Archives

2011:2011 2012:2012

Electoral fraud.

This user's time zone is UTC-5.

Electoral fraud. There is an error in the calculations, some form of electoral fraud is allways present and approximates 100% certainty. Those figures you have placed are reversed, the cummulative probability of some electoral fraud being 1 minus the probability you mentioned. [unsigned comment 2020-11-11T20:54:24 by User:186.185.148.243]

Could you please be more specific? I don't understand. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cyprus Must Sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Because Cyprus Will Join Austria Ireland Liechtenstein Malta San Marino and the Vatican in a goal of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons and Here is a Note: Cyprus Have Voted in Favor of the Adoption of TPNW at the United Nations in 2017. (added 2020-12-24T08:15:32 by 2001:4454:2a8:a400:d8a1:30a7:e417:df09)

Hello User:2001:4454:2a8:a400:d8a1:30a7:e417:df09: There is only one official source for the signatories and parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW): That's the TPNW page on the website of the UN Treaty Collection. This has been discussed multiple times on Talk:Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

You might add a section to that article on "Under consideration", in which you could mention Cyprus and cite your source for that.

That would probably work, though I cannot guarantee it. I would support it, but other Wikipedia editors might object. You may know that Wikipedia works by consensus, asking contributors to:

• write from a neutral point of view,
• citing credible sources.
• Wikipedia also encourages contributors to Wikipedia:Be bold but not reckless.
• Another Wikipedia value is treating others with respect: Even if the behavior of others sometimes may seem abrasive, it's often better to respond calmly and politely; (Wiktionary:you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.)

Thanks for your attempted contribution to Wikipedia. Research has shown one of the main strengths of Wikipedia is its ability to get people with very diverse perspectives to collaborate in working out the details of articles. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank You.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Global financial system (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bretton Woods

List of banking crises (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bretton Woods

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Democracy Initiative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Counterpunch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiknic 2013
Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland
Theme: Hyperlocal list-making

This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!

Location and Directions

• Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
  • Nearest BART: 19th Street
  • Nearest bus lines: NL/12/72
  • Street parking abounds

to two upcoming Bay Area events:

• Maker Faire 2013, Sat/Sun May 18-19, San Mateo -- there will have a booth about Wikimedia, and we need volunteers to talk to the public and ideas for the booth -- see the wiki page to sign up!
• Edit-a-Thon 5, Sat May 25, 10-2pm, WMF offices in San Francisco -- this will be a casual edit-a-thon open to both experienced and new editors alike! Please sign up if on the wiki page if you can make it so we know how much food to get.

I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Electoral reform in the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• united4thepeople.org/amendments.html "United for the People" lists of federal amendments] of the [[112th United States Congress|112th and [[113th United States Congress|113th congresses]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on MAIC (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More precisely, I'm not clear why you made this page--it consists only of external links to subjects about which we do not have articles. Are you intending to writer about any or all of them? (We sometimes do include mention of non-articles in a disam p. to avoid confusion when there are actual articles to be distinguished). DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please read section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which you cited as the criterion for speedy deletion? It begins, "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects to Wikimedia sister projects) consisting only of external links ... ." The page you deleted was a disambiguation page and was marked as such following the instructions on Template:Disambiguation.

The Wikipedia article on disambiguation pages encourages articles giving variant spellings of common terms. The MAIC (disambiguation) page I created did far more: It provided links to substantive web sites for each alternative listed.

Could you either please speedily restore said page or explain why not?

After creating that article, I then posted a link to it Talk:Mergers and acquisitions/Archives/2013#What's MAIC?. That link is now broken. Someone who wanted to respond to my request for help with disambiguation can not now do so.

I created that page for several reasons:

1. The Wikipedia article on Mergers and acquisitions contained the acronym MAIC without defining it.
2. A moderately extensive search failed to identify a plausible definition.
3. I've derived great value from other disambiguation pages in Wikipedia, and I thought others might benefit from a disambiguation page on MAIC (consistent with the Wikipedia policy on disambiguation pages).
4. I hoped to use that page to encourage someone who knows about MAIC in the mergers and acquisitions context to contribute that meaning to the disambiguation page that I had created.

I have over 1300 contributions to different Wikimedia projects in multiple languages. I have nearly always cited sources and written from a neutral point of view. To my knowledge, until today, only one of those 1300+ contributions has been quickly reverted; that was because I did not cite a source and violated NPOV ;-)

The rules against Wikipedia articles on subjects that are not notable make good sense to me.

Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter and for your support for Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As a (talk page stalker) from DGG's page ... it sounds as if the dab page was going about things in the wrong order. Dab pages disambiguate existing articles, or mentions of a topic in existing articles. They aren't just a list of possible meanings of a term. It might be better to add a "request for clarification" at the mentions of MAIC in this article ... have just done so (just the once, as it's mentioned twice in one section). Or add a note to the article talk page. Then, if there is some mention within Wikipedia which would be useful for someone looking for "MAIC" in that sense, either create a dab page at MAIC or, if you're happy that Center for International Stabilization and Recovery is still the primary topic, add a ((redirect)) hatnote there. ("MAIC redirects here, for ... see ..."). Though I haven't seen the contents of your dab page, I can't see that there was any valid content for it. A link to Maic Sema would be possible but unnecessary, as we don't usually link from given names. PamD 08:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply. By "dab", I assume you mean a disambiguation page? DGG referred me to WP:CSD#A3 as the justification for speedy deletion. However, WP:CSD#A3 clearly states it does NOT apply to disambiguation pages. Also, have you read Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages? It clearly encourages the creation of disambiguation pages to clarify issues as trivial as alternative spelling without requiring notoriety, citations to credible sources, etc. It clearly does NOT require that the alternatives listed on a disambiguation page be other Wikipedia articles, though that appears to have been DGG's criterion. It sounds like I could have escaped DDG's speedy deletion by including a link to Mergers and acquisitions#Cross-border M&A with a note that MAIC was used there without definition. If you can recover for me the text that was speedily deleted, I can add that. (I have a few less than 1400 contributions to Wikimedia projects, and I don't know how to recover the text of the page speedily deleted.)

Could you please read (or reread) the policies cited? After doing so if you still agree with DGG's action, could you help me understand the problem, citing words that actually appear in the referenced Wikipedia policies? So far, I've seen DGG's actions explained in terms that appear to violate the rules DGG cited.

If after reading the policies you agree with me, I'd be pleased if you would leave a note on DGG's talk page supporting my request that the disambiguation page I created be speedily undeleted. Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't see the content of your disambiguation page, but I cannot see articles in the encyclopedia which would form the content of a valid dab page. CSD A3 may or may not have been the correct way to delete it: perhaps it came under G6, second bullet point, instead. "unnecessary disambiguation pages, such as those listing only one or zero links to existing Wikipedia articles. Note: per MOS:DABRL, redlinks are allowed in dab pages, if supported by a bluelink to an article that shows usage of the same redlink in reasonable context; the supporting bluelink counts as a valid link to an existing Wikipedia article." I don't think the link you propose would be helpful, as it doesn't lead the reader to any information about MAIC in the mergers context. I see that "MAIC" has been in that article, unexplained, since 2010 - let's hope that someone responds to the note on the talk page and elucidates it. If what they say is a useful explanation of it, then we can add a ((redirect)) hatnote to help the reader find it. PamD 18:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, technically I should have used G6. Pam has made some good suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your additions to Zoster vaccine! By the way, don't add "~~~~" to your edit summaries, but only to your posts on talk pages. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the tip re. "~~~~". If I had understood that from the start, it would have saved me 4 keystrokes for each of the over 1400 contributions I've made so far ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sino-Japanese war (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. This was unintended. Your report moved me to change the offending link to the Second Sino-Japanese war. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saturday, April 5 - WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited!

The University of California, Berkeley's Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend. Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history! The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library. You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DavidMCEddy, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Debt: The First 5000 Years, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jubilee and Credit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello DavidMCEddy,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Talk like TED for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Trivialist (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Accountability page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Accountability, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Lewis. 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) 08:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited! → Litquake Edit-a-thon → See you there!

