User talk:Castncoot/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

March 2016

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Donald Trump. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I simply restored a large amount of content deleted by someone else. Go take it up with that editor. Castncoot (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Westchester

Hey,

Though I appreciate all the work you've done on the county and related articles, the 'nickname' field of a county or city infobox is meant for a term in common use for the area, e.g. the Big Apple or Windy City. I'm a current resident of Westchester, and I've never heard a single person call it Biochester, nor can I find any source that deems it a common term.

It appears Westchester Magazine made up the term. I therefore don't even think the term should be mentioned at all, considering Westchester Magazine's strong trend/bias towards promoting Westchester. In this sense, it also could, in certain cases, be deemed an unreliable source.

As well, in any case, the source doesn't even establish Biochester as a common nickname. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities requires that field to only list common nicknames. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a common nickname (not yet, at least), but it is a nickname. There is no evidentiary justification to call the cited publication an unreliable source. I looked in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and couldn't find the requirement about commonality of nicknames in infoboxes which you mentioned above. If you can find that, then I believe it would be reasonable to remove it from the infobox. Castncoot (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I can easily find examples of how Westchester Magazine is not a reliable source. It's a biased magazine, geared for entertainment towards moms and families. It's not a neutral informative source like large newspapers, scientific journals, or government publications are. Please recognize the difference. Also, on WPCities, both the US and UK guidelines mention it. As well, I wouldn't even consider it a nickname. The magazine coined a cute little marketing term, but nobody has or will use it to refer to the county, so it's just silly to put it as a nickname on Wikipedia. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Both the US and UK guidelines ask for notability (which this definitely has), but do not ask for commonality. I've heard the term used on air in conjunction with Westchester County's recent biotech developments, so it is a nickname that's gaining traction. Are "moms" and "families" somehow less intellectually inclined than "dads" and "singles"? I've seen publications from that media outlet, and they all speak seriously enough. Even, hypothetically, if the term originated with that magazine, all new nicknames have to originate somewhere; and in this day and age, digital media has removed the distinction between "magazine" and "newspaper." I'm not convinced by your argument. The term is certainly notable and reliably sourced. Castncoot (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

(←) I would appreciate if you would provide more sources to this nickname. One is simply insufficient to establish notability. As well, infobox space is valuable, it's often the first thing a reader sees and has no room for non-essential information about the subject. I trust that through your experience you should know this. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Chinatownscape"

Hi, I wanted to talk to you about the section heading "Chinatownscape", which you added to the three NYC Chinatowns' articles. It does not seem like a proper word. We can rename these sections "Street scene" and use {{anchor|Chinatownscape}}. What do you think about this? epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What a coincidence you sent me this message! Look at your talk page.:) Best, Castncoot (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 April

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 Manhattan 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) 00:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported Bergen County edits

Regarding your recent edits. Despite the repeated efforts to link to New York City-related articles, Bergen County is in New Jersey. Source NYCJewstoBergen1 mentions Brooklyn once, in the context of flow to Deal in Monmouth County. Source NYCJewstoBergen2 mentions Bergen County as one of several destinations from one neighborhood, with no mention of numbers. Simply put, these sources don't support the "significant" claim made in the article and have been reverted. Alansohn (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no effort of any sort here, let me assure you. I guess you didn't read (at least one of) the sources carefully. Source NYCJewstoBergen1 clearly mentions numbers at the top and indicates that Bergen County has the highest Jewish population in New Jersey and also indicates migration from New York City to Bergen County. Whether or not there is also migration from NYC to other areas of New Jersey is irrelevant to this article. Source NYCJewstoBergen2 indicates migration of Russians (Jews and non-Jews alike) moving from Brooklyn to Bergen County; unless the number was significant, The New York Times wouldn't have noted it in the first place. Maybe "notable" would be a preferable term to "significant"? Certainly WP:NOTABLE criteria has been met. Exactly what number of migrants would indicate "significant" to you (and how many sources)? Together, although there may be a modest degree of WP:SYNTHESIS (which, by the way, is not an absolute contraindication to a statement), the statements are justified. In any case, you've blanket-reverted the edits, which was not called for here, at minimum given the absolute fact of Bergen County having the highest Jewish population in New Jersey. In your justified concern to get the statements correct and well-supported, I would also advise you not to delete constructive information from the article. Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I should also note, for current as well as future reference, that Bergen County should not be viewed solely as a county within New Jersey, but should be additionally viewed more broadly as a core county within the New York City metropolitan area. Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

