This user has some number of edits to Wikipedia articles, creating reliably sourced content written with what this editor hopes is neutral pov and establishing notability. This editor also reverts vandalism, edits copy, and uses cite templates. I also spoof ((wp:overuse)) of those infernal links (which are colored #0645AD).

After twelve years I get to display a ((Journeyman Editor)) template, but I decline to do so.

It feels good to contribute to a worthwhile project.

M.boli (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, M.boli, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((helpme)) before the question. Again, welcome! - 2/0 (cont.) 00:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 over 0: Was creating a talk page for me a Wikignomic activity, or is there a more specific message I am not seeing? M.boli (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wikignoming - I just saw your redlinked talkpage pop up on some article I have watchlisted. Your edits look like you are here to improve the encyclopedia, so welcome! And thank you for finding a non-404 copy of that paper on my userpage - it is good fun. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is not clear why a slob like me takes satisfaction in cleaning up references. But it was nice to be ever so slightly recognized. M.boli (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most cited sources are primary sources. According to the guidelines on Notability; "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I question the reliability and independence of the secondary sources. Counteraction (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed a few operative words in your remark and as a result misread you, as was pointed out by another editor. My apologies! Drmies (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Righto! Thanks. M.boli (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prairie State Energy Campus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:EGRID subregion map.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Acather96 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am learning how to do this. M.boli (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using ((cite pmid)) is very, very easy. Go to pubmed, find the article you wish to cite, copy the pubmed number (PMID) just below the abstract, and in the wikipedia page you are editing type in <ref>((cite pmid | 1234567 ))</ref> (replacing 1234567 with the PMID obviously). Then, go to the bottom of the page in the references section, find the reference you just created (usually I just click on the hyperlinked citation superscript) and click the "expand by hand" option. A bot does the rest. If there is already a citation template for that particular pubmed number, it'll already be filled out (called a transclusion). You can edit, adjust and add to the actual citation by clicking on the subscript "edit" at the end of the citation itself. It's really, really easy to do, far easier than any other way of building a citation for a pubmed indexed article.

If you have other questions about citations, including citations that aren't pubmed indexed, please feel free to drop by my talk page and ask, I'll do my best to help. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Talkback removed) TransporterMan (TALK) 20:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I thank you muchly. It makes me proud to be a Wikipedian, the way people put in effort and make the enterprise work so well. M.boli (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you edited some of my additions, which so far i think was good. But with this entirely removing it from the wiki was a bit much. The wiki is about funding from exxon so why remove latest news about funding from exxon? Can we add the funding section and clean it up a bit? What do you think? Gise-354x (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Exxon's funding is pertinent. But paragraph 3 of the article as it exists now is devoted entirely to Exxon funding and cites several sources. It seemed to me that the paragraph you added was duplicating this information. However, looking more closely:

• I just cleaned up paragraph 3 on Exxon funding somewhat, as some of its references didn't support its statements. For example, the Salon.com article mentioned funding for other organizations, but not this one.
• I think you had references that were more current than the existing ones, which end about 2005 or so. I think that one of your cites was more recent, no? If it has more recent data, it seems to me that adding it back would enhance that paragraph.

So it seems to me you are right, there is work that can be done. M.boli (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added more precise numbers and sources about the funding, is that ok with you? Gise-354x (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You found out quite a bit more about funding, and relevant statements from the principals to boot! I agree with you that what you added is pertinent. Minor note: I notice one place in the Exxon section where you seem to have an editing glitch, I think the reference seems to be run into the text instead of inside of ref tags. M.boli (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks i fixed it, btw i found the information here http://sourcewatch.org Gise-354x (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:M.boli/Temaikèn has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Temaikèn, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temaikèn, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before you redirected Singer to a disambiguation page, based on a discussion among a grand total of two users several months ago, did you happen to notice that over 18,000 other Wikipedia articles use the link "Singer"? All of those links now need to be reviewed and corrected. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! A truly novice mistake. I'll undo it right away.

Here is a question: should I put a hatnote directing to Singer (disambiguation) at the top of the Singing page? The two comments on the talk page address what seems to be a problem: since Singer redirected to Singing, it was hard to get to the Singer (disambiguation) page. Nobody would get there by accident.