In the area? You're invited to    San Francisco Meetup # 22   Date: October 11, 2014   Time: 1-5 pm   Place: 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105   prev: Meetup 21 - next: Meetup 23 | All SF meetups & events The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meetup and create/translate/expand/improve articles about literature and writers. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. RSVP →here←. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArtAndFeminism (3/7) and International Women's Day (3/8)!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, In celebration of WikiWomen's History Month, the SF Bay Area Wikipedia community has two events in early March -- please consider attending! First, we have an ArtAndFeminism edit-a-thon, which will take place at the Kadist Art Foundation from 12 noon to 6pm on Saturday, March 7. We'll be one of many sites worldwide participating in this edit-a-thon on March 7th. So join us as we help improve Wikipedia's coverage of women artists and their works! Second, we will be celebrating International Women's Day with the International Women's Day edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 8 from 1pm to 5pm at the Wikimedia Foundation. Our editing focus will be on women, of course! I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] To opt out of future mailings about SF meetups, please remove your name from this list.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding ((Ping|I dream of horses)) to your message. ^{(talk to me) (contributions)} @ 21:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Beheading video page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadley Wickham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Chambers. 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) 11:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings David. You recently made changes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likelihood_function . In particular, you wrote "In measure-theoretic probability theory, the density function is defined as the Radon-Nikodym derivative of the probability distribution relative to a dominating measure. This provides a likelihood function for any probability model, whether discrete, absolutely continuous, a mixture or something else." Do you have a reference for this? I've been looking for a reference which defines the likelihood function of an arbitrary random variable for a long time. Any hint would help. Thanks.

Cheers, Ian

Please join us in San Francisco!

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts in the San Francisco Bay Area will gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. We have two brief presentations lined up for our kickoff event in downtown San Francisco:

• The Nueva Upper School recently hosted the first ever high school Wikipedia edit-a-thon. We will hear what interests them about Wikipedia, what they have learned so far, and what they hope to achieve.
• Photojournalist Kris Schreier Lyseggen, author of The Women of San Quentin: The Soul Murder of Transgender Women in Male Prisons, will tell us about her work and how she researched the topic.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. We will have beverages and light snacks.

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on this point.

For further details, see here: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, April 2016

We hope to see you -- and until then, happy editing! - Pete, Ben & Wayne

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. We will have beverages and light snacks.

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on this point.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, May 2016

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, and Checkingfax via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC) | Subscribe/Unsubscribe to the SF Meetups notice.Reply[reply]

Do you have any thoughts on my suggestion that the Himmler quote praising Ford should either be removed or have a better source for it in the Henry Ford article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Ford#Heinrich_Himmler_quote I did a google search and couldn't find any other sources for the quote, although I'll look some more. RandomScholar30 (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just checked the German-language Wikipedia article on Henry Ford. In addition to the book by Armin Pfal-Traughber, it also cited a 2003 article in Graswurzelrevolution, which unfortunately cites the book by Armin Pfal-Traughber as its source. I added the Graswurzelrevolution cite to the English-language citation of that book.

I also sent an email to Pfal-Traughber asking your question. Before I did that, I asked for it on Interlibrary Loan. If we can't get a better source for that Himmler quote, I agree it should be deleted. With luck, Herr Professor Doktor Armin Pfal-Traughber will produce a solid reference for us available on the web, and I can confirm that it says what the earlier editor claimed. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me, it seems like the Henry Ford article has a Henry Ford=Hitler agenda. For example, it points out correctly that Ford is the only American mentioned by Hitler in My Struggle but fails to mention that Ford is only mentioned one time, in one sentence, a sentence that was removed from future editions. It also quotes Heinrich Himmler praising Ford, " In a letter written in 1924, Heinrich Himmler described Ford as "one of our most valuable, important, and witty fighters."" but I looked up the source, Pfal-Traughber, Armin (1993). Der antisemitisch-antifreimaurerische Verschwörungsmythos in der Weimarer Republik und im NS-Staat. Vienna: Braumüller. p. 39., [1] I have discussed it on the Ford talk page, and the source is in the German language even though wikipedia policy says it is best to avoid foreign language sources, and its also a very obscure book, there was only a snippet view of it. I do not doubt that the source says Himmer said that, because I saw Ford's name on the part of the book in the snippet view referenced in the article, page 39, but because the book is not in English and is obscure it will be difficult for wikipedia readers to verify the quote. I have searched for it online but no reliable source other than that book (which I don't know how reliable it is but I'm assuming its reliable for sake of argument) mentions the quote, although I see some a few books without sources and internet blogs quoting. We already have the sourced quote from Baldur von Schirach about Ford's influence on Nazi Anti-Judaism, which I added to the International Jew article myself when it had not been there previously, [2], so I have not acted in a way to try to cover up Ford's links with Nazis. I think that quote, because it is reliably sourced, is much more appropriate for discussing Ford's influence on Nazi Anti-Judaism than the Himmler quote. Another reason it is better is that Himmler did not mention Jews in his quote, whereas Schirach stated directly Ford's hate campaign against Jews was the reason he was influenced by Ford. There were a lot of influences on Hitler's and the Nazis' Anti-Judaism besides Ford, such as General Erich Ludendorff and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, the simplistic no Ford no Holocaust reasoning that has been popular among some scholars like Edwin Black in my view is a mistake. RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One section out of 10 (not counting 5 reference sections) is devoted to this. The section could doubtless be trimmed, perhaps substantially, by transferring material that could be in the articles on The Dearborn Independent and The International Jew but currently is not, and by otherwise reducing the redundancy with those articles. However, I'm reluctant to cut the Himmler reference, because Himmler is almost as well known as Hitler, and it helps illustrate the reach of Ford's reputation within the Nazi government. The quote from Baldur von Schirach's testimony at Nuremberg is valuable in this context in showing that Ford's reputation was not restricted to just the top echelons of the Nazi party. However, if we can validate that quote from Himmler, I think we should keep it.

Regarding citing foreign-language sources, if I understand Wikipedia:Attribution, it says we should worry first about having credible sources and second about having something in English. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found a better source for the quote, but my internet is slow so I cannot turn to the citation note at the back of the book, it is in this book on page 14, which is included in the preview, [3]. RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another google books edition of the book included the citation in the preview [4] but the citation 37 didn't seem to say anything sourcing Himmler's quote. I guess this source would be an improvement over the previous one though. The title is The Business of Genocide: The SS, Slave Labor and the Concentration Camps by Michael Thad Allen. The quote from Himmler, in a slightly different version, is on page 14, the citation is numbered 37. The quote is in the first preview, but not the second, the citation is in the second but not the first. Maybe you could buy or check out the book though. RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"So you're reading Henry Ford...one of the most worthwhile, weighty, and most spirited predecessors in our fight" is the version Allen gives of the Himmler quote. RandomScholar30 (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forget what I said about the footnote not supporting the Himmler quote, the note I was looking at was number 37 but it was for a page in the 70s range, the quote was on page 14, so I have not seen the note for the quote from Himmler, that footnote must not be part of the preview. I guess citing the Himmler quote to Allen would be enough of an improvement that it can be kept in the article, although ideally I'd like to see Allen's source. RandomScholar30 (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. This book is available from Amazon for under $16 plus shipping. My local library does not have it, but they should be able to get it via interlibrary loan; I think I'll try that before I buy it. (I have more books than space ;-) Both quotes are probably correct, but it would help to find an original source. With luck, the German professor will reply. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said "Both quotes are probably correct" but these are the quotes"So you're reading Henry Ford...one of the most worthwhile, weighty, and most spirited predecessors in our fight" "one of our most valuable, important, and witty fighters." Those are clearly different translations of the same quote. Now that I've seen the other source I agree that Himmler probably said it, but its only one quote, not two quotes. Calling it "both quotes" would be like calling James Strachey's and AA Brill's translations of Sigmund Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams "both books", it would not be correct, they're just different translations of the same quote. I'm cautioning about this so that we don't end up listing that Himmler praised Ford twice when these are actually just different translations of the same quote. RandomScholar30 (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He also could have written similar but different things to different people. In any event, we should use only one, preferably one we can find in English but trace to the original German. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got both Pfal-Graughber and Allen in interlibrary loan. Both cite Ackermann. Heinrich Himmler als Ideologe. p. 37. as their source.