New York

This edit summary was incredibly rude and unnecessary. Watch yourself. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally find your tone borderline threatening and hostile. There was no reason for you to initiate this with your over-the-top edit summary over a relatively small, innocuous, and good-faith edit. If you had phrased it initially by not using the words "excessive" and "violates" (over and above the Undo) over such a tiny edit, this wouldn't have happened. Anyway, let's both move on with some learning from here, thanks. I have no desire to dwell on this. By the way, I did appreciate your technical edit, the hatnote is definitely better now! Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

My tone was hostile in my previous message because I don't appreciate my good faith edits being called "obnoxious". I fail to see how I was being hostile in any of my edit summaries. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote for New York (state)

Hi Castncoot, I think the hatnote for New York (state) is a little short and doesn't fully clarify the things that can be referred to "New York." In particular, Manhattan ("New York, NY") and New York metropolitan area ("the New York area") can be referred to as "New York." Can we discuss whether these can be included in the hatnote? Thanks in advance. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should wait on the move to be overturned first. Clearly the move was a serious mistake. Nobody refers to either of these two subentities as "New York" by the way, and in fact, the second one actually includes New Jersey and Connecticut. Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Castncoot: Thanks for your response. As a NYC resident, I just assumed that people might refer to the NY metro area or to Manhattan as "New York" for the reasons I stated above. Regards, Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit at Talk:New York (disambiguation)

G'day

after some deliberation I think I must complain to you about this edit. It appears (perhaps unintentionally) disruptive. I have asked for comment on the page itself [1] and received one reply there that appears to confirm my concern, but no comment from yourself.

Please do not fix it now, that would be even more confusing. But please note the following points.

The edit in question ignores the stringing conventions, to which I have previously drawn your attention.

It misquotes me... a comment, signed by me, which you have copied seems here to be a reply to an unrelated post.

Lastly, it uses italics in a confusing and seemingly random fashion.

These all serve to make the discussion hard to follow, and seem to serve no other purpose.

I hope that is not your intent, but in any case, please desist. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course there was no intent to disrupt. I thought I was actually helping by following the italicizing that you had started. Sorry for any confusion there! Best, Castncoot (talk)

Well, the italics just look like a mess to me. You have not followed my example at all, which used the italics together with links to indicate the original context of the signed posts. But that's only one of three issues... and since then you have again ignored the stringing convention.

Please note that accidental disruption is stlll considered disruptive (wikilink above). Andrewa (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Further disruption

I am sure you have noted this edit by User:R'n'B with the edit summary fix peculiar indentation that gave the misleading impression that these were comments by more than one user.

I say again, please study and abide by the conventions of wp:thread. Your repeated failure to do this has made discussion more difficult to follow, and is (however unintentionally) disruptive. Andrewa (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC) d

Andrewa, I really have no idea what you're talking about. I'm placing comments as I have for years. Can you enlighten me as to what you're trying to point out? And why is it that nobody else has ever said this before (and what exactly are you saying, anyway)?

If anything, you're the one who has commented in two totally different sections on that page, giving the deceiving appearance that two separate editors support a move for two different reasons, when it's just you. My pattern of editing simply makes the paragraphs clearer. You have done this same thing before.

So I would appreciate if you would look in the mirror and analyze your own disruptive behavior before you characterize another editor on their talk page as being disruptive. Thanks. Castncoot (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Baseless accusations of disruption are themselves disruptive, of course... whether by me or you. A diff showing where I have done this same thing before would be helpful, and also diffs showing where I have given a deceiving appearance that two separate editors support a move for two different reasons. Andrewa (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request

I have reverted your edits to Talk:New York/July 2016 move request because the discussion is not open yet. Please wait until the request has actually been made to add your comments. bd2412 T 13:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: Oh. I didn't know it wasn't open yet. Okay, when does this period start? Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I see, it says July 14 at 2200. Thanks for the notice. Castncoot (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Have another look at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request and particularly Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Argument and evidence in opposition to moving the page which now reads in part This section is now open for editing.