I'll revert, and see if you have any suggestion. I thank you muchly for letting me know. M.boli (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. I believe that Singing already has a hatnote to Singer (disambiguation) at the top of it. If I'm mistaken, though, it would definitely need one. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does have the hatnote. Which was a puzzlement. It seems that earlier today part of Singer starting from Line 1 was blanked. I happened to search for Singer and fell into Singing while Singing was still in its vandalized hatnote-less state. M.boli (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit on International Conference on Climate Change. Yes, the material would be better in the Booker article. I should have thought of that. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to thank you for the information you provided regarding the motto for the East Chicago city. I want to make sure I correct any information I may had imputed incorrectly and I am not sure which wiki page you are referring to. Would you please let me know which wiki page it is so I an correct it accordingly? Thanks again..--BuzyBody (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment regarding the "minor edit" button. I see your point. Jellypear (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.boli, 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) 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, M.boli. I changed the reference's website address.UncleRaydonteatbreakfast (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wong Chin Foo 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diane Ravitch 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:

• ((quote|text=[Ravitch] emphasized a common culture but one that incorporated the contributions of all

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just wanted to say sorry, you're totally right about this revert. Silly me, I actually did have a cursory glance at the sources and I tried searching for "linus" and "raymond" there, but I had "match case" turned on so it didn't find the capitalized words. :) -- intgr [talk] 13:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Righto! Bloopers happen. But as long as we are in aggregate improving the thing all is good, no? M.boli (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent editing on Portia Li! You cleaned my messes and organized the article in a much more coherent manner. Thank you so much. The Very Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But all I did was rearrange what you had already researched and written. I agree that Li's career is worthy of a Wikipedia page. M.boli (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You are a great editor! Thanks for all your good work.   Bfpage |leave a message  23:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Chinese Canadians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CTV. 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) 14:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, M.boli. 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]

Hello, M.boli. 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]

I did indeed find a ref from a cooking symposium in 2010, which should address the infinite kimchi variety issue..I often tell people there are as many varieties of kimchi as there are curries and chilisCoal town guy (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, M.boli. 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]

@M.boli: thank you for your edit! I totally didn't pick up on that, thank you for noticing. Just pinging you back to remind you to add her back to the list of Chinese Americans in alphabetical order when you have a chance. Apologies for disrupting the order, still new and learning ! 169.156.16.223 (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is there, after another Lee and before Wong Chin Foo. Really a great person to read about. Do you know her Chinese name? I was looking around but couldn't find it. M.boli (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[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) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for looking out on the Grand Canyon University page. Happy editing! 62icecreammachine (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Righto! Thanks. – M.boli (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You've previously weighed-in on the issues of publicity at Michael Shellenberger. I recently tried to clean said page up and add academic literature to the page, and it seems the page's subject has taken umbrage with said revisions. If you have the time, do you mind taking a look at the issues that recently occurred at Talk:Michael Shellenberger? --Hobomok (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have taken the liberty to format your comment on Talk:Great Barrington Declaration. Feel free to revert if you don't want that.--JBchrch (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Gooder Much better (and simpler) to use the markup language. I'll keep that in mind.--M.boli (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 12:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 12:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Newslinger talk 12:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear M.boli,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Grand Canyon University. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you deleted was supported by even the title of the reference added at the same time. I agree it can be clearer to attach a ref tag to every sentence, so now I did that. I think reading and perhaps fixing things up if warranted is often more productive than immediately deleting and posting accusations. -- M.boli (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference tags are to be placed at the end of the information they are used as a reference for, if two sentences back to back are referenced to the same source the source only needs to be after the second one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that you've never created a User page for yourself. Activist (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the "lingerie" item, but I Googled the terms for Cawthorne and got 295,000 hits. 16-18,000 viewers were on the page on the two days when you made the deletions, and you were the only one to have a problem with it. I'm going to revert your deletions and suggest we can take it to Talk if you have a problem with it. Activist (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... for the assist with the deadlink NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you removing any suspicious External Links from the Darnestown, Maryland page. Based solely on his talk page, it appears that the user that recently added the External Link has a history of inappropriate external links. TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, thanks! I removed it. -- M.boli (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's at it again.... TwoScars (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.boli! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Movable lunar calendar bug: no idea where to report it., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries, as you did to Alex Epstein (American writer). Your edit summary may have been removed. Please look at pages regarding Civility and Personal attacks in your spare time. Thank you. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: I guess the objection is: using "gibberish" to describe what I was removing? OK, I can see how could be over the top. Righto. -- M.boli (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and one other one where something said by the subject of the article was referred to as "dumb", which could be taken as inflammatory. I apologize, it's on me for not specifying why I substituted this template. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I don't see that one as being over the top, but I do see that it wasn't a contribution to civility in edit summaries. It is ironic in the sense that I was trying to be fair to the subject of the article -- Epstein -- by restoring Epstein's response to a criticism. And at the same time I called it 'dumb'. Anyway, point taken. -- M.boli (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Weather Attribution, 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.