I've posted my latest comment in this thread back to Talk:Henry Ford#Heinrich Himmler quote. Others might be interested in it and would look there but not here. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've complained on the eugenics talk page about the fact Edwin Black is used as a source for the article. If it is correct the Holocaust was influenced by eugenics, then a different source should be found. Black is not a mainstream source. He has blamed everyone from IBM to the Rockefeller family to Henry Ford to even Zionists for Nazism. Commentary magazine stated about Black "In various appearances before and since the publication of The Transfer Agreement, Black has hinted at a conspiracy against him by “extremist Jews” who might think—wrongly, of course—that he has endangered the future of Israel by “exposing” the story of Zionist negotiations with the Nazis. In fact the story has been told before, and often, and with infinitely greater sophistication. To the historical record Black has added conspiracy-mongering, innuendo, and sensationalism, but nothing new, and much that is both factually wrong and morally shabby."https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-transfer-agreement-by-edwin-black/ I don't think its appropriate to use Edwin Black as a source on wikipedia. I would consider him WP:FRINGE. RandomScholar30 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know enough about eugenics to get involved with this. I know that some of Ronald Fisher's most famous papers appeared in the Annals of Eugenics, and I know the eugenics movement was real and substantial. I know that before the Nazis went after Jews, they went after mentally handicapped -- shell shocked World War I veterans, etc. I don't know if the logic for that was eugenics or just economic: Hitler complained about "parasites", sucking the life blood of good hard working Germans.

How would it affect the article if you cut all the comments citing Black? It looks to me like that might reduce the size of the article by roughly 10 percent. It could require a bit more work to make sure the verbiage flowed without the comments you propose removing. If what you say about Black is accurate, the result would improve the article.

I suggest you allow your comments on Talk:Eugenics#Mistaken linking of eugenics with Nazi Holocaust to age a couple of days to see if anyone else replies before proceeding with changes.

Thanks for your support of Wikipedia -- and humanity, through making Wikipedia more reflective of reality. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Anti-Defamation League is cited as a source for Patrick Buchanan's Anti-Judaism. I think at the very least the fact that it is a group with an ideological agenda should be pointed out in the article. I'm not saying Buchanan isn't Anti-Jewish, but the ADL has labeled a lot of people Anti-Jewish who are not. So if they are used as a source I think their bias should be noted at least. They also are leftist while Buchanan is a conservative, which is a reason for them to be biased against him. RandomScholar30 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What article(s) are you talking about? DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article about Patrick Buchanan for the ADL the one about eugenics for the Edwin Black complaint.RandomScholar30 (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not eager to get involved with the article on Pat Buchanan. I wouldn't worry about the ADL. I don't see how that part of that section is inappropriate. If I were concerned about that section, I'd want to find a better source for claims like, "Buchanan wrote that it was impossible for 850,000 Jews to be killed by diesel exhaust fed into the gas chamber at Treblinka.": Statements like that should be quoted from Buchanan himself. If Shapiro and Lichtblau do not say where Buchanan said the things they claim -- and you can't find those statements in anything Buchanan wrote -- those comments should be removed.

However, as I indicated before, I don't have more time to spend on this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We make sure to allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks. We will also have:

• A brief report on Pride edit-a-thon recently held at the San Francisco Publice Library, coordinated by Merrilee:

  What topics might we cover in a follow up?

  Find out more about resources your public library provides to help with editing (hint, it's more than just books!)

  Special announcement (secret for now but come and find out more!)

• Join in on an in person Wikidojo!

  Are you curious how your peers approach writing a Wikipedia article? This exercise, pioneered by Wikipedians Nikola Kalchev and Vassia Atanassova in 2015 and conducted in many places around the world, will help us all - from first-time wiki users to veteran Wikipedians - share ideas, while building an article together. If you have ideas (relating to Bay Area history, ideally) about a new article we could build (stubs and short existing articles are fine), please submit them ahead of time to coordinator Pete Forsyth. (User talk page or email is fine.)

  Announcements and impromptu topics are welcome, too!

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, June 2016

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco tonight!

If you cannot join in person or want to view portions later:

• To join via Hangout on Air
• Via YouTube Stream

We will have:

• Light snacks, and time to mingle
• A brief report on the Pride edit-a-thon recently held at the San Francisco Public Library, that was coordinated by Wiki editor Merrilee
• A special announcement (secret for now but come and find out more!)
• Join in on a brief in person Wikidojo!
• Announcements and impromptu topics are welcome, too!

Please register at: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1cjLRrSTlEkGOPTQ-h6A0WvSFI4ZmIUl6jEHp_RYas-E/viewform and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict.

For further details, see: Bay Area WikiSalon, June 2016

---

See you tonight! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC) | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice)Reply[reply]

Please join us in the Mission at Noisebridge (one time change of venue)!

We hope you can join us today, Wednesday, from 6 p.m. on, at our July Bay Area WikiSalon. This month only, we are going to be at Noisebridge, a hackerspace/makerspace 1.5 blocks from the 16th & Mission BART station (see the link for directions). Some of us will be working on the Wikipedia article on basic income. All info here. Some good news - we do not have to be as strict about advance RSVP at Noisebridge, so bring spontaneous guests! (Registering ahead of time is still helpful, as always, as it will help us plan ahead.)

Come and hang out, have some light snacks. Wi-Fi is available, so please bring your editing device if you plan to edit.

Also, Pete just published a writeup of the Wikidojo exercise we did last month. Your comments welcome, if he missed anything! http://wikistrategies.net/ghost-town-royals-wikidojo

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. Mark you calendars now.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend.

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, Stephen and Wayne | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Hi folks,

We would like to invite you to this month's Bay Area WikiSalon. The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We make sure to allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks. We will also have a brief presentation for your education and possible enjoyment:

• Former EFF intern Marta Belcher will discuss crowdsourcing her Stanford Law School graduation speech using a wiki. The "WikiSpeech" was the subject of prominent national media attention in 2015, and more than half of her classmates contributed to writing and editing the commencement address via a wiki.

Please note: You should register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on the I.D. part. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in! Feel free to stop by even if only to say a quick hello, but you might have to give us a last minute call if you forget to RSVP. Also, don't be shy about hitting us up if you have thoughts on speakers or wiki-related activities.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, August 2016

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Poisson regression page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Hi folks,

We would like to invite you to this month's Bay Area WikiSalon. The last Wednesday evening of every month, Wikipedia and Wikimedia enthusiasts gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We will have no formal agenda to allow people to freely share ideas and perhaps learn about Wikipedia through hands-on editing. Co-organizer Ben Creasy will be looking at election-related articles to enhance the information available in the upcoming November elections.

Co-organizer Stephen LaPorte has suggested doing an upload-a-thon for Wiki Loves Monuments. Niki, the California coordinator for WLM will be in attendance. WLM is an annual event and the official dealine is Friday the 30th for submissions to count towards awards.

Or, you can grab a couch, a booth, or a stool and do your own thing.

Please note: You should register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on the I.D. part. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in! Feel free to stop by even if only to say a quick hello, but you might have to give us a last minute call if you forget to RSVP. Also, don't be shy about hitting us up if you have thoughts on future speakers or wiki-related activities.

For further details, please see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, September 2016. Mark your calendars now for the 3rd Wednesday in October, the 26th, when we will have a brief presentation.

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Hi folks,

Please copy and share this on other talk pages. We would like to invite you to this month's Bay Area WikiSalon. The last Wednesday evening of every month, Wikipedia and Wikimedia enthusiasts gather at the Wikimedia Foundation lounge to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We will have no meaty agenda this month, but we will allow a brief period for:

• Open mic for anybody who attended WikiConference North America 2016 in San Diego last week and wants to share their takeaway
• Question & answer
• Open mic for announcements
• Maybe a focus on some topical election article editing with Ben?

Or, you can grab a couch, a booth, a stool or counter and do your own thing.

---

Please note: You should register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on the I.D. part. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in! Feel free to stop by even if only to say a quick hello, but you might have to give us a last minute call if you forget to RSVP. Also, don't be shy about hitting us up if you have thoughts on future speakers or wiki-related activities.

For further details, please see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, October 2016.

---

PS: Mark your calendars ahead now for the 3rd Wednesday in November, the 30th (the week after Thanksgiving), at 6 p.m. when our WikiSalon will host a super awesome top secret mystery guest mingling in our midst. We will announce specifics at the upcoming WikiSalon.

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen, Jacob, and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, DavidMCEddy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I did in that edit was to assess the progress of the article on our quality scale. See WP:ASSESS for more information about our quality assessment. I assessed the article as C class so that means it has considerable editing to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.

So what we should be working for on the voter suppression article is to address cleanup tags at the top of the page. Then we need to address each of the criteria listed on WP:BCLASS. When (and if) that happens it can be reassessed to B class and the process continues towards Good Article and better. The Good Article nomination is more stricter and keeps a high standard for articles. It is determined by consensus not by one person as I did. The process is outlined at WP:GAN.

