![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arctic sea ice decline. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Jasmine Tridevil has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated))
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((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. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jasmine Tridevil 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/Jasmine Tridevil 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. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Flow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that we can add a permanent link to any source to any Wikipedia talk page, merely because a Wikipedia article was mentioned? I think that opinion is incorrect. There is no reason for us to link to poor sources anywhere. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Boxcar. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Picking up on your recent comment - actually, I'm not sure it occurred to me to use AWB for mass notification. Most Arbcom issues have a small number of parties, some are larger, but I haven't closed any of the large ones yet. I will have to keep that in mind next time. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I've recently voiced brief opinions in a couple of venues where I haven't ventured before. Since I don't see any others at my level doing that, I'm questioning whether I should be doing it. I feel I have something worthwhile to add, but I can't know the extent of what I don't know, since I don't know it. I don't wish to acquire a reputation for overestimating my competence, nor do I want to distract from important business. Do you think I should refrain for awhile longer? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prem Rawat. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
You believe the edit warrior at the Toeppen article to be Toeppen himself? I wondered the same the second time I reverted him. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The Army Times has weighed in on Teti's claims:
″Mary Schantag, who heads both the POW Network and FakeWarriors.org, has investigated some 5,000 contested claims of combat experience and valor medals. She contends that a contractor simply cannot earn the same status that a military member can.
'I don’t care if you’re a veteran of however many contracting scenarios,' she said. 'It does not make you a combat veteran.'
”[1]
The Special Forces Association on September 30, 2014, stripped Joseph Teti of his membership and he is ineligible to rejoin the organization stated SFA President Jack Tobin.
“He’s an embarrassment to the Regiment, because of the falsehoods, lies and embellishments he’s used in association with his Special Forces qualifications,” says retired Army Sgt. Maj. George Davenport, a “life member” of the organization.
Among Teti’s lies, says Davenport, are claims that he was a graduate of the Special Forces Combat Diver and Special Forces Sniper courses.
“I personally checked with the Special Forces schools and he did not go to those courses. There is no record of him attending,” says Davenport, founder of the “Special Forces Poser Patrol” Facebook page, which added Teti to the group’s “Wall of Shame” Sept. 30 in the wake of the SFA’s decision.
[2] Jogershok (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
References
If we assume for the sake of this argument, that edit warring (EW) is a problem on the historicity of Jesus article, then by enforcing a 1RR on all editors we would address the problem and level the field in terms of editors trying to force one version over the objections of another. Article 1RR restrictions force qualitative improvements over quantitative revisions. This levels the field for all editors, as they no longer have to compete against multiple reverts. The objection of course, is that some editors will tag team their 1RR, but this would lead to protection and sanctions anyway. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shades of Deep Purple. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'd already thrown this one to WP:AIV before i saw your WP:AE comment, dont know if its worth waiting to see how that one plays out or to come at them from both angles? Amortias (T)(C) 20:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
You comment at ArbCom made me read En passant, although you didn't link it. Very interesting, even though it must be 20 years or more since I played (very poor) chess. From such weird associations, happenstances and downright serendipity does my knowledge grow! - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joni Ernst. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bible. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Input on which hook you prefer, please. I think we got this turned around on a dime. Nicely done! Good team effort. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I always try to add links to other pages when I create a page. Its one thing to create a page, it's another to make it visible. Does this say enough? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | On 3 November 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zombie star, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that some kinds of supernova may create zombies in space? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zombie star. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Returned to article with aim of putting webpage cites in same form as text cites, only to find your changes. Linked to article on main detractor of Homecoming. Used your useful book review links. Can you please review the result?