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!

Chidgk1 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[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) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Political action committee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FEC. 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) 06:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

The syntax of that paragraph reads very strange and I think it should be re-worded. That's what I was trying to accomplish regardless of that article's topic. Snickers2686 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Maybe split it into two sentences?

"The prosecution of Hu was led by Casey Arrowood, an assistant U.S. Attorney. In 2022 Arrowood was nominated ..."

Something like that? I think the problem may be that Arrowood hadn't been mentioned earlier in the article. If he had already been identified as the prosecutor, it would be less strange to lead off a paragraph with his nomination without mentioning why he is here in this article. -- M.boli (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@M.boli: The way you structured it above sounds good to me, as the two sentences. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

• For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
• A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
• Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
• Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

I understand your dependence (and that of others) on RS to defend the characterization of Project Veritas (given the controversy involved) as far-right activism. However, I disagree on this characterization, and I would appreciate it if you could take the time to consider my position. My contention is as follows: 1) mass media sources cannot be considered RS when discussing a competing platform/source (see wp:newsorg), and academic sources are not NPOV until proven otherwise (especially when they themselves either provide no justification for characterizations or again rely on news media for definitions); 2) the characterizations are based on flawed definitions (by all definitions, PV is gotcha journalism, not activism); and 3) PV itself has not actively engaged in or called for minimalist government or reactionary social policy, and while it does seem to associate with reactionary groups, it is not truly far-right (which, in opposition to things like totalitarian socialism and Communism, would advocate for minimalist or completely absent government).

I am, of course, discussing my position with you (and I will do so with other editors) in order to resolve a dispute amicably and reach a resolution.

It seems to me that the characterization of PV depends heavily on quotations from news media sources (again, see wp:newsorg), which given wp:rs, is considered reliable only for statements of fact (e.g. the reported death/injury toll from the scene of a car crash), and not necessarily for characterizations of competing sources/platforms. I should note that even the Virginia Law Review's article cites no supporting evidence to justify the far-right characterization. The Columbia Journalism Review's article bases its characterization of PV on articles from the Washington Post, whose position, per wp:newsorg, seems to call its RS status into question.

With regards to activism, none of those sources actually called PV activists, but rather outlets or groups, which would lend support to my position that PV is gotcha journalism, not activism.Ecthelion83 (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My problem main problem with "far-right" is that the term is often used for neo-nazis, white supremacists, christian identity, and similar movements. This is reflected in the Wikipedia article far-right politics. Though many sources characterize PV as "far-right" I don't see the sources lumping PV in with those parts of the political/ideological swimming pool. I think, as a personal observation, that a generic "right-wing" would be more accurate. My evidence being PV's popularity in the general right wing media. But considering the large number of sources that say "far-right" I think the best editing decision is to keep the term and not-wikilink it.
• Regarding "gotcha journalism" I still claim what PV does isn't journalism.
• Regarding "activist" I'm not understanding the objection. PV undertakes actions to further its societal and political goals. It isn't a think-tank, it isn't a polling organization, it isn't a debating society. It is activism.

