Robert, only arbitrators & clerks may comment on this page. I suggest you self-revert the comment. – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm curious why you templated a regular? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 11:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because he could. WP:Tiptibism. Collect (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It goes beyond that. The use of that particular template is required for arbitration enforcement. That particular template has special code that logs the fact that it was used, and text cannot be used as a substitute. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; to be clear, I didn't mean why template a regular; I meant why template a regular. Between WP:DTTR and feedback from User:Collect, you've probably surmised that templates (especially the "now that you've been Officially Notified And Logged In The System, you might be Sanctioned" kind) aren't particularly welcomed by some (most?) users, especially without comment. Just leaving a note saying why you're leaving the template would be courteous. Doing that, and maybe even glancing at an editor's user page and length of edit history, wouldn't take much more time than it took you to get the template formatted properly on my user talk. What are your concerns? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 23:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns include that you and other users were notified of a thread at WP:ANI, but there apparently never was a proper notice that the article was subject to discretionary sanctions. As I said, this particular template is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was notified by the thread-starter, as were the other two users he posted about. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 00:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he hadn't templated you M8, when sanctions eventually fall on you, you would probably have found some wiggle room. This way, it is totally within the rules. Well done Robert. I've had my template btw, quite properly too. This kind of behavioural template doesn't fall into the "don't template the regulars" excuse, but you knew that. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a teeny valid Wikiquette point (suggestion) there but very probably not worth my mentioning it, and I don't blame Robert for posting, as it's likely he just didn't notice I'd already been notified. (I also think the discretionary sanctions & template may be an overly bureaucratic way of handing issues that we already have ways of handling but that's obviously nothing to do with Robert) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middle 8 may not have read the sanctions previously. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To correct the record: Of course I did, and QuackGuru knows this from my subseqeunt user talk diff. [1] Both QuackGuru and I were around when the discretionary sanctions were developed and notice of them was posted on appropriate article talk pages. Robert posted the disretionary sanctions notice to my page in entirely good faith. QuackGuru OTOH was/is just WP:POKING. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 02:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein sent a message that our page does not have any reference, a simple request, we with due honor we followed. Me being a senior scientist currently working in MIT would never post anything without peer review in Wikipedia. Please check the page yourself, AjoChhand Machine. I sent the professor an email and he abused me in the email with bad words. I added all references (check the page with time, we followed his instructions with due respect), yet he came and tagged our page again, all changed reverted. Wikipedia suggested us to link the article with other related articles because it is "Orphan". So we did. Prof Epstein found each and every single link and deleted them making our page "orphan" once again, so that robots delete the page, in due time.

Here is the editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Eppstein check how many people have complained in his talk page, I informed him politely that we have followed his instruction (check his talk page, for my post), yet he does not change the notice. I informed him that all his concerns are addressed. By the way I have more reputed publications than this editor. Check the history of AjoChhand Machine page to verify (time now) and how politely, and respectfully we have addressed his concern, still he reverts back. He does not check our modifications. I could post his abusive messages, but did not.

I sincerely request you to check, how our article is based on extensive peer reviewed work over six years. After giving several plenary lectures, I was asked to do something general people. But coming here, my experience is painful, I was never abused so much in my life, it was easier to publish paper in Nature for us than Wikipedia, a part of the article was published in Nature Physics too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasaComp (talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for kind help and keeping a note on the article. We really appreciate your urgent help.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll. 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) 00:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Hi there. This template is purely for completeness. By templating you, there can be no accusations or comments from other parties that you're in some way exempt from sanctions etc. As I've stated on the talk page in question, I agree with your comments regarding Hydroton. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not even first time that I am watching 8 years old accounts patrolling new pages, though these accounts never edited en.wiki before this year. Would be interesting to know. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any particular issue, such as a sock-puppet investigation, in mind? I am not sure what the context is? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's watch, Mdann52 has just proposed a indef block, check [2]. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are familiar with the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

These discussions are inappropriate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=617114870&oldid=617110112

I do not have an account, asserting such things on the article talk page is not useful.

• You are to: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."

• You are to: "Be welcoming to newcomers: People new to Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with policy and conventions. Please do not bite the newcomers. If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake. You should politely and gently point out their mistake, reference the relevant policy/guideline/help pages, and suggest a better approach."

• "Do not misrepresent other people"

• "Do not ask for another's personal details"

• "If a discussion goes off-topic, the general practice is to hide it by using the templates"

84.106.11.117 (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:IPs are people too" might be of interest.

84.106.11.117 (talk)

Wikipedia:IP_addresses_are_not_people might be of interest too. 84.* i don't know why you highlight "Be welcoming to newcomer", you've been around for years, Second Quantization (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you template QT, with cold fusion template [3]? The editor clearly hasn't edited there for some time. Second Quantization (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that indiscriminate templating about sanctions is generally frowned upon. Only template someone when you think they are actually violating those sanctions and thus require the notice. You've also failed to log your warnings at the case page as required, Second Quantization (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) The template itself clearly states "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date", (whcih the ArbCom page duplicates) and so does not need to be only used "...when you think they are actually violating those sanctions and thus require the notice." It can be used to forewarn editors that they may be heading into dangerous waters and remove any doubt that their actions may have unexpectedly harsh consequences. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... which would only make sense if they had recently edited in that area. We are talking about a week after the person edited the article here; not recent. More importantly, QT is already aware of the sanctions as far as arbitration enforcement (AE) is concerned, since he has been a party of cases involving them, has been editing in topics under DS for years and has been blocked under those very arbcom sanctions.

As a general rule, it's bad form to give notifications without reason (particularly when they are redundant) as its usually done as a necessary precursor to AE when problematic behaviour is seen. Second Quantization (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, I would say that Robert has reason for the template - a week is not a particularly long time, and I would consider it "recent", especially given the relatively low traffic generated by the page. Just because a user has been made aware of criteria in the past does not exclude them from being reminded, especially when tensions on the page may headed for flashpoint. Again, you are apparently insisting that the template is used when the editor is in the wrong: "...its usually done as a necessary precursor to AE when problematic behaviour is seen." This is absolutely not a requirement, and as I pointed out above, both the template and ArbCom page make this abundently clear.

I also take issue with your use of the term "indiscriminate" - Robert is very specific in who he has templated - the last four editors to contribute to either the article or discussion page. That shows reasonable care. The only person who was missed off that list was Robert himself - so I did the deed. Now we are all on a level playing field.

I think perhaps I'm done here. Robert is surely able to defend himself if he feels he has to, and I tip my hat in his direction for using his page as a discussion board. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"As a general rule, I would say that Robert has reason for the template" I've already shown has this reason did not apply for a variety of reasons. Templates related to DS have almost always been used in cases where there was problematic behaviour and usually by uninvolved parties "The only person who was missed off that list was Robert himself - so I did the deed." Yeah he wasn't aware of the sanctions after templating other editors about it, so that's just what he needed. You sound far too pedantic, so I'm not going to bother. I see no reason why an involved party can't use the templates when they need to, but some admins disagree: [4], so be aware of the issues. I'll end by quoting an arbitrator, demonstrating the ambiguities: "When exactly to notify has been the subject of some debate" [5]. Second Quantization (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second Quantization (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nadine Stroitz, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a blatant hoax. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite alright, RM. WP:RESTRICT already informed me that my B/I ban 'expired' on April 3, 2014. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia criteria and according to IMF data April 2014 RUSSIA should be ranked 9th and not 8th in 2014 by nominal gdp.ITALY in fact is ranked 8th as you can see by nominal gdp.Russia was ranked 9th but some weeks ago somebody unlocked and posted it 8th in 2014 in the presentation.This is a vandalic allowed act.In talk there are no writings about this change.I started a talk in Russia to change this vandalic act. Today we have that Italy and Russia are both 8th but Italy in 2014 is the true 8th with 2.172 while Russia 9th with 2.092.How is it possible to restore truth?Thanks.Gladio4772 (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really able in that page,i'll last on Russia Talk.An editor that knows economy should arrive as an administrator promised.Anyway i thank you a lot to follow this right action to correct wrong data in Wikipedia.Thanks a lot!Gladio4772 (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I received an aggresive behaviour by an editor in my dispute .I neither replied her.She closed discussion without neither considering all points.I always cited in fact 2 mistakes about Russia article.Please ,how is it possible to act?Thanks.Gladio4772 (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer.And what about the second mistake that i always cited?Why didn't she correct it? The dispute in this way was closed not in a very clear way.In need your opinion and eventually your action on it.Thanks again.Gladio4772 (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please ,read my talk. IP 198....vandalized all my talk and my profile.He vandalized also other people as i saw.I've no words....Gladio4772 (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The facts again is Russia is the 5th largest economy now and will be number 4 in 2016 and is the biggest in Europe[6].