Georgejdorner (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You probably want to re-sign this. Stickee (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lindy West. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:France. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
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) 00:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Booksworm Talk? 18:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
You wrote:
Salon - Wilson’s defense entirely hangs on what happened next, and witnesses seem to be divided. The best-known account goes that Brown turned back toward Wilson and put his hands in the air in the universal sign of surrender, when Wilson shot the teen in cold blood. Others say that Brown moved toward Wilson, possibly in an aggressive way, leading Wilson to believe that his life was in danger. It was then, some say, that Wilson decided to shoot Brown in self-defense.
The Wilson team, hapless as they are, have put themselves into a box, in my opinion. Apparently, they concocted their stories before they knew where the bullet holes were and before they knew how many shots had been fired and before they knew how many witnesses were actually watching that day.
The funny thing is that Michael Brady gives them the best defense that they could ask for at this point. Brown's hands were down at his belly and he was stumbling forward. That isn't charging. That's a person who could plausibily be going for that gun that he hasn't bothered to use up to that point. But they were so quick to put all of this on the theory of a charging rhinoceros who was going to kill him with a body slam that they are hopelessly incapable of salvaging their own credibility at this point.
I actually believe that the last three shots were taken when Brown's hands were down at his stomach. What is clear to me at that point, and I recently found a reliable source that discusses this idea but can't recall where exactly, is that Brown was collapsing, due to the loss of consciousness, due to the loss of so much blood. Wilson misreads his arms and his forward motion as a threat somehow.
If you listen to the audio, there is a bit of a pause after the seventh shot. Then bullets 8, 9, and 10 are fired about as quickly as one can squeeze off three shots. Bullet 7 may have started his fall forward. Then two of the three final shots went into his head in basically a top to bottom motion, anatomically speaking, though obviously not top to bottom with respect to elevation above the ground. After all of those misses, Wilson final got two shots to the lethal torso shot area. But the lethal torso was no longer being presented to him. Rather the top of the head. Hence the final two shots.
The realization that Brown never had a gun after all is what I think explains the look of grave concern that we see on Wilson and the other officers who were with him at that point. And so a decision was made to make up a different story. Wilson, being so focused on the actual encounter between himself, Brown and Johnson, never had any idea how many people actually saw what was going on. Of course, the police got many witness statements in the four hours that ensued. But it takes a while to synthesize all of that. What they did believe after knocking on the door of every apartment in the area was that there was no actual video of the shooting. So they decided that they would take their chances with a he-said-she-said approach, knowing how sympathetic prosecutors and white juries and grand juries are to the police version of events in such matters.
Then the audio recording came out -- a recording that its maker didn't realize contained the sound of gunshots at the time that the police were interviewing residents on August 9th. And all of a sudden, the police have a lot more to explain. And they can't explain it without contradicting earlier claims. So they are stuck. They put all of their eggs into the "charging" basket for which there is almost no witness support whatsoever. So the best they can do now is to go back to the car encounter, as was Jon Belmar's total focus when he told the Wilson story on August 10th. They roll out little new tidbits and the loudly proclaim as leakers that the physical evidence supports Wilson's version of events.
Editors such as the person who started the blood thread and I find that ridiculous. But the New York Times was so happy to get the exclusive that they don't want to poison their relationship with the leakers by discrediting them in their article where they reveal what the leaker said complete with the leakers synthesis of what they said. So we have this reliable source article which is about as journalistically questionable as it gets. But its out there. And we run with it. And the Wilson defenders win. And truth loses. Which renews my lack of faith in Wikipedia as a source for truth. And makes me depressed. -- since it's all there is.
P.S. Did you see that Mr.X is threatening to block me again? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Gaijin42. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using ((db-g12|url=URL of source)). If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with ((subst:copyvio|url=URL of source)).