I had to ask user:BD2412 to clarify this, see User talk:BD2412#Talk:New York/July 2016 move request, and as I now understand it, these first two sections have the function of a move rationale, and so are to be completed before the move is open for discussion. They will then be closed and the later Discussion sections opened.

So, I'm hoping you will add your arguments and evidence to the appropriate section. You might want to copy some or all of your material from here (if you need help doing this I'm happy to advise - be careful not to edit the old version of the page, that could make you most unpopular!). TIA Andrewa (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned

I am concerned that despite widespread support for relisting, there has so far been no input at all at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Argument and evidence in opposition to moving the page, which has been open for some days but will shortly be closed and the new move opened for discussion. Please consider whether you have a case to put. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. Real life has been hectic. Best, Castncoot (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:One World Trade Center#New infobox image

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:One World Trade Center#New infobox image. Thank you! ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 19:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Copying content

Hi, just a word on copying content from one article to another. First, it is perfectly fine! We are free after all. The only requirement is attribution, meaning, just say in the edit summary where it came from, with a link back to that article. This edit summary I added is all that's required, though for completeness there are other things you could do, add talk page templates, etc. You can see those at WP:CWW. Just a heads up for the future, and thanks for your work! Crow^Caw 18:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that was implicit in the forks, was it not? Castncoot (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• To a certain degree yes. The license we publish under though, needs it to be explicitly noted, with attribution given and a specific link back to the source. The actual license text says something about all authors need to be attributed in the new article in the same way as current contributors are, which the WP lawyers have decided is met by a wikilink in the edit summary. A minor difference, but one that is needed to keep all the legalities appeased. Crow^Caw 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of LGBTQ Americans in New York City for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article LGBTQ Americans in New York City 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/LGBTQ Americans in New York City 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. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 September

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 West Village page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (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) 00:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Do you live in NYC? Some of us here meet regularly as described at WP:Meetup/NYC. If you are near and could join it would be nice to meet. Or have we already met? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for the invitation, but I don't. Thank you for your kind invitation, however, and I should note that I do admire your work. Best, Castncoot (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

In particular, see the relevant policy at WP:RMUM (last paragraph). Stickee (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

To make it explicitly clear: "if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in... [section that describes how to make an RM]". Stickee (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Who are you? Castncoot (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Please withdraw allegations 29 September 2016

Please withdraw these allegations, as previously requested. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This relates specifically to the allegations linked to above. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allegations by User:Castncoot. Andrewa (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on the article talk page. However it would be better to discuss it now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allegations by User:Castncoot. TIA Andrewa (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Archived

The discussion at ANI has been archived [2] to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Allegations by User:Castncoot. Apparently there's no provision for notifying either of us, and I don't know if there's any way of closing it now! (Sound familiar?)

So I guess you haven't been given a stern warning or even a warning that further such accusations without evidence will attract a block, but I hope you will note that uninvolved contributors User:Blackmane and User:Kleuske did recommend such actions, and you're the only one who called my raising it at ANI nonsense. Andrewa (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no protocol that prevents you from undoing the archive and bringing it back to the main ANI page, should you choose to do so. Blackmane (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Blackmane... I've decided this one has gone far enough, consensus was clearly that a warning was appropriate even if no admin has actually issued one.

See also User talk:Andrewa/New York New York New York New York#Personal attacks etc. Andrewa (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Trojan horses

You have again accused me of preparing a Trojan horse.

As I have previously reminded you, a Trojan horse is a deceptive tactic. I strongly reject the claim that there is any deceit here. Please refrain from describing my good-faith edits in those terms. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Andrewa, you're trying to stifle my free expression here. I have to be able to vigorously and unimpededly express my thoughts. I have deliberately worded my sentence without accusing any given editor. If you're going to reach one step beyond that, I cannot help it. You can't have your cake and eat it as well. That would set a dangerous and chilling precedent for Wikipedia. Rather than complaining, just justify what you are saying as your response or rebuttal. Castncoot (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not trying to stiffle your valid free expression. But the article on Trojan horse to which you linked ledes off The Trojan Horse is a tale from the Trojan War about the subterfuge... (my emphasis) and I'm afraid I regard that as another personal attack.

