
 * Patterson 2005: https://books.google.com/books?id=03s7DwAAQBAJ
 * Shull 1993: https://archive.org/details/kindergentlerrac0000shul
 * Eckman 1989: https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/40687524
 * Amaker 1988: https://archive.org/details/civilrightsreag00amak
 * Alexander 2010: https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781595581037
 * Sirin 2011: https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/43496834
 * Wawro 2010: https://books.google.com/books?id=OiS9UVotQfUC
 * Søndergaard 2020: https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/books/reagan-congress-and-human-rights/A856A779F38EE2F5AE197869F3E7B636
 * Lucas 2009: https://www.proquest.com/docview/194343072
 * Francis 2012: https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/23253449
 * Kim & Shin 2017: https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/journals/japanese-journal-of-political-science/article/variance-in-global-response-to-hivaids-between-the-united-states-and-japan-perception-media-and-civil-society/D76F94F2AA901F3F66FEEE6E0A0BCB5D

--Wow (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok I am working on it. I may buy a few (on Kindle on Amazon) if they are used enough. I will periodically update you as to my progress.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm about 40% of my way through it. Not noticing anything major so far. The page numbers appear to match the Kindle version I have (in some cases) on Amazon (where I am using that). Anyway, just wanted to update you.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Any chance you can rework the 1976 and 1980 campaign sections? Wow (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Rework in what way? Is that on your reference list?Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I just meant adding new information to both sections, but now I think both need another paragraph. It's really hard to jam everything into the article when WP:SIZERULE suggests 9K words. As you can see here, we're close to that number, but then I came across Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1 and apparently 11.3K words is ok, so we have plenty of room to add more substance now. Wow (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. For the record, I am about up to reference 158 (through the 1976 campaign). I have to say (at this point) I am starting to question how much of the campaign sections is devoted to the race issue. To read this stuff, you'd think that was the basis for the whole thing....and when you look at overall treatment of the campaigns (from heavyweight historians, vs. a lot of stuff cherry picked from journals and other locations).....they don't see it that way. For example, from the source I just dropped in (James Patterson's noting RR's criticism of Kissinger/Ford's foreign policy), this deal about RR's use of the race issue isn't mentioned once as far as the '76 campaign goes. I may address it on down the line....but just wanted to point that out. (At the risk of beating a dead horse....that's come up more than once on the talk page.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong. There is too much focus on the race issue but with this in the article now, I'm hoping that there won't be anymore talk discussions on a lack of race issues. Wow (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have finished checking all the references you have asked for and I have fixed where required. I could not confirm references 302-304. (In the AIDS section.) These are from Journals that do not appear to be available on JSTOR. I'm not sure who dropped them in....but you may want to ask on the talk page. It might have been that guy Jaydenwithay. In any case, I have a few other things to do with that article....but at least that is done.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I put Lucas 2009 and Kim & Shin 2017 in there. You can access ProQuest and Cambridge with TWL, but you could also replace those refs with something else if they're not good enough. Wow (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * They look like quality references to me.....I just can't get at them. If you can verify them yourself......I think that would satisfy everyone.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Email
Would you be willing to enable email? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. Don't know how to (other than give my e-mail outright here).Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't do that! Go to Special:Preferences, scroll down to "Email options" and check the box that says "Allow other users to email me". I recommend creating a wiki-only email account, but some people just use their normal one. It will be revealed to anyone you reply to, but not people who just emails at you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I got it set up.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you send something and I don't reply. (That means I likely haven't set something up correctly.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Help me
Please help me with... Today my watchlist is screwy. Is it because of the maintenance that is going on? At the top of the watchlist page, it says: "Many toolforge tools are offline; this may impact bots and other hosted tools." Is that what is going on? Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the watchlist is not based on external tools; it's an integral part of the WikiMedia software. If it's still looking strange, you may want to visit the help desk or perhaps WP:VPT. Providing a screenshot will reveal something about you, but it may be better to show it so as to enable someone to help you better.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Isn't there more than one help desk?Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ignore my question. I think I have found the right forum.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Friendly discussion
Hello! Hope we can have a productive discussion here!