Here's the facts http://rt.com/business/russia-gdp-5th-largest-158/

http://thebricspost.com/russia-ranked-5th-largest-economy-world-bank/#.U7x7oE1OXnM

http://en.ria.ru/business/20130715/182248723/Medvedev-Lauds-Russias-5th-Place-in-World-Banks-GDP-Rating.html

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-takes-5th-place-in-world-gdp-rankings/483190.html

http://www.bne.eu/content/moscow-blog-russia-overtakes-germany-become-5th-largest-economy

http://www.fundweb.co.uk/emerging/russia-now-worlds-fifth-largest-economy-in-gdp-terms/1075160.article

http://rbth.com/business/2013/07/17/russian_economy_becomes_biggest_in_europe_28149.html

--198.23.81.141 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you've sent me yet another welcoming message to prevent neutral administrators of getting in touch with me. Well done!--37.230.13.71 (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Vinay Deolilakar has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the ((prod blp)) tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article which you PROD'd was in user space. I don't think that articles in user space are subject to PROD for the lack of references because they are drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Vinay Deolilakar. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Vinay Deolalikar. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Vinay Deolalikar – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently something went wrong, because I was trying to create the article in user space in order to replace the current redirect with a stub. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vinay Deolilakar 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/Vinay Deolilakar 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. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After closing the discussion, I userified the content to User:Robert McClenon/Vinay Deolilakar per your request. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should move this comment to WP:AN. The comment is not showing up in the discussion. GB fan 18:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Do you know why Carr Collins, Jr. was deleted and what the page looked like? Please reply on my talkpage. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Obviously, adding an infobox and some chronological subsections would make it less confused. And from reading the deletion page, the main problem for some seems to be a lack of focus on his own life achievements apparently. Now, has he had a more full-fledged business career? Has he been involved in philanthropy?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Yes, I think he is probably notable, depending on how much he donated, and if he's donated to other organizations, etc. I will try to dig up a few things. Do you mind it I edit your userbox about him, or should I create my own? I'd mostly like to fix the layout and then add more referenced info. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is it possible to find a copyright-free picture of Collins Hall? Are you based in Dallas and able to take pictures, or not? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK so 1) Can I edit your userbox? 2) Would you be able to take some pictures in Bethesda and other places near DC? I may apply for a PhD there, and I like to do a lot of research before I decide to move to a new place (to reduce stress--it helps to move to a new place that feels somewhat familiar).Zigzig20s (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Operation Protective Edge. 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) 00:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that 64..... that wrote on the Italy talk is the same person that wrote under the IP 198......I 've really no words for this behaviour that is beginning to disturb me.Thanks.Gladio4772 (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remeber my particular situation that must be protected and respected at every level.That's why i posted it on my profile.Thanks a lot for your suggests).Gladio4772 (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert: Didn't realize there was a redundant photo uploaded in connection with the William South page. Sorry about that. Jladrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jladrew (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any IP with that sort of edit and geolocating to Seoul is a sock of banned user User:Mikemikev. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that although what you say is true, Miss Julia is Furdea Austria; but she will compete in MISS WORLD. By Nadine Stroitz change as first runner is "MISS UNIVERSE AUSTRIA" this information was confirmed by the official website of Miss Universe. The same thing happened last year, Doris Hoffman was Miss Universe Austria. It is not suitable to clear the article is encyclopedic.Jaam0121 (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have contested the speedy tag. Please discuss on Talk: Miss Austria. If there is a single Miss Austria contest from which two contestants go to Miss Universe and Miss World, this should be described in Miss Austria. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article expresses that Miss Austria, the contest winner who will choose Miss World. And the first runner goes to Miss Universe. This not only happens in Miss Austria, numerous contests in different countries do the same. Jaam0121 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visit. Talk: Miss Austria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaam0121 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About this: If you can't figure out consensus when there is only extended discussion and no explicitly labeled "votes" (or "not votes", which is what "!votes" means), then you should not be trying to close those discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - have you seen WP:ANI#Egregious section heading at Talk:Earthquake prediction? Interesting that Joe Bodacious was a sock. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A guy cancelled all what i wrote in Talks of Potential superpowers .He did it referring to 64.... that vandalized my page too.What can id o? I acted always in a correct way as i promised you.This guy seems to ignore my particular situation and he says i'm from Florence when i'm not from Florence.Tel me what to do in this disturbing situation started with 64.... action.Thanks.Gladio4772 (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the best RFCs and !polls are the ones that are either collaboratively prepared beforehand, or alternatively when the unilateral drafter works really really hard at drafting them to be a model example of writing for the WP:OPPONENT. Do you have any ideas to improve the TPG RFC with those thoughts in mind? I do... I suggest the lead in be edited to purge our disagreement and present mutually acceptable phrasing. I think your wording was unfair, and I'm not wedded to mine if you can think of a way to present the issue even overbetter. Ideas? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that you and I disagree, but I think that the use of Standard written English is the best way to avoid cross-cultural misunderstandings. I do not agree to having the lede rewritten to provide a single option, because I don't think that we have mutually acceptable preferred phrasing. Yours is reasonable and I prefer mine. If you have a third alternative, I am willing to consider it, but I don't want to rewrite the RFC at this point. The RFC process can choose which wording the community wants. They are two different overlapping concepts. I think mine is better, and you think yours is better, and we can respect the community process. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That entirely misses the point, but whatever. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it misses the point. If your point is that we should have a single version to which we both agree, I don't think we will get there, and I think that it is better to go forward than to spend a week not agreeing trying to work out standard language. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said that misses the point. HOW WE ASK THE COMMUNITY A QUESTION is the point. Whatever the question you like solution A and I like solution B. The way you packaged the RFC was biased in favor of your viewpoint. The first form of power is setting the agenda and phrasing the question. Even though you like end-result A and I like end-Result B, those who prepare RFCs and !Polls really should be NPOV when they write the question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that bit? Just link to WikiQuote? Cheers. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Put the attribution at the bottom of the section. I suppose that a link to WikiQuote would suffice. I am not speaking for the posters who are requesting that the quote be taken down. They are still making that request. I am silent on it. As it is, the quote is a copyright issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the neutrality of the Anarcho-capitalism page, the RfC was closed with a weak consensus to include early mention regarding the distinction between traditional anarchists and anCaps. As a result, a new paragraph was included in the lede which clarified the distinction. Furthermore, the new compromise paragraph is neutral on the question of which version of anarchism is "correct" or "valid".

Further discussion occurs in the body of the article, regarding the differences of opinion among self-identifying anarchists (which does not need to be expanded further according to the results of the RfC). My question, then, is "Who has a right to remove the NPOV tag from the article - which is now neutral?" JLMadrigal (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently fully locked against editing. While an admin can remove the tag, I think that it would be quite incorrect for an admin to remove the tag. Has there been discussion on the talk page that agrees that the article is now neutral? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there has been discussion regarding whether the compromise paragraph is neutral and sets the context. Unfortunately, some editors will not be satisfied until the lede states the left-anarchist POV regarding anCap - which is redundant since the difference of opinion is already stated. Their objective seems to be to establish that anarcho-capitalism is not a valid position. JLMadrigal (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I have also posted my concern on the NPOV noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Featured_Anarcho-capitalism_article_is_being_held_captive_to_left-anarchist_editors. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inquire as to the language you used in the second RfC closing statement on the talk page: "The statement does properly reflect the source". I have to object to this conclusion. I don't believe that such a consensus was reached. I believe that one contributor, did not think that this was a relevant or well articulated statement to warrant its inclusion on the page, and the second contributor had the opposing view. In such a case I don't believe that a definitive statement such as "The statement does properly reflect the source'"' should be used. In this case the discussion was left unresolved, and the statement in question should be changed to reflect that, also as noted by yourself there were no votes cast, this only reinforces the fact that the discussion never resulted in any hard statements regarding the issue. Please, augment the closing text to reflect this. --COD T 3 (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize your name and I think it's because I admire your bureaucratic work. I should probably register soon, it sucks to have my contributions reset so frequently. 165.214.12.80 (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might help, I don't have time to look further. —Neotarf (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exact diff.[7] Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much in favor of a open dialogue, however I have concerns about the neutrality of this article because of user Faustian's bias towards the subject matter. This article went through 2 Dispute Resolutions, and 2 Mediation Boards, and user Faustian's only objective is to add more highly controversial material that's worded in such a way as to level a mass "rape charge" agains the entire 68,000 strong army. This is a highly complex topic and I'm afraid that another RfC which does not invoke Wiki contributors who are specialize in historical matters will result in an inaccurate outcome. Please see the definitive comments from the two outside commentators in the second RfC:

• User: Truther2012 Are there other sources confirming both rapes and scrolls? It looks like the entire very controversial statement is based on a single source. Faustian, if you feel that this statement is that important for the integrity of the article, you should be able to provide more sources. Personally, I do not see why it is so important, as most armies commit similar crimes.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• User: SMcCandlish I have to agree with Truther2012 that "most armies commit similar crimes", and thus insisting on levying a mass rape charge against the Blue Army is not really pertinent, as well as not actually feasible under WP:SYNTH with this particular sourcing. Please see also my how-to, WP:How to mine a source for a tutorial on how to get more information out of source material in a step-wise fashion. Regardless, you're going to need more of it than this very short, confusing partial quotation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

The two contributors noted that the issue here is not a matter of the source being legitimate, but whether the statement is appropriate in the first place. --COD T 3 (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing about the AE enforcement requesting sanctions against COD T 3 and me. While I think that applying 1RR restrictions to him on this particular topic is appropriate, I question why he and I are to be treated equally. I am adding referenced info to the article, he is removing it. I created two RfCs, waited until they were completed before adding the info, and he removed it again. I've worked on a lot of articles and don't have a history of edit warring, yet that is all he does. Before his efforts here, he edited as an IP, with a history of blocks for just such behavior: [8]. He may also be writing as an IP :[9] where he just removed a bunch of info: [10] and may have had another identity as [11] (if so - a sockpuppet?).