You are of course correct that my new essay at wp:PTI is part of the groundwork for an eventual RM to move the New York State article away from the base name New York. I make no secret of that. I never have. Do you wish to dispute this?

If not then please moderate your language. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing a double standard all around here. You are able to criticize and accuse me viciously (and have done so) ad nauseum on several pages, yet I cannot criticize you. By the way, I deliberately did not use your name in my statement, but you take great liberty with ostracizing me openly. You can deprecate the essay on HLJC, yet I cannot do the same with this one, which you now admit is a plant to try to move "New York" (which I doubt will ever occur). Castncoot (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of an example of my personal attack on yourself. TIA Andrewa (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Just one example: [3]. For you to say this without evidence is horrific. I believe you owe me an apology for this, wouldn't you agree? Castncoot (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. But I am certainly leading with my chin if I have made a personal attack on you at ANI! Would you like evidence to back up what I say there? Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Andrewa, I have a lot of commitments in real life now that I have to attend to. I don't have further time to spend here at this time. If you continue to keep up a conflict, you're going to get both of us blocked. I suggest that you cool off here and that we both keep moving. Castncoot (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It would certainly not be the first time that someone has found themselves the one blocked as a result of raising an incident at ANI. But I'm hoping you won't be blocked either. I am hoping you will cease making personal attacks. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added a link to this discussion from the open discussion at ANI. [4] Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I can provide evidence to support my statements myself by providing diffs, but I'm not in the least interested in going that route. I will try to be more sensitive to your sensitivities (unless that is a strategy of yours to limit vigorous argument from one with another viewpoint), and would request the same of you, although to be honest, I am perhaps not quite as sensitive as you are. If I occasionally "cross your line", try to deal with it good-naturedly or just point it out rather than running to ANI. Best, Castncoot (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not my sensitivities that concern us here, but Wikipedia's fundamental policies. Otherwise there would be no point in my raising it at ANI.

If I have offended your sensitivities then raise it on my talk page, as I have done with your conduct.

You have now been twice warned, once of a possible topic ban [5] and now of a possible block [6] (well, so far you've just been warned that you may be warned I guess). Doesn't that tell you something about the limits of vigorous argument here?

I personally thrive on vigorous argument. But here there are rules I need to obey, and they are good rules, because we want this to be a safe place for those who are as you say sensitive. Compared to the rules at Citizendium they are not very restrictive at all, but I try to abide by them and I expect others to do so too. Is that unreasonable? Andrewa (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Is Citizendium active? In any case, we will have to agree to respectfully disagree to some extent (and there's nothing wrong with that). There were also other editors on both sides of the move discussion who became equally boisterous during the move discussions, and I believe I'm being unduly singled out here. (I'm not about to cite examples here, as I really have better things to do.) Please look up sensitivity and specificity. Sometimes in the pursuit of specificity, you lose sensitivity, and vice versa. You can't get it perfectly in sync every single time. To stifle argument in the name of overcompulsive civility, on the other hand, sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not foolish enough to get blocked, and so I will just have to watch my step a little more compulsively. But at the same time, I'm going to hold you to your word that you will not to try to tactically suppress expression of viewpoints that don't jive with yours. Castncoot (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not personally active on Citizendium, but others are. I think it's fair to say there is doubt as to its future, but it's still there so far, perhaps barely! Wikipedia did not have a smooth start either.

Happy to disagree respectfully. That means you accepting my good faith and that of others, and ceasing personal attacks. Doesn't it?

Do you really think that accusing me of preparing trojan horses is to disagree respectively? Do you see the implication of deceit? Have you withdrawn that? Will you now do so?

Agree that others may have crossed the line. This is not about them. This is about you. (But of course if you do cease personal attacks and accept good faith, it will encourage others to do likewise, and conversely, the more you protest your right to abuse others, the more others will be encouraged to follow suit. And if you believe that I or others have crossed the line, you have exactly the same remedies available as I do.)