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought you might want to know that you have replies at User talk:Born2cycle, if you weren’t watching the page. Cheers. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrative standards commission. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
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) 00:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I have backed away from defending the BRD process against Bdel555 because things were getting out of hand. The issue is in the D phase of BRD with a 3-3 tie, no consensus for the change. I would summarize his position as: "No one has countered my (latest) arguments for inclusion, so I will include". That's contrary to my understanding of how things work. You and others can do with it what you will, but I've had enough. The thread is here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Myopia123. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from 2014 Ferguson unrest. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Myopia123 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Punjabi language. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting thanks. Collect (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Songs for the Deaf. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey Gaijin, not that I'm trying to skirt the line of our topic ban, but from a historical and terminology standpoint what do you think of this edit. I thought it was a better explanation and certainly had better sentence structure and flow. Happy Belated Thanksgiving! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The StG 44 (abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "storm rifle 44") is a German selective fire rifle developed during World War II that was the first of its kind to see major deployment and is considered by many historians to be the first modern assault rifle.
Hi Gaijin42, just letting you know that I've archived the clarification request you filed regarding the Gun control case here. The arbitrators who commented were in agreement that you should not make the edits in question as doing so would likely be considered a violation of the ban. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Stephens City, Virginia. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit. I don't think I feel strongly enough to move the section back to the top, but I should share that the reason the pants section was first was because I was trying to keep the article in chronological order. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I was having a hard time following what was going on at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell, until I realized that you had made two separate posts of Lightbreath's evidence, one completely replacing the other. There was no notation that this was the case and I was never notified. (I though I was going mad, my evidence first habbed and then disappearing from her talk page without any notification to me of all the changes, then the "evidence" unaccountably changing in the sockpuppet investigation.) Thank god someone notified me that things were going on and I should keep my eyes open. Just now I looked in the page history and saw you posted two different versions, one completely replacing the other So when Drmies edited you posting of it, I thought I would too, to make it clear that there were two posts by you, one completely replacing the other, with no notation that was the case. I really believe that this type of thing should be transparent and open. I thought that was kind of a wikipedia rule, right? EChastain (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
For being a great example of an editor that can work with others despite differences, and for your always polite and constructive online demeanor. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
Dear Gaijin42,
Can you kindly clarify why do you insist to delete my additional approach to the solution of the black hole information paradox concerning the time dependent Schrödinger equation? That approach has been indeed published in an important and respected mainstream international peer reviewed journal, i.e. Annals of Physics (Impact Factor of order 3, last Editor in Chief, the Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczeck!) and represents the time evolution of a black hole model which has published in another important and respected mainstream international peer reviewed journal, i.e. European Physics Journal C (Impact Factor 5.4, higher than Physical Review D!). You make an unacceptable censorship.
Sincerely, Darth Sidious 69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Sidious 69 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Gaijin42,
Actually,I am not the author of that research, but his attorney at law instead. In fact, when I wrote "my additional approach" I was meaning that I was the person which was adding that approach to Wikipedia. As you correctly emphasize that "In all cases, the reliability and relevance of a work is determined by other researchers in the relevant field", this means that a research paper which overtakes the peer review process in a traditional, important and respected mainstream international peer reviewed journal, having a good Impact Factor of order 3 and a Nobel Laureate as last Editor in Chief, as been positively evaluated by, at least, two or three other researchers in the relevant field (referees, Editor and Editor in Chief). Therefore, the criterion that "the reliability and relevance of a work is determined by other researchers in the relevant field" is surely satisfied. Concerning published, reliable secondary sources, give a look to this link: http://www.unisrita.it/annals-of-physics.html. Thus, I kindly ask you to stop the censorship of this important scientific paper.