Yes, I have reverted also, but my reverts were re-adding referenced info he had removed. What can be done when one editor decides to sit on an article and basically just removes info he doesn't like? Why am I to be punished equally as the guy who removed the info?Faustian (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly, but if he tries to log in, the block message will say 24 hours (the software won't accept Planck times as an option for block length), so it's not as if he has to depend on my message to know how long it is. On top of that, he probably won't come back until the block's over (how many people vandalise with an account one day and come back the next?), and should that happen, it won't matter. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Robert. I notice you have left a big ugly template on my talk page. I would point out that the title I changed (from "Civility" to "Bigotry", and rightly so) was not an arbitration case but a request for arbitration. Please cite the policy and provide a link for your assertions. You also claim that the edit was disruptive. Would you mind explaining this statement? For reference, you might also want to see this comment. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arranged marriage. 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) 00:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The VisualEditor team is currently working mostly to fix bugs, improve performance, reduce technical debt, and other infrastructure needs. You can find on Mediawiki.org weekly updates detailing recent work.

The biggest visible change since the last newsletter was to the dialog boxes. The design for each dialog box and window was simplified. The most commonly needed buttons are now at the top. Based on user feedback, the buttons are now labeled with simple words (like "Cancel" or "Done") instead of potentially confusing icons (like "<" or "X"). Many of the buttons to edit links, images, and other items now also show the linked page, image name, or other useful information when you click on them.

• Hidden HTML comments (notes visible to editors, but not to readers) can now be read, edited, inserted, and removed. A small icon (a white exclamation mark on a dot) marks the location of each comments. You can click on the icon to see the comment.
• You can now drag and drop text and templates as well as images. A new placement line makes it much easier to see where you are dropping the item. Images can no longer be dropped into the middle of paragraphs.
• All references and footnotes (<ref> tags) are now made through the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" menu, including the "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-reference-tooltip⧽" (manual formatting) footnotes and the ability to re-use an existing citation, both of which were previously accessible only through the "Insert" menu. The "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-referencelist-tooltip⧽" is still added via the "Insert" menu.
• When you add an image or other media file, you are now prompted to add an image caption immediately. You can also replace an image whilst keeping the original caption and other settings.
• All tablet users visiting the mobile web version of Wikipedias will be able to opt-in to a version of VisualEditor from 14 August. You can test the new tool by choosing the beta version of the mobile view in the Settings menu.
• The link tool has a new "Open" button that will open a linked page in another tab so you can make sure a link is the right one.
• The "Cancel" button in the toolbar has been removed based on user testing. To cancel any edit, you can leave the page by clicking the Read tab, the back button in your browser, or closing the browser window without saving your changes.

Looking ahead[edit]

The team posts details about planned work on the VisualEditor roadmap. The VisualEditor team plans to add auto-fill features for citations soon. Your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted. Support for upright image sizes is being developed. The designers are also working on support for adding rows and columns to tables. Work to support Internet Explorer is ongoing.

Feedback opportunities[edit]

The Editing team will be making two presentations this weekend at Wikimania in London. The first is with product manager James Forrester and developer Trevor Parscal on Saturday at 16:30. The second is with developers Roan Kattouw and Trevor Parscal on Sunday at 12:30.

Please share your questions, suggestions, or problems by posting a note at the VisualEditor feedback page or by joining the office hours discussion on Thursday, 14 August 2014 at 09:00 UTC (daytime for Europe, Middle East and Asia) or on Thursday, 18 September 2014 at 16:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas; evening for Europe).

If you'd like to get this newsletter on your own page (about once a month), please subscribe at w:en:Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter for English Wikipedia only or at Meta for any project. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last call for opinions on RFC at Wikipedia page for page protection extension. User:Pundit is in support of increasing gender equality at Wikipedia and another user is opposed to User:Pundit's efforts. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon; And you can see on that page that I was not alone in making that suggestion. More to the point, the situation has been on-going for 4 weeks now, with the hold-out editor there is continuing to press his/her boycott against WP:BRD and refusing to participate in Talk. That editor also filed an ANI against me, and threatened others, while I was addressing another editor who began edit warring there (and who was eventually blocked, User:BigB). In any event if you can help with filing an ANI for any number of the 100 disruptive edits I have hatted on the RFC then I would gladly change my support opinion to endorsing your suggestion. This has been going on for 4 weeks, an unexpecteded ANI was filed against me without any prior Talk, and I am doing this on behalf of User:Pundit who cannot defend his own new book dealing with Wikipedia due to COI. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen your name around for quite some time, your ability to work in contentious areas makes me think you would be a good administrator. Have you ever considered running again (it's been eight years)? Go Phightins! 02:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to accept nomination, even though I am not optimistic about getting approved. I won't nominate myself, but will accept nomination. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to co-nominate; can you think of any other respected editors who might be willing to co-nom? Go Phightins! 03:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try User:BrownHairedGirl. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed her. Go Phightins! 03:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting this page on my watchlist, so I can express my positive opinion. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still haven't heard from her ... Go Phightins! 21:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She said she was going on holiday. In British English, and I would guess in her Irish English, that means the same as in American English is meant by going on vacation. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new intro looks solid. Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check User talk:DoctorTerrella. I think that the comments above mine relate to the sentence at User:DoctorTerrella. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just fyi, your link to WP:NOTHERE is broken at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Robert_McClenon. I'd have fixed it, except that's not allowed over there. betafive 21:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The directions there have always been largely unhelpful. Agree it'll probably end up at ArbCom, going by the tone of the involved editors + being on a serious subject. Just remember: blessed are the meek, for they shall be subject to the lesser discretionary sanctions. ---erachima talk 18:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you included me in this sanctions request? I'm not familiar with the discretionary sanctions process, so this is new to me. I'm confused about why I was included because I haven't been involved in any edit warring or other issues on the pages in question. The last edit I made to Alison Lundergan Grimes was a week ago [12], and it hasn't been controversial. I made some edits to Mitch McConnell yesterday [13] and I contributed to a talk page discussion there, but so far no one else has jumped in. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:ISO 8601. 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) 00:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "Also, the "censorship" label was, like most uses of the word "censorship" in Wikipedia, just wrong. For every valid use of the word "censorship" in Wikipedia, there must be five or ten misuses of the word in content disputes"

Wikipedia hosts the primary reference to my article Rind et al controversy. How is it valid to host that article while not allowing me to cite it an essay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

s:User:Rich Farmbrough/George Ridout Bingham took me about 5 minutes to make from the draft. If you wish to make specific articles and have trouble wikifying them, or are concerned about other aspects, please let me know and I will be happy to help. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC).

Hi Robert, Warren Platts has returned to wikipedia and wants to merge these two articles again.

Do you remember, last year he did the merge mid discussion, saying that there was a "rough consensus" because I was the only one opposed to the merge - but then reversed it when you warned him about doing so as one of the participants in the debate?

I don't know what to do. Is obvious to me that they deserve to be different articles. Nobody else has posted to the talk page on this topic since last year. I'm the main editor of both articles at present. But nobody else has had any issues with either of them since last year. I removed the tag a week or two ago because I thought with no new discussion of the issue for a year, that it was an inactive discussion and could be forgotten.

I haven't done any editing of the Mars section on these topics and have left the Mars colonization and Manned mission to Mars articles exactly as they left them last year, with Advocacy and Challenges sections, and no Concerns sections, haven't done any editing at all of them. And haven't attempted to add anything on contamination to any articles outside of these two which you agreed it was okay for me to edit. And have been very very careful with neutrality and tone for these two articles. So haven't done anything that could be considered provocative except to remove the Merge tag.

Here are our posts on it so far: Removed merge tag

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 12:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Split, Croatia. 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) 00:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure how these things work, but it appears that various other editors should also be notified as "involved," for example Sitush, Neotarf, Carrite, Tutelary as well as others from the GG talk page. Also, as I read it, your statement at Arbcom Request appears to say that the Jimbo Wales quote was made after the ANI cases were closed or were related to the details there. However, this was not the case and you may wish to clarify that to avoid the possibility of misrepresenting his statement to editors who are not familiar with recent events. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know whether you are aware of the recent Arbcom Clarification request here which is similar to the GG incident in various respects. I think the participants there would also wish to be notified. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your elegant solution to the Armenian transliterations of Hagop/Hakob RiverStreet (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy RM. I'm not ABF, but merely seeking clarification of your comment on my opposing a siteban for Specifico. Are you suggesting it's best I withdraw my post & stay away from unsettled waters? GoodDay (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I chosen to withdraw my post at ANI. The whole GGTF thing, appears like a powder keg, on the brink of exploding. GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

Thank you for the clarification on the use of the term. I used the word vandalism based on the type of edits made by LestorLloyd. I noticed that LestorLloyd specifically replaced key words with his/her own, including words like 'gobbledygook' and exchanged words like 'Samadhi' with 'Narcolepsy' which is an obvious attempt to slander and discredit John de Ruiter. I don't believe this is a simple case of content dispute as the words used do not appear in the articles cited.