I hope that explains it clearly. If you have any other questions, please just ask me and I will reply here. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. That helps.

It leaves one question hanging: What if anything can be done to make it easier for people like me to get answers to such questions without finding someone like you to write to?

I searched for "wp:class", "Wikipedia template:((wiki | class =" and variants and got nothing that seemed relevant to this.

It was a great boon to me when I discovered I could find documentation on many things in the Mediawiki markup language via a web search for "wikipedia template:math" or "wikipedia template:citation", etc. That trick failed utterly for me for this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To search for things in the Wikipedia name space add wp: at the start of your search. wp:assess would of helped in this case. Many times when I make similar edits I add a link to the criteria in the edit summary. I will try to do that more often. Leaving a note on someone's talk page is not something bad you should avoid. I understand there is a lot to learn and like many experienced editors are happy to help out in any way. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

---

Details and RSVP here.

---

See you soon! Pete F, Ben Creasy, and Checkingfax | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki and open-source enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

Before and after the brief presentation we allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks.

---

In addition, this month we will have:

• a brief presentation from User:Cullen328 (Jim Heaphy) about the Wikipedia Teahouse
• spontaneous lightning talks from the floor
• community announcements from the floor

---

For details and to RSVP see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, December 2016

---

See you soon! Ben Creasy and Checkingfax | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

+++++
P.S. Any help spreading the word through social media or other avenues is most welcome! We plan to announce this on various sites and invite various groups; if you would like to join in, check our meta planning page, and please note any announcements you are sending out: meta:Monthly WikiSalon in San Francisco#Announcements and promotion

Please feel free to add to, refine, reorganize or edit the above linked page: it is a wiki!

We need more helpers and organizers, so if you see a need, please jump in, or talk to us about it! You can add your username to the meta page where appropriate, or create a new role!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Hi, everybody.

We are excited to remind you of the ninth in the Bay Area WikiSalon series that is coming up this Wednesday evening at 6 p.m.

• Details (RSVP suggested) here (RSVP helps us know how much food and drink to bring in)

What is a WikiSalon? A monthly safe and inclusive meatspace event conducted in organized chaos and we all clean up the mess afterwards. Livestream links for the presentation are available during presentation months, and will be forthcoming for those of you that cannot attend. December is a presentation month.

---

Hope to see you there! Wayne (and Ben) - co-organizers
Any last minute questions or suggestions? Please ping or email Ben or me. | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kris Kobach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Materiality. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comment is three years late. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I saw that it had been almost three years since the earlier comment. However, I couldn't find "block" used with that meaning in the article. So I asked. I just now edited that section of the article to use the word "block" in that sense.

If someone watching thinks those edits were inappropriate, we'll find out ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OCD explains a lot, so thanks for mentioning it. I worked and for many years with people with serious substance abuse issues and psychosis, and enjoyed it, but OCD wasn't something I did well with, though it was in living and working situations, rather than professional ones. My own personality is oil and water with the condition, unfortunately. I went to the May '05 conference in St. Louis and enjoyed the hell out of it. I drove and picked up 3-4 other attendees en route, and shared a Motel 6 room with a couple of them. I had a very funny conversation with Maurice Hinchey about a backward colleague of his whom I'd had confrontations with, and later couldn't resist (successfully) putting on Medea Benjamin. I think it was a bit later that year that I testified at a national commission meeting at Washington U. It was a very long drive to the conference, but I got my air fare paid for the second trip, and they put me up at the commission hotel, the Sheraton. A bit posh for my plebeian tastes. Activist (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got a pretty good eye, are not afraid to be critical, and you've been observant of the KK article. I just added a travel section. If you have time, would you mind taking a look at it? That would be much appreciated. Thanks! Activist (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Activist: If someone else deletes your new "Travel" section as biased editing, I would support the deletion. Similar to your quote from Ward, I'm concerned that it seems to straddle the line, if it doesn't cross it. You seem to have reasonable citations and acceptable language for the subject matter. I'm concerned that it may seem like carping on something close to trivial, similar to Trump's private sexist remarks to other males: If we weren't worried about the other things Kobach is doing, we would not likely worry about that -- AND it weakens our case to even mention it. Only yesterday a collaborator convinced me to remove 10 percent of what I'd written about something else, because that 10 percent raised issues that were not needed for the main points we wanted to make: We'd more likely lose more than we gained from that extra verbiage. Some in the ultra-right already believe that Wikipedia is a communist plot and can not be trusted. I'm concerned that too much carping about matters like this that might seem fairly minor could feed into that mindset. (For my comments regarding Wikipedia as a communist plot, search for "fact checking" in v:Winning the War on Terror to find especially a comment that, "Three groups of people are generally more careful about checking their facts than the public at large: Investigative journalists, University professors, and Wikipedians. All three have been under attack.")

I don't know the right answer. You asked what I thought.

Thanks for your work on this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll answer on my own Talk page, and I'll see if I can't whittle it down a bit. Activist (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been hugely busy, but have pecked away at the KK article until this morning, when I finally got on it a bit. I answered the notice placed by one editor who wanted abbreviations (i.e., the ACLU or LWV) spelled out. I also supplied some cites and removed that notice too, and will add more as I have time. The article has 144 cites. As far as the neutrality issue, I think the article is solid. Wikipedia editors are not required to be fan club members or Panglossian. I'm going to make it better and I hope I don't try your patience until I'm finished. Thanks for your advice so far. It's been very helpful. I don't know how you tell how many hits an article has received, but I expect it has ramped up considerably in the past eight months, for obvious reasons. I've been editing it for over three years. Activist (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not worry about trying my patience as long as you (a) seem to be making an effort to understand what others write and respond with respect, and (b) don't repeat your talking points in ways that suggest you have not read what others wrote.

Some people may be honestly evil and deceitful, but I think it's unwise to assume that unless there seems no other way to explain a pattern of behavior that clearly indicates they repeat a set of standard talking points that suggest that they don't read what others wrote. The behaviors I've seen in challenging your edits, for example, have not yet convinced me that the person was not making a good faith effort to understand and support the rules. As long as we can keep them engaged in honest dialogue that does not become repetitious, I think we can make progress. Yes, it can take more time than you or I may think should be necessary. However, the product will likely be better, less likely to offend people who may be concerned about the issues Kobach raises but still are willing to listen.

To get page views, click on "View History"; if your window is narrow, it will be under the "More" tab. Then click on "Page view statistics". That will give you the page views by day over the past 20 days. To see more, click on the button "Latest 20" and select, e.g., "90". When I did this just now, I got 47,474 (522/day) for the Kobach article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently reviewed your (once upon a time) new article Julia Cagé. I just wanted to pop in and say "Good job": Good job.

The only comment I have is that in the future if you translate an article, I might recommend adding the ((translated)) template to the talk page, for attribution reasons. menaechmi (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks for adding new materials to the article. However, it's expected that you add citations to reliable sources to maintain the verifiablity policy. Thanks again. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I provided links to the original on Wikisource. I can put that as a footnote. Will that be adequate?

For sure, the original should be considered the ultimate. (The Wikipedia rule about "No original research" "is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Clearly there is nothing more reliable in this case than the original.)

To be precise, I use the Wikisource copy, both the Wikisource transcription and the pdf images of the original. The official copy from "https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/declasspart4.pdf" has never come up for me when I've tried it. That almost certainly is an effort of the Deep state in the United States to muddy the record and limit the dissemination of this information.

Please let me know if you see a better way to cite this.

I plan to copy this to Talk:The 28 Pages, because I believe it would be more appropriate there. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, DavidMCEddy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DavidMCEddy! We talked at Wikimania about this limitation on the pageview stats tools. I think that FDans_ would likely have some insights about why this limitation exists and maybe how you can get around it. He's here too so maybe he'll notice the ping and respond :) --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 07:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm Xevus11. DavidMCEddy, thanks for creating AmaBhungane!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I dont mean the advertisement tag too seriously, the page could use some balance work is all.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Xevus11 (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, DavidMCEddy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, DavidMCEddy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please include the source of your information. deisenbe (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Deisenbe: Thanks. Done. I also posted a photo of a memorial plaque to Wikimedia Commons: File:Lynching of Levi Harrington1882-04-03.jpg. I have fantasies of creating a Wikipedia article about this also, but I don't know if I'll be able to create time for that. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pleasa review the formatting I have done on your references. deisenbe (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Deisenbe: Sure. That's fine.