Regardless, I'm more inclined to discuss on the PV talk page. It can be difficult, some editors try to dominate the discussion, but I think that is best. I've made my argument with regard to "far-right" and "journalism" there, and you have made yours. -- M.boli (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent addition to the Thomas More Society page, while well-intended, has some problem aspects that need to be addressed.... and as I am avoiding article editing at this point, I'm asking that you review and address these problems (listed in decreasing order of importance.)

• The biggest one is that you cite a TMS press release as facts about the actions of the people they are suing. This is a WP:BLPSPS infraction, as a press release is self-published and the people being sued are alive. Really, the statements of one side in a lawsuit should never be taken as fact -- they are literally going to court over it.
• You quote a TMS representative directly from the press release. Generally, we want to be citing some third-party source to indicate that the selected quote is of import.
• You past-tensed ("represented") a matter that is ongoing.

Let me know if you have any questions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler: Thanks! I've prepared an edit with the first two changes. I'll be working on the third soon.Tha

• About representing allegations in TMS press release (and the filing) as facts. That was really sloppy of me! Is it OK to change the wording to say these are allegations? I completely see the problem here, but I'm not sure if that is an adequate fix or I should do something else. I also reorderd the references so the press release comes 2nd, after the Slate article describing the same thing. Which doesn't technically make a difference, but might cause the reader to encounter the secondary news source before the press release.
• I don't have as much problem with "represented", but anyway I changed the tense to "is representing". I had to add "as-of". The text had to be rearranged a bit, but I think this works.
• I don't see much problem with quoting the TMS press release about the intentions of the TMS. But I do see the point that if a secondary source reported on the matter, it is more likely to be worthy of inclusion. The Texas Tribune reported on that aspect of the case also (it is at the end of the article). Texas Tribune isn't in the reliable/perennial soruces list, but it doesn't seem sketchy, so I'll add that reference.

Let me know if you see more that needs doing, or this is inadequate, or other suggestions. -- M.boli (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly better, but not perfect. The Texas Tribune may be a reliable source, but it does not contain the quote nor even mention the person being quoted, and should not be positioned as the source of the quote. The quote itself is unneeded, as the description of the suit already contains the positioning of medicated abortion as murder, and the mention that they want to rope in the manufacturer; we don't need a PR spin repetition of that.

And speaking of repetition, "The plaintiff alleges they aided the ex-wife in obtaining the drugs for medical abortion, allegedly resulting in wrongful death.[22][23] Alleging that assisting a self-managed abortion is murder, the suit was brought pursuant to wrongful death statutes rather than S.B. 8 the anti-abortion vigilante act" seems redundant, if only because you are repeating things that you already said before over again. You can strip the closing "allegedly resulting in wrongful death" out of the first sentence. (I'd probably also replacing the "Alleging" that starts the second sentence with "Asserting", as it's not making the claim to specific fact that "allege" is generally used for, but rather putting forth a legal perspective.)

Also, probably best not to refer to the law as "SB 8", which was a fine reference before it passed, but once it became a law it has its own reference information, but is probably best referred to as the Texas Heartbeat Act. (Besides, with "SB 8" reference is only unique within the Senate term; there have been other Texas SB 8's before and will be again.)

Looking at the Slate piece, I see that the Society is just part of the team. So maybe you can change the start to "In 2023, TMS joined in representing..." which gives you that never-has-to-be-updated past tense that you like (the joining has already taken place), but also paints a more accurate picture.