I am grateful for upstanding senior editors such as yourself, and while the objective of Wikipedia is to be entirely neutral, I have been aware of a tendency by some editors to adopt a negative view within a pretext of neutrality. I suggest that words such as 'narcolepsy' and 'gobbledygook' reveal a negative bias. True, positive, and citable statements which could contribute to an accurate description of John de Ruiter, as do critical statements, so far have been disallowed in this article.

The article already slants toward the negative in my opinion and is not balanced by any means. One editor in response to LestorLloyd states 'While I know nothing of him, I have some sympathy with your position'. How is it that one can sympathize with someone's opinion on a subject they know nothing about. While the objective of Wikipedia is be neutral and balanced, I hope that we can recognize the possibility of an underlying tendency toward the negative with respect this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planktonium (talk • contribs) 23:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That request has been archived here.

The arbitration committee has chosen to close this request, noting that per WP:NEWBLPBAN, this article is subject to DS. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. A few weeks ago you began an ANI proposal for an article-creation topic-ban on Aditya Soni. Any idea what became of that? I found the archived discussion, and it merely seems to have died. Being active in the Indic area myself, I'm curious. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for finally coming up with something. I am unsure y what you mean by:

Recommend a (short) block for continuing the personal attacks and the disruptive accusations of sockpuppetry. Suggest that other parties go to Arbitration Enforcement to request a topic-ban from all Macedonia-related articles under WP:ARBMAC. User has been alerted to discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 2:56 am, Today (UTC+10)

What would you like me to do? Or is it for the other user(s)?

After reading through several WP rules and policies, I, in describing another users behaviour, used several terms which can be considered legal jargon (eg. Defamatory). In no way, no way, were the use of these words pertaining to legal actions, they were only used to describe the editors behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxure (talk • contribs) 10:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luxure (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

kindly see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Charminek#Wikipedia_doesn.27t_have_profiles — Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Second Boer War. 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) 00:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Hey everyone!!!!!!!!!! Justice Hudson (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the alert. May I know why did I receive this? Stevepeterson (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RobertMcClenon: It was difficult to tell from your AI comments if you were joining the discussion there or not. The version of the Lede sentence being discussed is: "Artificial intelligence (AI) is the human-like intelligence exhibited by machines or software. [...]". This would be consistent with the article content in paragraph 4 of the current Lede, and consistent with the rest of the article in its current form. FelixRosch (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the RfC is an option. The other editor has accepted that this is a one-word issue on the article Talk page after your comment there. I am remiss to start a month long RfC and take up contrib time from other editors, and actually do not object to your offering a drop in comment one way or the other. I have made multiple invitations for User:Charles to write his material into the article and let all editors see why he wants the very general version of the lead sentence, though all we get is page after page on the Talk page and nothing in the article. I don't know how to have been more open in inviting him to add the text in the article to support his general version of the Lede sentence. The adapted form of the Lede sentence adding the word "human-like" would make the opening paragraph in the Lede consistent with the 4th paragraph of the Lede. As you can likely tell, I'll try to be as open as possible to any reasonable drop-in comment you might think to make. FelixRosch (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I can't find what I did, or where I am mentioned on that page. can you shed some light? Reaper7 (talk)

Hey Robert,

Viewing my editing history, I came across a section called deleted contributions. I cannot view my own deleted contribs because I don't have the proper permissions. Why? They're mine aren't they? And what are they and what do they signify. Cheers, Luxure (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You posted a third-party comment on the NPOV Noticeboards and your outside perspective is humbly requested at WP:AN/I#POV editors on Anarcho-capitalism. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it looks like this case may be accepted, please be prepared to provide evidence of where I've caused disruption to the project. Or be prepared to retract your statement.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thx

Rosethorn09 (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page.
Message added 20:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Blanking of the Historicity of Jesus page". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 October 2014.

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Blanking of the Historicity of Jesus page, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of extinct mammals. 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) 00:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

TemplateData is a separate program that organizes information about the parameters that can be used in a template. VisualEditor reads that data, and uses it to populate its simplified template dialogs.

With the new TemplateData editor, it is easier to add information about parameters, because the ones you need to use are pre-loaded.

See the help page for TemplateData for more information about adding TemplateData. The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing team has reduced technical debt, simplified some workflows for template and citation editing, made major progress on Internet Explorer support, and fixed over 125 bugs and requests. Several performance improvements were made, especially to the system around re-using references and reference lists. Weekly updates are posted on Mediawiki.org.

There were three issues that required urgent fixes: a deployment error that meant that many buttons didn't work correctly (bugs 69856 and 69864), a problem with edit conflicts that left the editor with nowhere to go (bug 69150), and a problem in Internet Explorer 11 that caused replaced some categories with a link to the system message, MediaWiki:Badtitletext (bug 70894) when you saved. The developers apologize for the disruption, and thank the people who reported these problems quickly.

Increased support for devices and browsers

TemplateData editor

Other changes

Several interface messages and labels were changed to be simpler, clearer, or shorter, based on feedback from translators and editors. The formatting of dialogs was changed, and more changes to the appearance will be coming soon, when VisualEditor implements the new MediaWiki theme from Design. (A preview of the theme is available on Labs for developers.) The team also made some improvements for users of the Monobook skin that improved the size of text in toolbars and fixed selections that overlapped menus.

VisualEditor-MediaWiki now supplies the mw-redirect or mw-disambig class on links to redirects and disambiguation pages, so that user gadgets that colour in these in types of links can be created.

Templates' fields can be marked as 'required' in TemplateData. If a parameter is marked as required, then you cannot delete that field when you add a new template or edit an existing one (bug 60358). 

Language support improved by making annotations use bi-directional isolation (so they display correctly with cursoring behaviour as expected) and by fixing a bug that crashed VisualEditor when trying to edit a page with a dir attribute but no lang set (bug 69955).

Looking ahead

Supporting your wiki

I left you a new response on my talk page.

75.162.179.246 (talk)

When I presented that evidence in early Sept I was under a lot of pressure and made some errors, some of which already have been publicly pointed out. Since this will be seen as your evidence, you might want to check the diffs yourself. Same with EvergreenFir's just in case. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Carol's sentiments about errors being made. You wan't to be super careful when presenting anything crafted by Carol. She is very selective and often the context is out of focus. As is with most of Carol's diffs you've selected and the accompanying analysis. No I won't tell you which ones. Figure it out for yourself, I suggest by visiting the archive which contains the diff and read everything. You seem to be involved in lots of Arb cases over the years. You play your cards right and they might make you an honorary bailiff.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I tried to answer your question, thnx for putting it instead of dismissing the case as Beeblebrox , Newyorkbrad and Seraphimblade have done. I assume Adam Cuerden could have made a stronger case. Point is, thats not about a WMC-and I issue. As pointed out by User:NewsAndEventsGuy, the list was created is an internal pet tool and navigation stronghold of a group of editors. Thats not what WP is about. Therefore the arbcom may be the right adress. Serten (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Serten: since you've had a questionable accuracy repeating my position in the past, I would like to fact check this instance; what the devil is a "WMS-and I issue" you seem to think I asserted? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you get what I mean after I inserted a full stop and WMC instead of WMS. WMC refers to Connolley. Serten (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. You went after WMC at ANI when - by your admission above - you apparently knew that wasn't the real issue. I opined in that filing that BOOMERANG might apply, and with this admission of WP:FORUMSHOPPING I think that more strongly than I did before. I'll set aside the confirmation bias that resulted when you tried to understand my comment while reading with your anti-AGF perspective. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connolley is the one behaving repeatedly, offensively and especially low in AGF in different articles. Goodness, I went to ANI with that case after he had overdone it finally. Much more annoying me (and others) is that aggressive group think protecting that list. Why should I insist on blocking WMC, which is, as Ronz reminded me, already under a partial topic ban? I am quite OK how User:Sphilbrick#Wrong_page.... dealt with the issue and how the community reacted. Serten (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven' commented either way on WMC's acts, only saying you lack clean hands to bitch about casting aspersions and failing to assume good faith. IF you want to make meaningful improvements here's some advice..... Your posts wander all over and go off topic frequently. You argue multiple issues at once. You're feeling shit upon because, frankly, you're not using the TPG to make it simple to reason with you, and you bash people instead of using polite, patient, and gradually-escalating WP:DR like WP:THIRD for starters. Without approving or disapproving of anyone else's conduct, maybe you would do better to set aside the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and never ever