Sincerely, Darth Sidious 69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Sidious 69 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
All papers published in peer reviewed journals have been reviewed by other scientists. That is the absolute bare minimum of review. The WP:WEIGHT we are talking about is how much traction that work has subsequently gotten, in particular, how much coverage it has gotten relative to the other theories in the field. Since you did not just list off all of the places where the work has been cited or commented on, one can only assume that it has not (yet) been. How many papers are published about the information paradox? How are we to decide which ones to cover, and how much coverage each one should get? Also, since you brought up that you are an attorney, I should inform you about Wikipedia:No legal threats. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I was picked at random by a bot to participate in a RFC it looks like you started on an image. But there is no image. AlbinoFerret 02:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Factchecker_atyourservice - Cwobeel (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It is good to work with you again! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Amy Pascal. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I just checked the article after the "cleanup" by CG. See this: [1], and let me know if you believe that section is an NPOV and accurate representation of the shooting, or if it is an attempt to completely slant the article into a direction that is not representative of the sources. IMO, the work that CG has done over past few days almost alone is a total disgrace and a violation of NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I have my biases, which by now you already know of, and I have committed not to edit the article for a while, with the expectation that there will be a good debate and collaborative editing. But what I see now, is total abdication, unless there will be some editors that care about NPOV and undo the damage. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
When the report and video were released, the police stated that Wilson had known Brown was a suspect in the robbery.[201] Not long after, Jackson said that the robbery was unrelated to the initial contact, and had nothing to do with Wilson stopping Brown and Johnson.[201][188] Later that day, Jackson reported that Wilson recognized Brown as a suspect because he saw a box of cigars in his hand.[202][203] This information release would become a subject of dispute until the grand jury documents were released.[201]
I've been out of town all day. Ill review the changes and give some feedback tomorrow probably. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:River Soar. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chupacabra (The Walking Dead). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Please weigh it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_for_Cwobeel_for_BLP_violations - - Cwobeel (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
You are edit warring at Steve Scalise. In fact, you have made four reverts in last eleven hours. I'm sure you already know that exceeding three reverts in 24 hours can result in you being blocked. You may want to self-revert to avoid that possibility.- MrX 15:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of literary awards. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gaijin42 reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - MrX 15:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you are insisting on a less valid presentation compared to my mild adjustment and your comment seems rather intolerant of a normal improvement. What, exactly, do you find so offensive?
Xgenei (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (yarn) @ 21:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
In your recent use of the OneClickArchiver at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown, there may be a bug in it because some of the archived items didn't come out properly in Archive 25. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
In accordance with BLP discretionary sanctions you are admonished for making a personal attack and warned that further incivility, personal attacks or disruptive editing will result in an extended block or topic ban. This admonishment and warning will be logged and can be appealed to me on my talk page, to WP:AE, WP:AN or the Arbitration Committee (please see WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
What a mess, I'm done. I posted what I think is a fairly concise description of the issue and sourced the hell out of it. The cohorts can debate or dismiss what I wrote. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Better or too weasel? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
In 2014, a third-year law student and political blogger, Lamar White, Jr. researched forum posts on the white supremacist website Stormfront. He discovered posts that referred to Scalise speaking at a conference in 2002 organized by the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a group founded by David Duke.[1][2][3][4][5][6] White posted his findings on his blog and soon after the media took note. Scalise did not confirm or deny to the press that he had spoken at admitted to speaking before the conference, but stated that he did not know of the "racist nature of the group".[7] According to John Hayward at Human Events the story of Scalise's speaking engagement in 2002 was "either dubiously sourced, a mistake, or an outright hoax" and noted that the media attention lasted roughly one day.[8][9] Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (R) and congessman Cedric Richmond (D) defended Scalise's character.[10] Speaker of the House John Boehner voiced his continued confidence in Scalise as Majority Whip.[2][11] Several Democrat members of Congress, as well as Mo Elleithee, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, criticized Scalise, and challenged his statement that he was not aware of the group's affiliation with racism and anti-Semitism.[12]
References
((cite web))
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
((cite web))
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
((cite web))
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Just like with Trayvon Martin - my role is no longer needed. It was fun, I like working together with you. The most troubling issues are gone, but all the details and fixing will take too much time for me. I answered the call and now I am done since it is clear that this article will not reach GA or FA any time soon, my interest long ago waned and its becoming apparent that as things get more and more finer - playing devil's advocate is not as enjoyable. Even without a handicap - its just not worth it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)