I tend to use Wikidata for citations, e.g., ((cite Q|Q59420225)) = Ray Raphael (2002), The First American Revolution, The New Press, Wikidata Q59420225.

Now before I cite something, I look for it in Wikidata. If I don't find it, it often invites me to create it, which I do. If it doesn't invite me to create it, I click "Create a new item" on the left. For a book with a subtitle, I enter the main title then the "title: subtitle" as an "alias". Then "Create". Then "add statement", and it suggests "properties", e.g., "instance of". I click "add statement" until it doesn't suggest anything that I want to add.

I did not do that with these references, because I was short of time. I may do it later.

I did not start doing this until I was at a Wikiconference and could ask someone for help. If you want to try it, feel free to ask me questions. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You probably noticed the new page Likelihoodist statistics, but if not, I figured you'd be interested (and may have something to contribute!). Enjoy!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

props for clearing out that article puggo (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First I want to thank you for your contributions to wikipedia and helping us maintain a neutral pov.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_discrimination&oldid=903968918

I recently made these edits. They are cited by this article (though you can find others):

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/are-jews-white/509453/

On the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racial_discrimination

some seem to disagree that the Jews were discriminated against. These seem to be the same people who believe that the holocaust never existed. Nick is just a really bad person. At this point, I believe I need administrative help.

Nick has a track record of stalking and disruptively reverting my contributions to wikipedia. I was hoping Nick could be blocked from editing, or that a report be submitted against him, at the very least. His abusive behavior is getting out of hand.

People like him also launched several smear-campaigns, simply because I wrote about some things that are well-sourced and well-documented that does not fit their chauvinistic point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Xinjiang_Pages_and_User%3AAlexkyoung Alexkyoung (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your input on this urgent issue. Wikipedia has no space for such bullying and abuse.

[posted 2019-06-29T05:13:14‎ by Alexkyoung]

@Alexkyoung: Have you tried Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (see also v:Wikipedia arbitration committee)?

I'm overwhelmed with other projects and really can't spare the time required to do anything more useful than just this. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Fish v. Kobach into Voter impersonation (United States). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this.

1. I provided a link from "Voter impersonation (United States)" to "Fish v. Kobach". I gather from your comments that's not adequate.
2. I added a condensation of that other article, including the first sentence and just over half of the section on "Findings of fact and conclusions of law", including some of the key references.
3. I was the primary author of that other article, as can be verified by checking the "History".

Thanks for providing links to these other policy pages. I will check them if I feel a need to do something similar in the future. DavidMCEddy (talk)

Hi, David: I just noticed via the community radio station list's Talk page that you reinstated KJAC. IMO, this is not a community station but more along the lines of University of Pennsylvania's WXPN, another public, AAA station. The difference is that stations like WXPN and KJAC may be owned by non-profits but they're staffed by professionals. By contrast, the people on the air staffs at community radio stations are largely if not entirely volunteers. What then qualifies KJAC as a community station? I searched their website for the word "volunteer" and found nothing to indicate a direct connection between KJAC and volunteerism. Allreet (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Allreet: Thanks for the correction.

In the future, may I suggest you put these kinds of comments in the Talk page associated with the article in question, because your comments on this issue seem relevant to the general question of what should and should not be included in that article?

FYI, you may know that ((re|Allreet)) is supposed to notify user:Allreet that a message for them was posted in a certain page.

DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply...and the tip on talk procedures and messaging. Allreet (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wyandotte County map

This shows a map of the county. It’s mostly KCK but also has lake Quivira and Edwardsville and Bonner Springs. It shows you were KCK used to be. It was a tiny little spot on the East part. I don’t know the history as much as I know the current demographics. PanamanianBlanco (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for helping educate me. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty much the city was falling to pieces, so what they did is unified with the county to save their economy which gave them Open land In the west. Then They built the Kansas Speedway and the Legends Outlets Kansas City and Children's Mercy Park which made the economy rebound. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanamanianBlanco (talk • contribs) 13:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, DavidMCEddy,

There was some irony in your recent comment at Talk:Non-binary gender where you took someone to task about the appicability of the NOTFORUM policy, thus:

The Wikipedia guidelines on "WP:NOTFORUM" apply to articles but not the associated "Talk" pages.

I think you may be confused about the WP:NOTFORUM guideline policy and how it relates to articles and Talk pages, as the quote above is not accurate. The relevant policy excerpt is this one:

[A]rticle talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article.

After scolding the other editor (erroneously) about their allusion to NOTFORUM, you then proceeded to violate it yourself, in your comments to the IP user. Another alert editor spotted this, removing your response as well as the original IP question from the Talk page as not appropriate per NOTFORUM. I was not involved in this removal, but support it as accurate per Wikipedia policy. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mathglot: Understood.

You may further note that I did not contest the second deletion.

On the other hand, in general, I think deleting contributions to a Talk page to be a relatively hostile act, contrary to WP:AGF. With my previous deletion on that page, I accept that I erred in restoring the previous deletion. Your deletion of 2019-11-16T05:07:23 on Talk:Non-binary gender seems to me to err on the other side.

However, I do not wish to spend my time in an edit war over this.

During the Freedom Riders#Nashville Student Movement continuation, Bull Conner, Commissioner of Public Safety of Birmingham, Alabama, drove the protesters 'back up to the Tennessee line and dropped them off, saying, "I just couldn't stand their singing."'

Nonviolence is "A Force More Powerful" than violence, on average, as documented by the research of Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, who created an inventory of all the major violent and nonviolent governmental change efforts of the twentieth century. "Their data shows that 26 % of the violent revolutions were successful, while 53 % of the nonviolent campaigns succeeded. Moreover, looking at change in democracy (Polity IV scores) suggest that nonviolence promotes democracy while violence promotes tyranny."

This works, because violence tends to drive people off the sidelines to support one's opposition, while nonviolent acceptance of imposed suffering tends to attract sympathy and support. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Just a couple of thoughts:

I think deleting contributions to a Talk page to be a relatively hostile act.

Look up hostile in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Well, I suppose I can see why the person whose contribution was deleted might think so; but there was no ill will and malevolence, or a desire to thwart and injure behind it, so it wasn't at all hostile, despite how it might seem to you. The deletion was merely according to Wikipedia policy. There are some deletions that occur on Talk pages that are required by law, some that are mandated by policy, some that are recommended by guideline or policy, and some that are edge cases. This one probably fell in the "recommended by policy" category, afaict, but other editors might see it differently.

Your deletion of 2019-11-16T05:07:23 on Talk:Non-binary gender seems to me to err on the other side.

I did not delete anything from the page, as the history for that edit clearly shows. Please see WP:ARCHIVE.

It was nice to be reminded what a bozo Bull Connor was, but I really didn't understand the point of the second half of your comment. Unless it was intended as a back-handed swipe at people who delete comments from Talk pages, likening them to a racist, segregation-era southern-state sheriff who turned fire hoses and attack dogs on peaceful protesters. In which case, see passive-aggressive behavior. (P.S. I won't be back here, so you not only have the last word, but you can bring on the dogs without fear of reprisal or response; unless you specifically request one.) Have a great day! Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Literate programming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Fixed. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I noticed you thanked me for my coronavirus pandemic edit. Just wanted to say no problem. It was outdated by 3 days, and that is a lot regarding current pandemics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi=3.14(Nick) (talk • contribs) 23:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’ve created several articles from scratch, uploaded numerous photos for documentation, and made hundreds of edits, and this is the one thing I get thanked for on Wikipedia? 😂 Lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam&oldid=prev&diff=950430901
Stay safe and healthy, —PowerPCG5 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johncdraper: Thanks for suggesting the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. A co-author suggested I submit an article on Wikiversity:Forecasting nuclear proliferation to the United States Naval Institute Proceedings. I've since learned about a journal called The Nonproliferation Review. However, that's on hold pending adequate progress on organization the October 3 virtual forum I mentioned on the Local Journalism Sustainability Act.