Agree that to stifle argument in the name of overcompulsive civility, on the other hand, sets a dangerous precedent. Object strongly to the implication that I am trying to do that.

I have not given my word that you (I) will not to try to tactically suppress expression of viewpoints, but I am happy to do so. But I object strongly to the implication that I ever would, or ever have, indulged in such tactics. Others may have. This is not about them.

Unless, of course, you feel that it might apply to you. You did launch an attack [7] on the second of the panel to give an initial response, while the third was still to respond. I think you should ask yourself some questions. Best. Andrewa (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

What would you like me to withdraw, Andrewa? If it'll make you feel better, I'm happy to do it. And how does one withdraw a statement? I've never done it. Castncoot (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

How to withdraw

Several methods, but here's one model:

I think C is either dead or married. - A

Only a fool would think that, she closed seventy-three RMs just yesterday. - B

Please, don't personalise this. I don't lurk on RM, and she hasn't posted on WikiProject JellyBeans or responded to pings for several weeks, which is out of character. - A

Apologies, I've struck out my comment. - B

Accepted. I should have checked her contribs! - A

Oh for Pete's sake you two, I've just bought a puppy! And the RM backlog seemed a bit more urgent than your pings (you could both give me a hand with it). - C

Does that make sense? Andrewa (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat. I'm a little leery of what I've gotten myself into by offering this, but I'll keep an open mind. :) Castncoot (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

What to withdraw

Watch this space, I'm thinking. Thanks for the offer. Andrewa (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:REMOVED

Hello Castncoot. This edit where you restore a comment that the other person has already removed is against the guideline in WP:REMOVED. Your edit summary was "Deleting my constructive entry from your talk page doesn't constitute a justifiable edit or response. Please don't do this again." This edit summary is way out of line if you consider what is written in the guideline. There may still be time for you to remove the post in question. Your comment remains in the talk page history and you can still link to it with a diff, if you want to prove that you left that message for him. Thank you EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I wasn't aware of that. In fact, I thought it was just the opposite, that he couldn't remove a constructive comment from a talk page. Thank you for informing me, I can remove that, not a problem. Would you like to step into the case in place of the the admin I had initially contacted (User talk:Alison)? They might be on a Wikibreak now. Best, Castncoot (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there may be no need to. You might want to just hover – thanks! :) Castncoot (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Information about the religion has no problem being added in good articles in wikipedia such as Texas. Why is the article about the State of New York banned for religion?.

This user Castncoot is a world-class vandal and this user considers that reliable information about religion should not be included in the article.

Information about the religion has no problem being added in good articles in wikipedia such as Texas. Why is the article about the State of New York banned for religion?.

Then the article about religion in the United States should also be eliminated. According to the ignorant users information about religion should be banned in all the articles of all the States of United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ControlCorV (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The 2014 Pew Religious Landscape Survey showed the religious makeup of the New York City metro area was as follows:

Religious affiliation in the New York City metro area (2014)

Affiliation	% of New York population
Christian	59	59
Catholic	33	33
Protestant	23	23
Evangelical Protestant	9	9
Mainline Protestant	8	8
Black church	6	6
Mormon	0.5	0.5
Jehovah's Witnesses	1	1
Orthodox Christian	1	1
Other Christian	0.5	0.5
Unaffiliated	24	24
Nothing in particular	15	15
Agnostic	4	4
Atheist	4	4
Non-Christian faiths	16	16
Jewish	8	8
Muslim	3	3
Buddhist	1	1
Hindu	3	3
Other Non-Christian faiths	1	1
Don't know/refused answer	1	1
Total	100	100