The State of Vietnam was signatory, according to the CIA's file, CIA and the House of Ngo:

"The Viet Minh destroyed colonial rule in Indochina when they defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu on 7 May 1954. Negotiations beginning in Geneva a day later led in July to an agreement signed by France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, Communist China, and the three Associated States of Indochina, including Ho Chi Minh's Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The United States agreed to respect the Geneva Accords, but, unhappy with the provision for the temporary division of Vietnam at the 17th parallel, refused to sign. Bao Dai, the puppet emperor of the French, remained in Cannes, and his new prime minister, Ngo DDinh Diem, had played no role in the war or in the negotiations that ended it." Jumopil (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * That's fairly primary. Read 'Vietnam The Necessary War' by Michael Lind. He states: "Contrary to the mythology of the anti-Vietnam War movement, none of the major parties in the Vietnam War-North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, or the United States-endorsed the Geneva agreements." He also notes the monopoly of power the communists maintained in the North, and by virtue of their larger population.....that meant a victory in any election. These sorts of POVs need to be included.
 * By the way, this is not the place to be talking about this, the Vietnam War talk page is where this needs to happen given the fact you have been reverted by another editor who told you to take it there as well. Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I assumed that this is where we're meant to have discussions. The other user left a message on my personal Talk page, so I assumed these are the spaces where we sort things out. I'll leave my reply to you there - please check it. Jumopil (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Messages on talk pages (of that type) are more for warnings of rule violations.....not for article discussion. Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi - just left a reply for you over there. Hope to see you there :) Jumopil (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry -  I meant the Vietnam War talk page Jumopil (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow. I had thought of Ahern as reasonably reliable, but that is astonishingly inaccurate.  Biggest error is that Ho Chi Minh's Democratic Republic of Vietnam was not one of the Associated States of Indochina.  The government headed by Bao Dai and Ngo Dinh Diem was the Associated State for Vietnam.
 * Simplest error is that the Geneva Conference produced three signed agreements. Neither Great Britain, nor the Soviet Union, nor Communist China signed any of the three. Ed Moise (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think whatever is agreed at the Vietnam War talk page should be replicated on the South Vietnam article since it looks like you want to make identical changes to both articles 154.126.11.50 (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WTC
I am disengaging so I don't lead them into an AE sanction. I understand the compulsion to debate - I'm an architect and could give a two-hour dissertation on steel in fire, fireproofing, trusses, failure modes, and construction types, but it's not going to be useful. It's very clear that they've absorbed a superficial set of Truther talking points - very superficial, since it contradicts some Truther Truths. I wouldn't waste any more time, as long as they don't commit any BLP violations or disrupt articles.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, you've got a point. (I knew I was going to get my hand slapped here.) But just listening to this nonsense....as a structural engineer....I just feel the need to respond.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel your pain, and in the Real World I would give them a piece of my mind as a real-life subject matter expert, but as a pseudonymous editor on WP it's just a waste of time.   Acroterion   (talk)   17:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV issues on wiki with regards to politics
I saw your post Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 162 - Wikipedia on Villiage Pump. Were there any resolutions, decisions or projects that came from that?