never ever ever

mention user conduct on the article talk page? If you claim to be a scientist you can probably relate to chaning the inputs usually changes the results, right? :::::NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be so kind and reduce militant or abusive language, even my Bundeswehr superiors orders were in more civil tone. Your "ingroup conversations" - compare User_talk:Dmcq#Huh.3F - seem to be infected as well, so the manure is not on me. Serten (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move this to another talk page? Why is this on my talk page, which is intended to communicate with and about me? Most of this doesn't affect me. Can we move it? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me to just waste it. If it does get moved (and anywhere is fine by me) please provide an FYI pointer. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I just went here to answer your question on the Arbcom. If youre OK with the response, dustbin or archive it. Serten (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 30, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence and your inclusion of my original ANI stuff. School has kept me off WP mostly and I really do not wish to be involved in this ARBCOM... I'm so sick of this shit. But I felt I should at least thank you. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 04:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably notice I did not create a section about you on my submission. Not for the lack of diffs, space or time, but rather I felt that your conduct was not even close to the level of trouble that Carol and Neotarf displayed. A quick look at your other efforts, while at times shows a slight POV (and whose doesn't) you usually show good faith and are reasonable. I completely understand why many people take issues with Eric, and respond accordingly. IMO you should not be held to account for this.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, regarding this, were you actually requested to strike those diffs by anyone in authority, or were you simply acting on the complaint of Drmis? Patrol forty (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you plaster someone else's statement without vetting it first? Especially Carol's submissions? The ANI page you clipped had many people state that there was a problem with her claims. You surely saw those too. If you have any good faith you will review the full archive in question and then strike "Later at this diff he wonders if systemic bias exists - in a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias." from the evidence page.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona. 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) 00:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Started a page move request in Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona. --George Ho (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 6, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 20:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For taking the heat. Couldn't have kept this up without you. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert M. While checking for a DS alert, I saw you had notified User:Luxure on September 20 of the WP:ARBMAC sanctions. Can I ask what the issue was that caused you to take this action? Also, is there any significance to the fact you've complained about Luxure both at AN and AE? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) On climate pages, I give DS alerts on a regular basis to lots of people, just because I don't know them and they've shown a sudden keen interest. The new DS alert system is explicitly crafted to be informational only, with no imputation intended. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no concern about Robert's notice, but would like to know if there are diffs from anything that happened in September that might bear on the current AN and AE discussions. The name Luxure is not familiar to me. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry to butt in. As you were. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, as to why I notified, I would have to research, but I recall that, although he wasn't the most unreasonable of the editors, he was being uncivil, and I gave the alerts to all of the editors who were being uncivil. As to why I reported it twice, I was aware that it might seem to be forum shopping, but I originally reported it at AN because the RFC was open at AN and was uncloseable in its current state, part of the requested discussion having been deleted. On further research I realized that I couldn't close anyway, having been involved (only in cautioning the other editors), and then checked to see whether Luxure had been already cautioned, which wasn't on his talk page. I saw that I had cautioned him, and that he deleted it with a hostile edit summary. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, he wasn't the most uncivil of the editors, but he was uncivil, and had been warned, and I have a hard time assuming good faith about deleting most of the archive after archiving it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted two links in your AE complaint. I hope that's OK. Your phrase about 'Request for Closure of RFCs' looks like you may have wanted it to be a link to something in WP:AN/RFC. It's not at the moment. When you cite 'Diffs of previous relevant sanctions' down below, the links don't work. You could just say 'None' if there were no previous sanctions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Luxure. User:Taivo (at AN) and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise have given their opinion that no sanction is needed. FP thinks this was a technical mistake by Luxure. Do you still think that admins should take action? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to let it drop at this point. I consider the idea that the deletion of most of the archive was a technical mistake to be incredible, that is, unworthy of belief by a rational human being. The original archiving was done correctly. The deletion of about three-quarters of the archive was done twelve minutes later. The deletion was done on purpose for some reason. However, if two uninvolved admins think that it isn't worth pursuing, I am willing to let the matter drop. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Robert. I don't quite understand why you posted such an angy "welcome" on 172.56.6.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Their note on ANI wasn't in practice helpful, no, but could surely have been posted by a n00b with an intention of helping. You say it was reverted — was it? If so it has been restored, and answered. Are you assuming it's a troll with a grudge against Tutelary? Bishonen | talk 09:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The wording on the ruling makes it pretty clear that yes, it is. CPCs are related to abortion even narrowly construed. 4.1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages† articles related to abortion, broadly construed. Also there's a Discretionary Sanctions notice on the article's talk page already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 19:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tag on my talk page, but I'm already well aware of the DS on abortion pages. Maybe you should consider reminding a few others. I'd be happy to give you some suggestions if needed. Cloonmore (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow you found me. I'm sure with a little effort you can locate actual edit warriors to tag. Cloonmore (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, I reviewed your evidence thus far, per your request. It would be helpful if you could provide specific diffs that demonstrate where progress on improving the article itself was impeded. Despite the wall-of-words on the talk page, I didn't see much evidence of disruption on the article page. The arbs are going to want to know about that. Also, linking to archived talk pages, and saying in effect "it's all in there somewhere", is not going to be appreciated by the drafting arb. Please try to be more specific. Other than the four examples you provided, what specific behavior rises to the level of misconduct, and what policies are being violated? For example, pointing out that someone was argumentative on the article talk page is not very persuasive, unless the arguments include casting aspersions or other forms of personal attacks. These are just suggestions of course. It's completely up to you to provide evidence as you see fit. Ignocrates (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee agreed that the article Crisis pregnancy center is subject to Discretionary sanctions under the WP:ARBAB decision.

The decision is archived here

For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch McConnell was listed at RFPP and then I saw the report at Edit warring. I semi-protected Harry Reid as both articles seemed to be getting similar edits to the one made by Tina cain. I also gave them another warning. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had sort of figured that it had to do with that and the date of taking office as minority/majority leader which appears to be 2015. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was the main thing. They are brand new user though, just registered today, and may not understand the way Wikipedia operates. Semi-protecting the page means that they can't edit it and will be required to use the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the bit of luck they may decide to use the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orrin Hatch is the highest ranking republican member of the US Senate. By virtue of that rank he is the natural designate for the position of President pro tempore of the United States Senate. The precedent for this is backed by Senate tradition that dates back to the 1790's. It has also been substantiated by the following source > >ref>http://www.sltrib.com/news/1787743-155/hatch-senate-presidency-president-sen-chamber</ref>

let me know if you have contradicting information that should be considered.Jimgerbig (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Truth Seeker Jimgerbig (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you would go to a perfect stranger's talk page and accuse him of ranting. The whole point of a Noticeaboard is to talk things out. I'm also not sure how the person who isn't cursing and using the f-word against another editor is the one at fault. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Larry Hogan 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:

• is an American politician who is the [[Governor of Maryland|Governor-elect of Maryland]]<ref> ((cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/republican-larry-hogan-wins-md-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anthony G. Brown 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:

• online as of January 13, 2007.''</ref> and ran unsuccessfully for [[Governor of Maryland]]<ref> ((cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/republican-larry-hogan-wins-md-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Washington, D.C. mayoral election, 2014 page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at WyattAlex's talk page.
Message added WyattAlex (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at WyattAlex's talk page.
Message added WyattAlex (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Your talk page is becoming quite long (5x PgDown to get to the end of the TOC). An other archive page would be appreciated. WyattAlex (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

VisualEditor is also available on the mobile version of Wikipedia. Login and click the pencil icon to open the page you want to edit. Click on the gear-shaped settings in the upper-right corner, to pick which editor to use. Choose "Edit" to use VisualEditor, or "Edit source" to use the wikitext editor.

It will remember whether you used wikitext or VisualEditor, and use the same editor the next time you edit an article.

The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor. Not all features are available in Mobile Web.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and requests, and worked on support for editing tables and for using non-Latin languages. Their weekly updates are posted on Mediawiki.org. Informal notes from the recent quarterly review were posted on Meta.

Recent improvements

TemplateData

Looking ahead

You can influence VisualEditor's design. Tell the VisualEditor team what you want changed during the office hours via IRC. The next sessions are on Wednesday, 19 November at 16:00 UTC and on Wednesday 7 January 2015 at 22:00 UTC. You can also share your ideas at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.

— Whatamidoing (WMF) 20:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robert, we haven't always agreed on everything, but I appreciated your comments there, which were thoughtful and calm. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Battle of Cedar Creek. 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) 00:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for closing the Chevalier d'Eon RfC. Frankly, that whole thing was a mess - as much my fault as anyone else's. However, I think you may have overstepped the consensus in this case. I think (and you acknowledge) that there's a clear consensus that d'Eon is an edge case per MOS, but there's no consensus about what to do about that. The problem is that you can't really just say, "Oh well since d'Eon is an edge case and MOS doesn't address edge cases, we'll just follow MOS." Doesn't make sense - the consensus was that d'Eon's gender was likely not a matter of self-expression but rather of deliberate ambiguity. I would appreciate it if you would amend the closure to indicate that the process resulted in no recommended course of action. At the moment we've just avoided pronouns entirely, but obviously that will have to change at some point, but it should change by consensus. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your closure comment an formatting to the RfC specifically, then pointed out that there was indeed a specific question [15]. I hope this isn't a problem.

How should I have worded the RfC to make the question clearer and more prominent?

As the issue of all the sources being poor wasn't directly addressed or answered in the RfC, I'll be taking it to the BLP noticeboard after wrapping up the current issues: those brought up at FTN, the edit-warring and ownership problems that has driven a new editor away, and the coi and paid editing problems. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Ronz's talk page.
Message added 17:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Thanks for the close on Oathkeeper. You said that you saw an unrelated RfC running. What did you mean? Is it on another talk page? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Feminists Engage Wikipedia Award!
	If Adrienne Wadewitz were here, she would give you an award for all you have done! Djembayz (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you added evidence about User:IseeEwe without informing the editor. Please do so.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in a previous related discussion you are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon, just for your information, your use of the Hidden Archive template caused edit-conflict(s). The result was that some of my edits were lost in the move. No big deal (for me, at least) - I'm savvy enough to notice and fix that stuff up. However, some other users might not be so able to micromanage the edit-conflict resolution.