I'm also Secretary of PeaceWorks Kansas City, which is affiliated with the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. I don't have time to follow up on all these threads. So I make priorities and do first what I think is most important. Other things may not get done. If any of this might support your priorities, let's talk. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be interested in helping you get that article published (preferably in a peer-reviewed or US DoD-related publication) Then, people at various international NGOs are more likely to sit up and take notice. BTW, I estimate there are only a dozen important nuclear conflict related pages on Wikipedia. Getting them rated into Top, High, and Mid might not take that long. Johncdraper (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Johncdraper: The two journals I mentioned are both peer reviewed. My co-author on Wikiversity:Forecasting nuclear proliferation has extensive experience with the US DoD and recommended we publish in the United States Naval Institute Proceedings partly on that basis. I don't know if he had even heard of The Nonproliferation Review before I mentioned it to him. That suggests to me that The Nonproliferation Review may not be well known in the DoD. Your comments suggests to me that I might be best submitting the article to the United States Naval Institute Proceedings after making sure I've appropriately cited relevant material in recent issues of The Nonproliferation Review.  ???

If there are "a dozen important nuclear conflict related pages on Wikipedia", I think it's more important to make sure they are appropriately categorized and interlinked than getting them rated within Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations.  ??? Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk)

I know quite a few journals in this subject area and have been published in one of them. US DoD tends to be more pragmatic and stats focused. I would certainly be happy to proof it. On rating, I once worked in a rather large library; rating and categorizing are all part of the same Dewey logic-based system. Johncdraper (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wonderful. I'm currently over committed. I have a manuscript on Wikiversity:Forecasting nuclear proliferation that I had planned to submit to the United States Naval Institute Proceedings. After I complete a revision I have planned, I'll send you the link. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Voter caging into Voter suppression in the United States. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reminding me of this policy. I'm sorry: I had completely forgotten your earlier note on this. I'm the lead author of the Fish v. Kobach as well as earlier mentions of the associated legal case, which (as you noted) I copied into this article. I hope I can remember to do this with any similar future copying. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk to you again tomorrow. KarenJoyce (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ditto. Thx. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KarenJoyce: See:

Thanks again for your help. DavidMCEddy (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KarenJoyce: @Alelapenya: @Marcelo: @Taichi:

The following summarizes my understanding of the history of this article, including a couple of things I did not understand before just now:

• On 2019-07-03 an article on Cagé produced by someone else was deleted saying, "Relevance not demonstrated after 30 days".
• On 2020-11-28, I mistakenly pressed "Publish" with only 10-15% of the article completed. It was nominated for speedy deletion saying: 'G3' : promotion or self-promotional, advertising or containing much unnecessary praise that does not support a 'neutral wording' . 'A4' : Page without relevance ' encyclopedic '. I tried to respond, but I failed to do so effectively and in the space they wanted.
• On 2020-11-29 my premature publication of the first 10-15% of this article was deleted.
• On 2020-12-05, eight days after I had first created the article, I published the complete article. The majority of the time spent creating that article was entering 44 references into Wikidata, so they could be more easily used in other articles and better maintained.
• 2020-12-06T19:15 the complete article was deleted, almost certainly without any review of the content.
• 2020-12-06T19:41, 26 minutes later, the article was deleted a second time, and my account was blocked.

I didn't know until just now that the article had been deleted twice on 2020-12-06, with 26 minutes between the deletions. I only became aware of the problem after I was blocked.

I believe that the first deletion on 2020-12-06 occurred while I was actively updating that article, improving the presentation based on input from a Nicaraguan friend. I did not know it had been deleted. When I pressed "publish" of my changes, the article was apparently recreated. The administrator who had deleted the article at 2020-12-06T19:15 decided I was edit warring and blocked me while deleting the article for the second time in 26 minutes.

I don't know, but I suspect that the administrators of the Spanish-language Wikipedia see me as an editor who refuses to listen to reason. However, I did NOT intentionally recreate the article 26 minutes after it had been deleted. I think it happened, because I was actively editing the article when it was deleted, and I didn't even know the article had been deleted and I recreated it.

From my perspective, I've so far failed to find any means of getting a response from any administrator of the Spanish-language Wikipedia to any of my explanations, justifications of why I think this article is important and reasonable, and why I should be unblocked.

Any help with overcoming this misunderstanding will be appreciated. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I bet you're looking for es:Usuario:Alelapenya and es:Usuario:Marcelo KarenJoyce (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:The Beacon (Kansas City), from its old location at User:DavidMCEddy/The Beacon (Kansas City). This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Beacon (Kansas City), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Jessamyn (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you reached out about the photo I tried to post for Quinton Lucas' wiki page and said that you deleted it. Yikes, I didn't realize that I forgot to source the original owner of the picture, although I don't remember seeing an option to do that when I posted it. Thank you for taking it down for me, it's probably more trouble than it's worth to post photos in the first place. (Unsigned comment left 2020-12-31T00:51:09 by User:EdmondCA)

@EdmondCA: It is NOT "more trouble than it's worth to post photos" PROVIDED you own them, i.e., it's a photo you took yourself, OR it is otherwise available via a free license.

IF you took that photo yourself, then please post it to Wikimedia Commons: Go there, make sure you are logged in, and then click "Upload" (upper right in a browser on a computer) and follow the instructions.

If you did NOT take the photo yourself, then the Wikimedia system is skeptical about copyright. I used to subscribe to a monthly news magazine that was forced into bankruptcy, because they lost a lawsuit over copyright violations. There are many powerful people in this world who would love to censor Wikipedia. China still does. France, Turkey and other countries tried.

c:Uploads by DavidMCEddy includes a list of images I've uploaded. This is a mix of graphics, videos and stills -- all of which I've produced myself. It's definitely worth the effort if you own the image. It makes the article where it's used more attractive and often more intelligible.

However, if you do NOT own the image, then you have two options: If you can take one yourself, great, do that and post that. Otherwise, try to convince someone who owns that image to post it. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Haifa International Conference for a WMD-Free Middle East is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haifa International Conference for a WMD-Free Middle East until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! DavidMCEddy. I am talking with you about the Economy of the United States. You can see List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. Click here to see the GDP per capita of United States. Thanks. Pullar56 (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2024 UTC [refresh].

@Pullar56: Thanks again. I found the GDP per capita you gave on that page with the link you used to an IMF website. Sadly, that link did NOT give the number. I changed the reference to point to List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. I probably should complain in the latter that the link provided does not give the numbers there. However, I think I'll let that fall off the bottom of my list of priorities ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I noticed your edit on the 1964 United States presidential election and I wanted to point this out to you. At one point you say: "...the Maddox reported having been attacked by three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats...". Using the term "reported" (and in fact the whole edit) kind of sounds like the first incident (on Aug 2) is in doubt when it isn't. It's the second (on Aug 4). You may want to tweak that. I don't think putting it like that violates MOS.....but just the whole way it is stated is putting the whole first incident in doubt. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rja13ww33: Thanks. I changed "an assault" to "[another] assault". Does that fix the problem?

I worry that the paragraph I added is too long. However, I think that any discussion of the 1964 US presidential election is seriously deficient without an appropriate discussion of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Resolution, and I didn't see how to make it shorter and still communicate enough of the nuances to make it credible. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me it's still a bit vague on this point. But perhaps it is best to wait because another editor might trim it way down and anything we do now could be lost. Overall, I personally don't think it's too long....but that is just me. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what the problem is, but it might be worth trying again. Certainly the system was probably more designed for 20 candidates than for 70 candidates. You can choose to rank as many candidates as you like, and you can even vote more than once (your old vote will be overwritten), so it might be worth another try just to do a test vote to see if it works, then you can do it again with more candidates selected.--Pharos (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David, I've seen your note/reply on the Talk page, wanting to discuss the SARS-CoV-2 databases. I'm not ignoring you; I'm just very busy at the present time. I hope to circle back to your questions in another week. - AppleBsTime (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AppleBsTime: Wonderful. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited System accident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeju.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, DavidMCEddy,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username John B123, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged Usuario discusión:PDiazR (WMCL) for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative. Also, you may want to consider working on future articles in draft space first, where they cannot be deleted for lacking content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|John B123)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John B123: "Usuario" is Spanish for "User". User:PDiazR (WMCL) is the General Manager of Wikimedia Chile. She has a User page in the English language Wikipedia written in Spanish, asking people to reply to her at Usuario discusión:PDiazR (WMCL), which is Spanish for User: talk:PDiazR (WMCL).

Can you please find a more user friendly way to fix this communications problem than just deleting my question to her? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume her English userpage is a copy and paste from her Spanish page (although this has now been blanked), hence the wrong link. You could ask your question at her English talk page User talk:PDiazR (WMCL), or her Spanish page es:Usuario discusión:PDiazR (WMCL). Regards. --John B123 (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello DavidMCEddy.