Sorry if some of this seems like nitpicking, but we have to be careful of promotional spin when it comes to a press release-issuing organization. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All improvements! Much less sludgy now. I left the Breen quote. I don't see it as promotional spin so much as revealing the More Society's maximalist agenda. But I removed his fancy titles, which did read a little peacocky. The wikilink now says Texas Heartbeat Act, which is where it went before. I moved "S.B. 8" to a parenthetical because that is the name which appeared in the news so that is what most people will know. -- M.boli (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you've given Breen an unsourced description; the press release does not say that he's a lawyer on this case. (And check the wikilink you've given him; it goes to a disambiguation page, and none of the disambiguees (?) appear to be him at quick glance.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dang! Thank you. I grabbed one of Breen's titles from the press release with the quote. Fixed the DAB link. He is one of the lawyers, but I don't want to include the court filing itself as a reference. This is the TMS article, so wanted to include some TMS-specific quote. -- M.boli (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then find a quote selected by a reliable third party source. We're not here to act as a megaphone for everything the society wants to say. I did a Google search on the quote, and it as a pull quote from Wikipedia was not just the first source, it was put in huge lettering, as your placement of it there made it important. I found other sources using the news, but the ones I had access to were ones that have already been deprecated at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard -- the Catholic News Agency, LifeSite News. The fact that it is not popping up in strongly reliable sources is an indication that it shouldn't be included even in an article on this particular case... much less a single paragraph about the case in another article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll drop the quote. I did not write about the case in the Peter Breen article, the reference documents his current job. That article left off with his leaving the legislature. -- M.boli (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What you added to the Breen article looked fine; current employment is basic information, and the Society is a reliable source for who their employees are. Be well! --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Purdue University Global".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note in TALK about the climate change claim made by the NYT so it can be discussed further. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please see the talk page and also return "far right" (with its citation) to the 1st sentence thanks? 76.143.192.237 (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can put it in the first sentence of the lede yourself? I reverted it out the shortdesc, maybe you had put it there by mistake. M.boli (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did put it wrong the first time. When I tried to put it right I got an edit conflict notice with your changes and I didn't want to step on you fixing things so I asked you to do it in case you were still restoring other words, please? 76.143.192.237 (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Righto! Good point. I also noted that on the talk page. -- M.boli (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up Alex Epstein. Masterhatch (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it incredibly funny you are being accused by that IP for working for ActBlue when we know that's someone else.

Either way, I've reached out to them on their talk page. If they don't take my advice, then a simple trip to AN/I would probably fix the issue. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Righto! Thank you.

It is interesting that the ActBlue article seems to have a history of interested people leaving suggestions to that talk page, rather than editing the article themselves.

I'm mildly puzzled that no journalists seem to have picked up the challenge raised by O'Keefe. Are there really records of serial donations that the recorded donor has no knowledge of? And if so, what would cause that? My best guess is that O'Keefe has discredited himself sufficiently that nobody from the legit news media bothered to follow-up.

Thanks for following up with the IP editor. I guess they probably conlcude that a bunch of Wikipedia editors are working for ActBlue! :-) -- M.boli (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, I rolled back some edits by another editor on Oklahoma City bombing. But there was a recent edit by you done after the other editor's changes. In order to roll back all of the edits, I had to include yours. I reapplied it manually after the rollback, so if you see a revert in your notices, it's not actually reverted. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest "discussion" on the Talk:Ken Paxton has treaded into uncivil territory. Comments like "Nyah", "graffiti" and "risible" have no place on Wikipedia. You may have some valid points but disparaging other editors pretty much invalidates your credibility. You took my words completely out of context, twisted them around, and then labeled them as risible rationalization. That type of manipulation has no place on Wikipedia. I see that you have a history of uncivil behavior and previous warnings. I strongly suggest you review the Wikipedia:No personal attacks page. Keep the discussion on point and the snarky comments to yourself.—JlACEer (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "nyah" in my sarcastic summary of your post, and writing "aggravates you," was going too far. I apologize. It effectively labeled a summary of your argument as a summary of your feelings. Which, perforce, then feels like a personal attack. That was wrong.

I do not have a history of uncivil behavior and previous warnings. Perhaps the alerts about "contentious topics" confused you, I was following updates to the contentious topics procedures and whatnot. None are responses to any particular discussion I was involved with. I see one complaint from an editor, which I noted had some merit.

We return now to the Ken Paxton talk page, where I see you have clarified your argument somewhat. -- M.boli (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.—JlACEer (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing that blurb at AIPAC...decent. Cheers. 142.126.192.215 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. When I found what you were asking for it was pretty clear what the problem was. Good call on your part.

I think who-was-rude-first spat on the article talk page is best left out. Nobody encountering the spat on the talk page will learn anything about the article's editing decisions or history. -- M.boli (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]