In the future, if you feel that you need to move a discussion to another page, you might just use a simple wiki-link, instead of an archive template. That'll prevent MediaWiki's automatic edit conflict resolver from munging up the content.

Nimur (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. 209.104.250.2 (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Inter-civil war violence in Libya. 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) 00:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, I agree that today's attempt to edit-war and then wiki-lawyer the removal of "false allegations" merits sanctions. In practice, I foresee dozens of hours of tedious work, likely leading to minor sanctions against secondary players while the main culprits continue their relentless campaign against female game developers. I'm not sure I have the time to lead this charge, though I suppose I would be willing if it were absolutely necessary; yesterday's endless wrangling with an administrator who insists that no picture could depict "rape" took a lot out of me. I'd welcome guidance on how best to proceed, avoiding protracted and pointless process. As it is, this morass is demanding many more hours than I can afford.MarkBernstein (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your help at Talk:lift(Force), but it appears the issue wasn't adequately explained in the request for closure - a formal request for closure was filed at Project Aviation talk page, but no one acted upon it. After a week or so one of the editors took it to AN/I, where one of the regulars there punted it over to the requests for closure noticeboard without adequately explaining the issue. You picked it up from there.

Since it's the first thread on the page it is understandable why you would think we were at odds over "humans cannot fully explain why airfoils generate lift", but that discussion had run its course and no further action was needed. It was not the issue that prompted the request for closure or the post on AN/I.

The issue is: should the following statement appear in the article:

"The resulting force upwards is equal to the time rate of change of momentum of the air downwards."

That's what we are trying to settle, and unfortunately I'm not seeing us being any closer as a result of the discussion close. Should we just make a new request for closure, or is there some other course of action that you'd advocate? Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But in 2004 wouln't he have been "then serving", not "former" (He's "former" now in "2012")? Or do I need a glass of wine? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I know the answer: I need a glass of wine (they'd changed president by 2004!) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since you posted on my talk page, and I've been busy and haven't had a chance to respond. I'm unclear why you posted. It was an unsolicited comment from someone who, as far as I know, I haven't run across before. And given that the topic was an uncivil editor who likes to throw f-combs at other editors, I'm not sure of your point or, more significantly, why you were concerned. I would like to think it is not that you condone editors cursing one another with the variations on the word "fuck", although if so, I do hope you don't come back and start cursing at me or post more unwelcome comments — as I said, I don't know you and I don't know why you felt it was necessary to post something like you did to the talk page of a perfect stranger. I would note that the admin involved in that issue is himself the subject of an ANI brought up by editors other than me.

Hopefully, now that you've said your piece and I've said mine, we can go our separate ways and not cross paths again. That seems like the most peaceful thing. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me break my chains, even if you did not intend to do it in quite that way. I'll probably see you again when I a septuagenarian!

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.
2. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
3. For her actions discussed in this case, Carolmooredc is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
4. Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
5. Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.

   If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.

   If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.

   The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block.

   Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

6. Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic. Neotarf is also warned that complaints about usernames should be made through appropriate channels and that further accusations, as well as unnecessary antagonism, may result in sanctions.
7. For their actions discussed in this case, and in particular for adopting a consistently hostile attitude to other contributors, Neotarf is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
8. Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warned not to create articles regarding editors he is in dispute with.
9. Sitush and Carolmooredc are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
10. SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s actions regarding Carolmooredc have led to a 1-way interaction ban imposed by the community following a noticeboard discussion. [16]
11. Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from the Gender gap topic.
12. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Hi! Thanks for your work on Joseph Rodney Moss. That page will be evaluated in 7 or (given the size of the backlog at WP:CP) probably more days. Just a note for the future: if you want to work on a rewrite of a copyvio-blanked page, could you please do so on the specific sub-page provided rather than working on the article itself? (to get there, click "show" to the right of where it says Otherwise, you may write a new article without copyright-infringing material. Click "Show" to read where and how) That means that whoever deals with the problem can easily compare the new version with the old, and decide whether the rewrite should be moved to replace the existing version. What you've done will probably be just fine (and please don't get me wrong, any help with copyright cleanup is always welcome!), but it is, technically, out of process. Given that there's been some criticism of my actions and/or judgement in listing this particular article, I won't in any case be closing it myself. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. 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) 00:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started an official page move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I wonder, can you close the merge discussion here now? No activity for getting on for three months now.

Talk:Interplanetary_contamination#Merger

Robert Walker (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is separate thing, totally unrelated to the other one. Just thought I'd mention it while here. Robert Walker (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say, thanks for closing it. I didn't know that we were expected to publicize it on the project talk page. Anyway in this case I think the other editor just lost interest in the discussion. Good to have it closed though, as that's a chance to move on from the merge and do a bit more editing of the articles, just minor editing, wanted to get rid of the references section which I have just done which the other editor wanted me to keep for the duration of the discussion.

I'll be surprised if he wants to re-open it, but will see. Robert Walker (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, this is a question about user conduct.

There is a big discussion going on and an RfC, so not expecting you to say anything about that. Just about the user conduct issue.

It is particularly clear in case of Karma in Buddhism. It was a mature article, worked on for many years. User:Dorje108 worked on it for eighteen months starting in spring 2013 before this incident.

User:Joshua Jonathan had never previously edited the page, and never commented on its talk page either. He doesn't appear in either history as far as I can see before these edits. Though he has been a wikipedia editor of articles on Buddhism for years.

Diff for Karma in Buddhism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&diff=635624203&oldid=632340477

He has turned a mature article into an article best described as a reasonably credible first draft - but with many errors in it.

Here is his summary of his changes, which he posted as a "clean up" after he had finished his work rewriting the article. He didn't post anything before or during it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism#Summary_of_clean-up

He also applied the same approach to the Four Noble Truths, diff here:

For Four Noble Truths: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&diff=635891831&oldid=629066305

And this is what User:Dorje108 says about it.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Recent_re-writes_of_key_concepts

So - User:Joshua Jonathan has his reasons. Basically he thinks that these articles should rely on the work of a small group of Western academics and he doesn't think the Eastern references to Tibetan and Thervadhan scholars should be used here, or their views expressed in these articles.

He calls all these Eastern scholars "primary sources" that, he believes, should only be cited in Wikipedia as primary sources and understood as filtered through the lens of the Western academics when they discuss their work.

He is undoubtedly sincere. We have a RfC on this issue, and there are currently three in support of use of Eastern scholars as secondary sources and three opposed to this.

But the user conduct thing is - that is it permissible for an editor to do such a radical rewrite of a significant article on Wikipedia without first discussing his edits on the talk page first?

Or, do we have a case for a rollback, just based on his conduct, and to require him to present his changes one at a time, for discussion by Dorje108 and anyone else who is interested? Or is there any other form of action we can take in this situation? He is not interested in rolling back of his own accord, have asked him several times about that.

I'd like also to mention that Dorje108 has ceased contributing to Wikipedia on Buddhism since this event which destroyed most of his contributions to the encyclopedia for the last eighteen months. Did nothing for a month or so and has now started this RfC to clarify policy on secondary sources which seems to be the main issue. Also that he is a non contentious editor, collaborative in style, good at working with his fellow editors. Even User:Joshua Jonathan agrees on that.

I don't want to do any action right now. Just asking for information. If you think we have a case for some form of action, I will report to Dorje108 and see what he wants to do and take it from there.

BTW I have never edited either article myself except to fix one broken link in the Karma in Buddhism article. I am writing this as a reader who is concerned to see what I considered an excellent article, one of the most scholarly articles on Buddhism in wikipedia in my view, "wrecked" in this way.

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been "discussed" over and over for the past few weeks. Here's my "offer of truce". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, just to clarify, I don't want you to comment on the RfC or on whether Joshua Jonathan is justified in his edits.

It is just a question on whether this is a user conduct issue based on the diffs and history and this action of an editor rewriting a mature article without any prior discussion on its talk page first. In case of the 4 noble truths article, I wasn't following that - but the diffs show that it was a similar story, a sudden quick revision of the entire article without previous discussion. Though in that case he had discussed some of the issues before on its talk page. Still he did a major revision without discussing step by step his reasons for making such a radical change to a mature article.

In case of Karma in Buddhism there was absolutely no discussion on the talk page at all either before or during the edits. Is this sort of behaviour permitted, or encouraged for mature articles on Wikipedia - or do we have a case for a rollback just based on the user behaviour. That's what I want to ask about. The articles were scholarly in presentation, and well cited throughout as you can easily check. His "offer of truce" is just a suggestion that I stop discussing this issue. Robert Walker (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I have been asked to look at two unrelated issues, a merger about space exploration and Karma in Buddhism. I will look at both. I will point out that, as a Catholic, I am uninvolved in Karma in Buddhism and will try to be objective. I will look. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are unrelated, thanks for looking at them! Robert Walker (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CANVAS, the request from Robert Walker was nowhere near neutral. It is thus canvassing.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, okay trying again hope this is clearer.