I'm a new editor and I've noticed a skew in content and editing habits on controversial articles. I'm wondering if any formal attention has been given to the topic beyond debating. Tonymetz 💬  21:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Nothing that I am aware of. It is a shame to because there are a lot of editors here with clear political agendas. Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Fracture critical bridge
Given the currency of the topic and a lack of a detailed article on WP, I've started a draft at User:Acroterion/Fracture critical bridge. While I have a general knowledge of the subject and can work out an outline, I'm not a structural engineer. Please feel free to jump in and improve, well, everything, I'd greatly appreciate it.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I may take a look at it when I get a chance. Thanks for brining it to my attention. Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * So, I wrote a basic article, fracture critical bridge. Since it's sourced from engineering papers and standards, its POV assumes that the reader has an intuitive understanding of the concepts, which makes it hard for a layman to parse. I want to add a discussion somewhere of what, in layman's terms, is not fracture critical in a broader sense. Specifically, a masonry arch is not fracture critical, for instance. It can crack all it wants to, but will not fail solely because of the cracking, since it's in compression throughout. It may fail through deterioration due to the cracking, but their existence doesn't represent an inherent structural compromise in the same sense as a tension failure. This is hard to source. Do you have any references that discuss in such basic terms? Beyond that, I want to have something in there that reminds everyone that a fracture critical bridge is not necessarily a lurking menace, something that's missing from popular press accounts.
 * At least recent popular press discussions have moved to pier protection, which is a problem for any bridge. I suspect that we'll see some kind of emphasis on longer-span bridges in the U.S., with supports in shallow water well away from navigable areas, which removes the issue of bridge strikes.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I have any reference that discuss fracture failure in (general) basic terms (i.e. what you were talking about above).....however, I do have a lot of material on masonry arches. I may be able to find a source that says what you are saying on that particular subject. I also (needless to say) have a lot of material on reinforced concrete that make the point that flexural cracking is expected (although should be controlled).
 * So I guess the best way to put it is: I can't think of any reference I have that puts it in general terms....but I have several that put it in more specific terms. If you would like me to add any of that to the article, let me know.
 * Looking at the failure, I wonder if AASHTO has any regs on protecting piers. You look at some, and they have a lot of rocks around their base. Not sure if AASHTO requires that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd sort of avoided AASHTO, since it's outside my field, but I'll take a look around and see if they have a freshman-level discussion somewhere, which is the sort of thing we'd need as a reference. My general goal is to work out a sourced discussion of the basics of tension vs compression in structures.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

OJ Simpson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:O._J._Simpson#How_should_we_treat_Simpson's_%E2%80%9Cculpability%E2%80%9D_in_the_murders;_neutral_or_adamant?

I have raised the discussion as to whether how we should reflect's Simpson's culpability for the "crime of the century", much like LHO is named "guilty". Discussions open here. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The talk section is "How should we treat Simpson's “culpability” in the murders; neutral or adamant?" 92.17.198.220 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable Source
I cited the OB Summary, despite regarding it as an unreliable source, because there are no reliable sources on the question. The OB Summary is better than the sources most people here are likely to use.

If I cited it without any comment, this would give readers the impression I regard it as a reliable source, and I don't want to give that impression. So I put in a comment on its unreliability. I don't feel that was unreasonable. Ed Moise (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * We do attribute it to MACV (rather than a RS), so it may not be a problem. However, let me look around and see if I can find a RS that says that [i.e. what you said] about MACV. I am fairly certain that there is, since I have heard that numerous times before.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is not what anyone said about MACV, the issue is what MACV said about the makeup of Communist forces. The OB that I cited was a MACV estimate.  I am saying that MACV estimates were unreliable sources.
 * If you do find some other source that gives the percentage of northerners in Communist military forces overall in South Vietnam, I will be surprised, but also very interested. Ed Moise (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was careless and misunderstood you. Most of the good sources stating that MACV estimates were unreliable deal with 1966 and 1967.  I am the only author I can think of who has written anything about the reliability of MACV estimates after the middle of 1968, and it would be a big violation for me to cite a book that I wrote, and even what I wrote was brief and vague.  So I would rather just leave this without a source citation. Ed Moise (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. By the way, are you the Ed Moise? I.e. a professor in the history department at Clemson University? I ask because I am a Clemson alum and remember hearing about you. (Even though I am a engineer who didn't take a history class while I was there.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Though as far as I am concerned, the Ed Moise was my father, who was a much bigger deal as a mathematician than I am as a historian. Ed Moise (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)