Regarding this revert, my edit was merely adding a sorting key to a category. Specifically, the edit changed how the page Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War was sorted at Category:Naval battles involving Romania; to R for Russian, instead of A for Allied (the default).

The choice of how to sort the page in this case, either way, is not a huge deal for me and is not worthy of a talk page discussion, unless it is symptomatic of erroneous large-scale sorting in categorization of similar type. I'm fine leaving it as it currently stands now (sorted under A).

It's certainly not an edit I would describe as "a dramatic change". --DB1729 (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DB1729: Thanks for the reply. I was spooked by [[Category:Naval battles involving Romania|Russian Civil War]]: Why should a link to Category:Naval battles involving Romania be labeled "Russian Civil War"? There may be a good reason, but the logic escapes me, and for something like this, I think it should be obvious. To me it seems labeling Mexican–American War as La Cucaracha. I'm confused. Thanks again for the reply. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a link label. It's a WP:SORTKEY. I also linked this section above Help:Category#Sorting category pages where it states: Unlike a piped link (which uses the same syntax), the sort key itself is not displayed to readers. It affects only the order in which pages are listed on the category page. DB1729 (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DB1729: Thanks for this. What can be done to make things like this more transparent?

Even after reading your reply, I'm still vague on what it does, and especially why it should appear here -- especially if it's a syntax that makes it look like something it's not? What can be done to make it easier to understand?

For example, I love using Wikidata for citations, but their ((cite Q|...)) is appallingly opaque. When I use it, I routinely combine it with a comment to explain what it is. For example, the Wikipedia article on United States incarceration rate includes <ref><!-- World Prison Population List, 12th edition -->((cite Q|Q108701677)), so someone can read the source and have a good guess regarding what Q108701677 is.

FYI, I'm not a naive nor inexperienced editor or software developer. If you go to my "Edit count: General statistics", you will see that I've logged (as I'm writing this) 21,304 total edits in all projects since 2010-03-27 01:44. And I've been a part time software developer for decades. I believe that the Mediawiki markup language should be user friendly, to the maximum extent feasible. I think it was originally intended to be so. However, I get the impression that it has evolved more like English than Spanish -- like anarchy, without the control of something like the Royal Spanish Academy or the Académie Française: You may know that Spanish and French are defined by those two agencies, unlike English, which is defined by usage ;-)

Danish-American musical comedian Victor Borge once said something to the effect that English wasn't his language: He was only a user.

Thanks again for this reply. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. It's terribly unfortunate that the developers chose to use the same syntax for two different functions. I suspect the decision was made very early on in the development and is probably now buried so deep that it's not feasible to change it. I mean, if they were going to re-use characters anyway, why not a hashtag, or exclamation point? What a baffling decision. DB1729 (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But to answer your question, there may be a couple things that can be done to help. HotCat (the semi-auto tool that I and many editors use to make changes like this quickly and easily) could at least link the word key in the default edit summary, to either Wikipedia:Sortkey or Help:Category#Sorting category pages. Also both those sections could use improvement, IMO. DB1729 (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And if you're still vague on the usefulness of this function, it might help to take a look at a better example. See Category:Lists of museums by country. Every page in this category that is in the form "List of museums in 'country'" has the vertical slash pipe character followed by the country name its category declaration. Without it, they would all be sorted under L for List. That isn't all that bad except when you consider the page List of museums in the Philippines would not only be sorted under L, but also sorted right after List of museums in Thailand (because of the the in "the Philippines") instead of after List of museums in Peru where it would be expected. DB1729 (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again.

I have posted a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Sorting keys. In complete fairness I should've checked with you first. I have included two links in that post that involve you. One to our discussion above and the other is a link to this related diff. If you have a problem with those being there, please let me know and I will remove them. Nobody has replied to it yet. Fwiw, it was our conversation above that inspired me to make that post. My expectations are low it will result in much improvement, but at least I got it done. It was on my to-do list. I wish I had thought of giving you a heads-up sooner, but it just now occurred to me. Apologies for that. --DB1729 (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this. I did not read every word, but it seems like a lot of very subtle reasoning.

I have a general concern that too many opaque and confusing things have been added to the basic Mediawiki markup language that make it more and more difficult for anyone to learn -- and for anyone to even know where to look.

Example: Earlier today someone deleted ((-)) from an article.

What's ((-))?

How can I even find a definition?

Another example: What's ((cite Q|Q8007))?

I learned how to parse something like ((cite Q|Q8007)): I do a web search for "template:cite Q Wikipedia". That worked for ((cite Q|Q8007)) but not for ((-)).

A web search for "template:cite Q Wikipedia" led me to Template:Cite Q. That tells me that to understand ((cite Q|Q8007)), I can go to wikidata:Q8007. And that tells me Q8007 is Franklin D. Roosevelt.

AND, knowing that, to make my Mediawike markup readable by others, I never use ((cite Q|Q8007)) naked. Instead, I routinely decrypt that like <!--Franklin D. Roosevelt-->((cite Q|Q8007)).

Without that comment, ((cite Q|Q8007)) is appallingly cryptic to me.

I was happy to see ((-)) deleted. If I had seen it added, I might have been able to find in the text what it did ... but maybe not.

((-)) is Template:Clear. I think I've used it before but ((Clear)) is just as handy and not as opaque.

Just a helpful general tip. If you see code in curly (( )) brackets, it is always some sort of template. So usually you can find out what it is by typing "Template:whateverbetweenbrackets" in the standard search WP field. In this case, just now I typed Template:- and it redirected me via Template:- to Template:Clear.

Glad to hear you're ok with my talk page section.:-) --DB1729 (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem attracting occasional editors

However, Wikipedia needs to attract more volunteer editors -- more people who will occasionally get involved in a discussion about the best wording of a particular article.

Every move that makes the Mediawiki markup language harder to understand and use drives away the casual but honest volunteer editors that we need.

That in turn increases the power of people who are paid to burnish the images of their clients and tarnish that of their opponents.

It's an existential problem facing Wikipedia: The more the reputation of Wikipedia grows, the more people with money will try to corrupt it to their own purposes.

I apologize for what may look like a digression, but all these subtle things that make it hard for a naive user to figure out what's going on and how to modify a Wikipedia article fundamentally threatens the value of Wikipedia long term, in my opinion.

POINT: Can you think about how to make the Mediawiki markup language easier to understand and learn, at the expense of a few extra keystrokes? Yes, the extra keystrokes make more work for experts like you, but they make it easier for non-experts, the people we most want editing Wikipedia, engaging their adversaries about what can and cannot be said about any given issue. The more people we involve in editing Wikipedia, the better it will be.

Comments? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I agree with your points. It is so true! I run into confusing and frustrating code often, just in dealing with categorization. I wish I knew of a way to take steps toward a solution. I'm not really what I would call an "expert". I once looked into what it would take to become a Wikipedia:Template editor because wanted to change something on a protected template, but I soon realized, not only would I feel unqualified dealing with all the obscure code, but I simply wanted nothing to do with that kind of responsibility. Not even close to being worth it. DB1729 (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article List of fuel protests has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No cited sources that discuss the group all together, therefore list has not demonstrated notability as per WP:NLIST.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article List of fuel protests has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. It seems to me that one of the major obstacles to policies that respond effectively to global warming is the threat of fuel protests, as have occurred in many countries, and carbon fee and dividend plans provide an obvious response to that concern. However, I've so far been unable to find references that say that. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You say the article mentioned says caccie, but the source for this text form is a book that it can't be read online, so we cannot verify what is written inside. Maybe it is written like this or maybe not. All I know is that is grammarly wrong. I won't write down in italian the plural of computer computeri, do you think I would? Therefore, I will correct both the articles with this mistaken form, if you agree. Thank you.--Tre di tre (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For next time: a third opinion request should be formatted without a signature, only a timestamp (which you can create with five rather than four tildes), and as if either of the involved parties could have written it. See WP:3O#Instructions. Femke (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there. Apologies for reverting you're edits. Where would this be more appropriate to mention this as this document by escholarships seems to mention literatures. To correct you re the Atlantic and Pacific since they are in the equator they hold melanin in there skin. Pacific includes Melanesia (dark islands), Polynesia (many islands) & Micronesia (small islands), sorta like the Bermuda Triangle & the Florida/South America/Puerto Rico. The article does mention them Routes and Roots. I would say Haiti & indeed other Carribean nations might have links in linguistics & genetics to the Pacific and people such as the Fijians, Kanak in New Caledonia, Native Hawaiians, Ati people (Philippines) etc.. and so on. This is BC (before christ) when the lands were joined so maybe could belong in history.. https://escholarship.org/content/qt47k1b3bk/qt47k1b3bk_noSplash_a4d97b269e5c091b5211fc92ebfed2ba.pdf

So you sort see what I'm trying to edit in the article.