User Conduct issue - revision of an existing mature article into an almost completely new article that resembles a "first draft"

It is about user conduct for User:Joshua Jonathan. He recently edited two articles on Four Noble Truths and on Karma in Buddhism. I first became aware of this for Karma in Buddhism.

It was a mature article, worked on by several editors, first created in May 2006. Most recently worked on by User:Dorje108 who worked on it for eighteen months since spring 2013.

This is what it looked like before his edits. Please just notice that it is a mature article with an extensive list of references - see all the citations at the end and how every section is fully cited:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&oldid=632340477

And this is the diff, where what I want you to notice is that User:Joshua Jonathan deleted most of the article and rewrote what was left so that there is almost nothing left of the original

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&diff=635624203&oldid=632340477

And - if you look at the history of the talk page and the article itself, he had never edited it before as far as I can see. Also, he never commented before his edits. Just edited the whole thing into what is essentially a new first draft of the article according to his views of what he thinks it should be like. And then posted a "cleanup summary" when he was done.

He did the same with Four Noble Truths, diff here:

For Four Noble Truths: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&diff=635891831&oldid=629066305

There he did have prior discussion, of some of the issues - but he did a major rewrite of the entire article without discussing all the edits one step at a time first with the other editors.

And this is what User:Dorje108 says about it all.

"Jonathan’s method is to quickly re-write an entire article without warning or discussion. He leaves no opportunity for other editors who have worked on the article to explain or justify the current content or structure of the article."

See "Methods" under: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Recent_re-writes_of_key_concepts

Dorje108 has stopped editing these articles or contributing to their talk pages as a result.

So my main question is - is this user conduct acceptable. Is it permitted for a user to make such extensive changes to a mature article without discussion? Do we have any resource to any procedure to do something about it? Can we ask for a rollback? Or any other thoughts or suggestions? I have asked him if he will consider a rollback voluntarily of his own accord but he is not interested in that idea.

About the RfC

So also mentioning the RfC but this is not the main focus of my question unless you have thoughts on it also.

He sincerely thinks that he has improved the articles. The reasons behind his method is the subject of a RfC on the Karma in Buddhism talk page, with currently three in favour, three against.

This is how Dorje describes his methods again:

Jonathan is currently asserting that texts by Buddhist writers and teachers (who do not have Western academic training) should be considered primary sources. This means that, from Jonathan’s point of view, the vast majority of actual Buddhist teachers and writers are not reliable secondary sources. You can view Jonathan's opinion here: Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism#Sources.

I completely disagree with Jonathan on this matter. I find this position to be biased and completely unsupportable based on the wiki guidelines. If we follow Jonathan's logic, then the Dalai Lama is to be considered a primary source on key topics in Buddhism (even in a text that is written specifically to explain these topics for a Western audience), but an obscure academic should be considered a secondary source, and thus to be given more weight. - Dorje108 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the RfC: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#RfC:_Are_texts_written_by_Buddhist_writers_and_teachers_that_explain_basic_Buddhist_concepts_reliable_secondary_sources.3F

Conclusion

Is that clearer? Sorry that I use so many words. This is as short as I can make it. Just want advice at present.

Is there anything we can do other than the RfC, can we do a roll back, any other thoughts that may help? Not asking for action right now, just advice. If there is a possibility for action then I think it should be up to User:Dorje108. So I offered to ask you about this as I know you are expert in user conduct issues, and report back to him. See: User_talk:Dorje108#User_Conduct_for_Joshua_Jonathan

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see some canvassing between the 2 Roberts.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Robert M. has previously been so kind to help Robert W. around with the do's and don'ts of Wikipedia, when he was running into similar problems. That was appreciated by Robert W.,a nd he trusts Robert M. He's asking for guidance, wants to know if there's a user-conduct problem with my edits of "karma in Buddhism" and "Four Noble Truths". That's all. As far as my personal experience goes, it's good to ask for help. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's it exactly, thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not Canvassing. I am simply asking for advice on user conduct. Robert McClennon is someone I recognize as an expert in user conduct on Wikipedia, this is nothing to do with trying to find support for either side in the RfC or arbitration in it or anything like that.

It is about the rapid editing without discussion on the articles. The RfC obviously is the way to deal with the disputes of content.

This is my main question:

Was it okay for Joshua Jonathan to take an existing mature article, and to rewrite it without prior discussion on the talk page. When the existing article was a scholarly detailed article with many citations, and one that has been edited for many years by previous editors to reach its mature state?

Can we ask him to revert pending resolution of the RfC or pending discussion to resolve the problems on the talk pages?

I would have thought there must be some rule or guideline or procedure to deal with this, otherwise the main articles in wikipedia would continually get rewritten by enthusiastic editors who are convinced that their way of presenting the article is far better.

Is that so? Or if this happens do we have no recourse at all and have to let editors do this?

Is that clearer? What the issue is?

• Article for Karma in Buddhism before his edits showing that it was already in a mature state - with 132 citations, 77 sources and 17 web references: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&oldid=632340477

• Diff, showing how the article was totally rewritten without prior discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&diff=635624203&oldid=632340477

• Similar diff for Four Noble Truths: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&diff=635891831&oldid=629066305

Any questions be sure to say!

Robert Walker (talk)

Are you? They won't be back on that IP and, even if they were, they couldn't care less. It seems like just more officiousness for the sake of it. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Territories without all provisions of the Constitution applying are today called “unincorporated” in the judicial sense. Of course, all provisions will never apply until territories are made states. But historically territories have been made “a part of the United States” at citizenship and self-governance.

“Incorporation” is a judicial doctrine to establish an internal tax on island sugar, so territories were deemed “foreign in a domestic sense”. Later the doctrine was extended to restrict application of constitutional provisions until Congress extended them to the territories. No databases use the judicially “incorporated” 50 states, DC and Palmyra Atoll as the standard.

To become a part of the United States by Congress is another issue, which I have approached from a historical perspective, supported by legal scholars, political scientists and current executive, legislative and judicial sources. Possessions have had a military governor, unincorporated territories have had a governor appointed by the president…POLITICALLY incorporated territories have three-branch self-government under federal courts as the modern day territories do have. The five major territories have the same delegate Member of Congress as the “incorporated” DC.

To avoid all the internal distinctions, the Encyclopedia Britannica since at least 1911 continues to report the U.S. as consisting of states only, now 50 states --- but without including DC and the five major territories until discussing territorial extent. Most U.S. databases use "50 states and DC".

But scholars Van Dyke and Sparrow include 50 states, DC and five major territories as "a part of the United States", so I thought to improve WP by using secondary sourced information per wp:psts. --- older≠wiser thinks I may have a point for the Infobox area and population, which I would compromise to footnote with "50 states and DC" figures, but he believes that the territorial status is too "murky" for me to prevail in the article narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, while it may seem that the discussion at the Talk:United States RfC is only between me and TFD, there are some 20 interested parties on the subject of the scope of the United States.

Participants in the RfC include Robert McClenon, TheVirginiaHistorian, Golbez, TFD, Collect, Wzrd1, RicJack, older ≠ wiser who is Bkonrad for notifications, Alanscottwalker, Khajidha, Mark Miller. Then also, there was discussion on including territories in the U.S. geographical area just prior, including additionally OuroborosCobra, RightCowLeftCoast, VictorD7, Elvey, Student7. Others who may be interested participated in discussion on the previous dispute resolution last year, include Gwillhickers, Noleander, Mendaliv, VictorD7, Buzity, older ≠ wiser, TFD, Golbez, RightCowLeftCoast, Collect. Some overlap, I hope I haven’t missed anyone. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although you notified me of an upcoming Request for Mediation directly, I have not yet received notice otherwise on my Talk page. How is notice delivered for the ten listed? Does it wait until the RfC is closed? Who does it? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "United States". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 December 2014.

Did you know?

Basic table editing is now available in VisualEditor. You can add and remove rows and columns from existing tables at the click of a button.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on table editing and performance. Their weekly status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. Upcoming plans are posted at the VisualEditor roadmap.

VisualEditor was deployed to several hundred remaining wikis as an opt-in beta feature at the end of November, except for most Wiktionaries (which depend heavily upon templates) and all Wikisources (which await integration with ProofreadPage).

Recent improvements

Basic support for editing tables is available. You can insert new tables, add and remove rows and columns, set or remove a caption for a table, and merge cells together. To change the contents of a cell, double-click inside it. More features will be added in the coming months. In addition, VisualEditor now ignores broken, invalid rowspan and colspan elements, instead of trying to repair them.

You can now use find and replace in VisualEditor, reachable through the tool menu or by pressing ⌃ Ctrl+F or ⌘ Cmd+F.

You can now create and edit simple <blockquote> paragraphs for quoting and indenting content. This changes a "Paragraph" into a "Block quote".

Some new keyboard sequences can be used to format content. At the start of the line, typing "* " will make the line a bullet list; "1. " or "# " will make it a numbered list; "==" will make it a section heading; ": " will make it a blockquote. If you didn't mean to use these tools, you can press undo to undo the formatting change. There are also two other keyboard sequences: "[[" for opening the link tool, and "((" for opening the template tool, to help experienced editors. The existing standard keyboard shortcuts, like ⌃ Ctrl+K to open the link editor, still work.