BGetmefood (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BGetmefood: Please check your facts more carefully and pay more attention to what others say. Everyone thinks they know more than they do, as documented in v:How can we know?. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for appreciating my edit on Joseph Stalin. In the entry on Lavrentiy Beria, references no. 38 and 40 are duplicate. But both refer to the same paper "Faria MA. Stalin's mysterious death. Surg Neurol Int. 2011;2:161." I tried to unify them. But because of my inexperience, could not. May be you or someone else with better experience can do it. Thanks.

@Anil1956:The syntax is <ref name=Poisoned>((...give the reference...)).</ref> where you give the citation and first reference it. Then when you want to reference it again, use <ref name=Poisoned/>. (This will not work if there is another reference named "Poisoned". And, of course, you can use more or less any other character string in place of "Poisoned" as long as no other reference has that name.) See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more details.

Thanks for your work to improve Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ DavidMCEddy: Thanks for your valuable advice. I would keep requesting you for more advice. Thanks again. Anil1956 (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anil1956: Happy to be of service.

Another hint: I got the notice of your comments, because I am "Watching" this page. To send a notice to a user who may NOT be "Watching" the page on which you post the notice, the syntax is ((re|Anil1956)), which displays as "@Anil1956". DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<nowiki>@Anil1956:</ref> Thanks DavidMCEddy! Because I am very raw, I am not sure, if I understood everything you said. I am using the tag you suggested in this note. Not sure, if this is what you meant. Is there is Wikipedia page [or some other page], which explains this thing with examples? Or maybe you could do this thing yourself at some place/page etc., and let me study it. This extra effort on your part will help me a great deal, so I am deeply obliged to you. Thanks again. Anil1956 (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, this got mixed up with the earlier note :( Anil1956 (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anil1956: What about: Template:Reply to? Does that answer your question? (I see I had a syntax error above, which I just corrected.) DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Costello (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaelic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was intentional. I also left a comment on Talk:Costello (surname) saying that I intended to direct to that entire page, because I was not capable of deciding if something more specific applied. Someone else more familiar with the subject could change that, but I couldn't. DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey David,

I just wanted to make sure you knew that my reverting you was not meant to discourage you from contributing an improved version of that graph. I simply felt that in the state you included it, it was not good enough to be an improvement to the article. Wikipedia could really profit from more graphics and explainers, and I would encourage you to keep trying. David12345 (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @DavidMCEddy. I am @Archer1234. I noticed your recent edit to Judy Morgan where you added an image to the infobox. I want to let you know that the way you added the image was not done according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE).

When adding an image to an infobox, thumbnails should NOT be used. Simply supplying the file name will work. For example, to use File:Image PlaceHolder.png, you can simply use |image=Image PlaceHolder.png. Captions should be specified with the |caption= parameter. Every infobox is different and the documentation for the infobox in question should be consulted for the proper parameters to match the image and caption.

To fix

Do not use the full image syntax:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead, just supply the name of the image. So, in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg

and optionally:

|caption=Some image caption.

Hopefully you will find this information useful for your future editing. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. — Archer1234 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Archer1234: Thanks.

Another question:

How to use Template:Infobox officeholder/Wikidata?

I love Wikidata. All the references in the "Judy Morgan" article are to Wikidata items.

With ((Infobox officeholder/Wikidata)), I got "Judy Morgan" at the top, then the photo "JudyMorgan at KKFI Radio-2023-01-03.jpg", then "member of the Missouri House of Representatives". I could not figure out how to get anything else. I believe there should be a way, but I could not find it in a reasonable period of time. So I gave up, reverted to the previous Template:Infobox officeholder, and added the photo in a way that seemed to work but got a F for style ;-)

Thanks again, DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not familiar enough with using infoboxes with data from wikidata to advise. I used to think Wikidata was a great resource to use but have shied away from it because it is easy for a vandal to mess with the data, but editors won't see it because the corresponding article wasn't touched/changed. — Archer1234 (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I "watch" the Wikidata items I use, so I get emails when those change. I don't recall having seen vandalism with Wikidata items, but if I encountered it, I could easily revert it.

I've seen the opposite: Sensible maintenance that make the references more valuable. A lot of the changes to Wikidata items I seen have been translating the name of the item into other languages, thereby making it easier for people to use the same item in other language Wikipedias. Or a broken link gets fixed -- once for all uses of that Wikidata item. Less often but useful: An "author name string" gets replaced by "author", so, e.g., we know not just that someone named "Matt Quinn" wrote a certain bio, but we know which of several people named "Matt Quinn" wrote that particular piece.

Also the Internet Archive has a huge collection of books that can be checked out for an hour at a time. Wikidata has a special property for that, so if the Internet Archive has the book, I can go to the Wikidata item and click on "Internet Archive ID" if it's there and get the book. Example: You can go to the Wikipedia article on "Thinking, Fast and Slow", then click "Wikidata item" on the left. From there, look for "Internet Archive ID". This Wikidata item has links to three different copies. I use that a lot.

Thanks again for your help with infobox. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you really just accuse me of censorship over a disagreement in sourcing? That is a ridiculous aspersion and a complete overreaction, which I ask you to retract. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[5] This makes no sense. I didn't add a citation, I added a media-mention on a talkpage. You can use that article however you like elsewhere, the "This article has been mentioned" template doesn't prevent that. And as you just proved, those templates increase visibility of stuff.

Btw, I commented here since you removed your own comment at Talk:Censorship of Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not intentionally remove my own comment at Talk:Censorship of Wikipedia. I may have, but it was not my intent.

Before I posted that comment, I did a search for "Russia" on that Talk page, and could not find it apart from your change notice. I concluded that your addition was invisible ;-) I assumed that if you posted a comment to a Talk page, you expected it to be read on that Talk page. Since I couldn't find it apart from showing changes, I felt a need to do something different.

How was I supposed to be able to see that post of yours? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are on a laptop, or at least in desktop mode, you click [show] to the right of "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:"

Does that help? These templates used to be expanded as default, but that changed at some point. Sometimes they're even more hidden, like at Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack, you have to expand "Other talk page banners" first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It helps, but the article you cited (Frank Bajak (13 April 2023). "Russian court fines Wikipedia for article about Ukraine war". ABC News. Wikidata Q117785765.) does NOT mention the Wikipedia article on "Censorship of Wikipedia".

I appreciate you teaching me something I didn't know about Wikipedia, but that reference seems inappropriate to me.  ???

Thanks again. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not by name, but:

"A Wikipedia page on the issue notes, “Since the early 2010s, Russian Wikipedia and its editors have experienced numerous and increasing threats of nationwide blocks and country-wide enforcement of blacklisting by the Russian government, as well as several attempts to censor pages, spread propaganda, and disinform.”" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was a very poor edit, I'm afraid. The phrase was inserted on September 6 - it was totally unsourced and does, in fact, constitute vandalism. StAnselm (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DavidMCEddy, Do you know Mark Maassen personally or have a professional relationship with him? Jeraxmoira (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have interviewed him twice for KKFI but don't know him otherwise. The other time was for a discuss of the v:Local Journalism Sustainability Act, broadcasted 2020-10-08 on KKFI. I thought the Local Journalism Sustainability Act was notable, and I found 4 experts who agreed to be interviewed about it: Maassen, Dean Baker, Penny Abernathy, and John Caputo, Gonzaga University and the Northwest Alliance for Responsible Media.

FYI, KKFI is a Community radio station. 85% of their 24/7 broadcast hours are locally produced by volunteers like me. I've logged over 30,000 edits in Wikimedia Foundation projects since 2010. That includes having created 33 articles, including 6 that have been deleted. I've been volunteering with KKFI since 2016. In the past couple of years I've created other Wikipedia articles while doing my homework on people or organizations that I thought might merit coverage on KKFI. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please follow WP:COIEDIT and disclose the same. I would advise you to use the ((edit COI)) template to propose changes on talk pages, or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed. The latest link that you added is post dated to 02 January, 2024 which makes it look like you are doing the interviews to show notability in this article. Either way, interviews do not help to show notability as it is considered as a primary source. WP:PRIMARYNEWS Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]