If you add a category that has been redirected, then VisualEditor now adds its target. Categories without description pages show up as red.

You can again create and edit galleries as wikitext code.

Looking ahead

VisualEditor will replace the existing design with a new theme designed by the User Experience group. The new theme will be visible for desktop systems at MediaWiki.org in late December and at other sites early January. (You can see a developer preview of the old "Apex" theme and the new "MediaWiki" one which will replace it.)

The Editing team plans to add auto-fill features for citations in January. Planned changes to the media search dialog will make choosing between possible images easier.

Help

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• Translations of the user guide for most languages are oudated. Ukrainian, Portuguese, Spanish, French, and Dutch translators are nearly current. Please help complete the current translations for users who speak your language.
• Talk to the Editing team during the office hours via IRC. The next session is on Wednesday, 7 January 2015 at 22:00 UTC.
• File requests for language-appropriate "Bold" and "Italic" icons for the character formatting menu in Phabricator.
• The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please sign up for their research program.

If you would like to help with translations of this newsletter, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Meta.

Thank you! WhatamIdoing (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:SupremeSAT(Pvt.). 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) 00:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to the situation regarding the article Metropolitan (1990 film). However, I do not see how my assertions about user FelixRosch constitute "attacks." The user has continually reverted the text in the article to a summary which appears to have been written by a non-English speaker and is composed of grammatically and syntactically incorrect sentences. He has also refused to engage in dialogue about the article until other users "acknowledge him," and as a cursory glimpse of his talk page will show, has a history of abusive behavior towards other editors and administrators. I have put forth numerous good faith efforts to edit the page to be up to Wiki's quality standards, efforts which FelixRosch has repeatedly held up for no other reason than no one consulted him before edits were made to the page.76.31.249.221 (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your continued attention to this issue. I respectfully change my complaint of vandalism to an issue of competency as regards language difficulty. An examination of Felix's edits, which I have requested multiple admin to make, will reveal that his contributions to the page do not demonstrate a proficiency with the English language.76.31.249.221 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your compassionate efforts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On your user page you use non-existent template

((de-2)).

Did you intend the following?

This is a courtesy message to inform you that the proposed decision has been posted for the Historicity of Jesus arbitration case. Constructive, relevant comments are welcome on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk).[reply]

Have a bright Hawaiian Christmas!--Mark Miller (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that it will help, but I'd like to try your suggestion of the Dispute Resolution Board. However, it's asking me to name everyone involved in the dispute. There have been so many editors, I'm not sure where to start. What do you suggest?

Thank you.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Skamecrazy123's talk page.
Message added 21:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Skamecrazy123's talk page.
Message added 21:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Skamecrazy123's talk page.
Message added 21:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Follow-up comment: There have still been no filings at arbitration enforcement",[17] are they even allowed to file for AE while arbcom is considering whether to take a case? Or would that be seen as forum shopping? I don't see anything in the arbcom rules that says one way or the other. It's probably going to AE anyway -- I just don't see arbcom taking the case instead of instructing the participants to try AE first. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning United States, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/United States, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

Hello, I am the opening editor of this talk page discussion: Talk:Climate_engineering#Editing_disagreement_over_soot_particles. I have been away for a number of weeks but now I'm back and therefore was about to succinctly respond to User:JonRichfield's argument today, when much to my shock, I noticed just yesterday you closed the discussion, which prevents me from responding. I understand where you got the impression that there is a bit of a consensus on the topic of including the word "firestorm". However I really have no idea where you got the impression that a "rough consensus" had been reached with respect to not mentioning "nuclear winter conditions", as the peer-reviewed papers explicitly use those exact words! Why anyone would think that they know better than the original scientists, and push the view that it is acceptable to bastardize sentences that appear in peer-reviewed articles, stripping them of their important facets, is beyond my comprehension.

Moreover, to omit those words would completely mislead readers on how the black soot suspended in the stratosphere would cool the ground temperatures. You yourself seem to not really understand this either, to clarify, it is by means that are not at all like the mechanism by which white sulfates cool the surface by solar radiation management. Instead the "nuclear winter effect"(or more accurately, firestorm winter effect) produces an anti-greenhouse effect with black soot particles, which is completely unlike how the reflective particles, like white sulfates, go about producing true solar radiation management. To use an idiom, the difference really is like night and day.

So, if you could simply revert your closing of the discussion and allow me to insert the short paragraph that I prepared in response to Jon's argument, then that would progress the discussion much faster than your advice to take this to the dispute resolution board. You will hopefully note that each time I had made an edit to the discussion, I pinged Jon on his talk page to let him know.

I'm here, ready to contribute from now on every day, and not be distracted by other factors as I had before.

Simply wishing to expedite the editing process, and not get bogged down in the slow bureaucracy here.

To end, If you're reading this before or after the new year, and I won't catch you until afterward, then I wish you and yours the very best for the new year.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you have not responded to me, instead using your time to send me a generic "welcome to wiki message" on my talk page? I had thought that message was a ping to indicate that you have replied here, instead you have not replied here and it seems, you are simply sending me the equivalent of spam mail.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@92.251.172.194 (I wish you would get yourself a handle or something, these numeric codes are IMO strictly for emergency use). I am not really the one concerned in this, but with deference to Robert McClenon's role as the caller of the RFC, I suggest that:

• The closing of the RFC discussion at this stage had little to do with your presence or absence at a season of holidays and confusion; it was mainly that the general tenor of the discussion had favoured a course of action that was practical and acceptable to most of those consulted.
• Closing the RFC did not muzzle you in any way; you still are free to add a new heading below the (closed) RFC and add any new material that you please. The RFC is not the article, after all. If anyone finds your views persuasive, they can continue the discussion until they have produced a cogent argument. I, obviously, consider that the current situation is cogent, but I do not argue that it is conclusive, so there is no reason for you to refrain from comment.
• Note that being cited does not lend a source any particular authority; it simply permits the reader to assess the available secondary material for himself, should he so desire. I for one think that the source was very thoughtlessly phrased in any case, no matter what the "original scientists" might or might not have known, and whether the original was peer reviewed or not. Peer reviewed publications generally are reviewed by humans, not gods, and on occasion are very cursorily or even incompetently reviewed. As editors it is our duty to apply our own judgement and ensure that our judgement is defensible (or indeed to pull in our horns if we are persuaded that we had been guilty of misjudgement). Furthermore, the question of whether it is "acceptable to bastardize sentences that appear in peer-reviewed articles, stripping them of their important facets" is not pertinent, even if it should happen to be defensible; quotation in context need not be complete; all it needs is to quote or even to paraphrase those parts relevant to the document in question. And that in fact is what I think was done this time.
• I also have nothing to do with correspondence between you and Robert McClenon, but I suspect that you have misinterpreted what you have seen as spam. Things would be easier if you got yourself a handle and a properly set up talk page to go with it. JonRichfield (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apology I don't know how I wound up here (SNAFU of some sort) I see that 92.251.172.194 also wrote on my talk page. If you, Robert McClenon don't want all that clutter on your talk page, please feel welcome to delete what I said. (You should see what I received! :) ) JonRichfield (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon! Attempts to minimize drama on the Reference Desks need to be done with both long-term and the short-term views. Reminders concerning the appropriate use of the Desk do aid in long-term improvement as readers are reintroduced to the rules. Gentle reminders aid in the immediate-term as well.

While the OP certainly escalated tensions unnecessarily, your initial note could have been gentler while still serving its long-term purpose. I've unboxed the question, but have hatted the mini-argument, with a title stating that further article improvement should be done on its talk page, and a link within the hat to the WT:RDS section you opened. Boxing should only be done by uninvolved editors or administrators, and I think that it could be argued that boxing the entire question only after the OP showed his attitude toward your initial note was not entirely appropriate.

I have no personal investment in this (other than wishing to reduce drama at the Reference Desks, both long term and short term) and will take no offense if anyone modifies my actions.

Let me take this opportunity to also thank you for your contributions to the Reference Desks (and, presumably to the rest of Wikipedia, though such contributions are not as obvious without searching through your contributions). After reading several of the Desks for a good time now, I've come to associate particular names with particular quality of answers, and I associate your name with high quality answers. (Not that I (yet?) treat your contributions on the same level of someone like Obsidian Soul, whose responses I'd seek out and read even if they were on a subject that I'd not normally be interested in. We really do have some outstanding stars who contribute to the Desks!)

Cheers! -- ToE 03:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert M. Recently you left an alert using ((ds/alert)). Technically the alert wasn't needed because that person was notified back in 2008, which the text of the case log still shows. The 'old' alerts issued prior to 3 May, 2014 are still in effect through 3 May, 2015 and such people shouldn't be renotified until after that date. The guidance for alerts is at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. Now that it's been done it's probably not necessary to do anything more. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) (Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk))[reply]

ARBPIA rules, having edited in that area for some 8 years. I appreciate gestures intended to remind editors of those rules, but I assume, perhaps wrongly, that at this stage I do not need to be notified, unless my edits show sign of incipient Alzheimer's disease. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]