User:ControlCorV, the more imminent question is, why are you edit warring rather than getting consensus? If you've posted it on the Texas article as well, then you need to get consensus for it if you want it posted if other editors object on grounds of WP:UNDUE or WP:POV. I'm not a significant editor of that article, but I would object to its being there as well. Sourcing is not the only criterion for eligibility for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The information added has to meet standards of neutrality as well. Not all content on any individual source, reliable or not, meets eligibility for inclusion in a given Wikipedia article. Please revert it from the New York metropolitan area article until you get WP:CONSENSUS for it – it is your WP:BURDEN – are you not even aware of that? Castncoot (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I have not added any information in the State of Texas. You're a vandal who just likes to annoy users who make good edits in wikipedia. I've always been a person of good faith in wikipedia. --ControlCorV (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've never encountered you before today. Since when have you been "following" me? Castncoot (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If you're supposedly a "person of good faith in Wikipedia", then please 1) revert your edit on the New York metropolitan area page, as the same edit has already been reverted on the New York page by another editor, given that you don't have WP:CONSENSUS for this edit; and 2) stop personally attacking me (with nonsense, by the way). Castncoot (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It is sad to find people like you that make life more difficult for good editors on wikipedia. It is sad to find people like you supporting vandalism and destruction of information that complies with the requirements of the principles of good faith. --ControlCorV (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

References

October 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New York. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I nearly blocked you. Although you may not have exceeded 3RR you were certainly edit warring. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

MSGJ: I tried to reason but was mendaciously cornered into a no-win situation with User:ControlCorV, whom you did block. Now am I allowed to finally revert his edit on the New York metropolitan area page, which he put up there without consensus and which same edit was reverted by User:Oknazevad on the New York page for the same lack of consensus? Also, did you see the personal attacks that this same editor has leveled against me on this page? Best, Castncoot (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Collapse

I have no time to figure it but perhaps you can find help reading the manual (ha!) or asking at various help places. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No prob. I thought you would know since you suggested it, but thanks. Castncoot (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Flood of edits to Manhattan

As seen here, you made more than 70 edits to the article for Manhattan in the span of less than 24 hours. Many of these edits make trivial changes, down to a single character in several different edits. This flood of edits makes it hard for any other editor to comprehend what it is you're doing. Please keep on editing, but the more that these edits can be grouped together, the easier it is for other editors editing these same articles. Alansohn (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I do try Alan, but my brain simply doesn't work that efficiently at all times. Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why you called me a possible vandal?

Can you explain why you called me a possible vandal? --Jayron32 21:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That was my impression. You deleted thousands of pertinent longstanding lede bytes in a major article without consulting with Talk and getting consensus. What else would most think? I found that action extremely bizarre, akin to a possible vandal. Castncoot (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that you're an admin. Obviously you wouldn't have vandalized the article. Thanks for noting your good-faith intention (although it doesn't change my assessment of the actual article content). Castncoot (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I replaced a block of text with a similarly sized block of text. You should look at the definition of vandalism at WP:VANDALISM and should probably promise to yourself to never use the word again if you cannot use it correctly. Doing so is likely to get you in trouble in the future. --Jayron32 04:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I looked it at your added content carefully, and it's fantastic; I don't believe the NYC content should be deleted, however, secondary to due weight issues, but this is being discussed at the article's talk page. I think if you hadn't made such a drastic change without consultation in the first place, this interaction would have turned out differently. I've re-added your content. Again, my apologies. Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Silicon Alley". 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 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Silicon Alley, 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.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Nomination of Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area 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/Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area 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. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Castncoot

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Castncoot. May your house be safe, and may you and those having the privilege of your company enjoy good health in a Happy New Year 2017! Kind regards, — Sam Sailor 02:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

Thank you!!! Best, Castncoot (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

нιp нιp нooray.... нappy new year — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryaprabha (talk • contribs) 12:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Castncoot (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Castncoot. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 04:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Revision to Borough (New York City) article

Hi. Pdeck2013 here. I respectfully disagree with your having undone my contribution of 9 December 2016 to the "Manhattan" section of the "Borough" article and hope that you will see fit to reconsider and restore it. The section to which I added what I wrote (noting how Fifth Avenue is the east-west dividing line in Manhattan as far as street addresses and building numbers, fairly useful information to those unfamiliar with the city) ALREADY spoke of dividing Manhattan into Lower Manhattan, Midtown, and Upper Manhattan regions, including the approximate dividing lines. etc., and mentioned certain neighborhoods. So I don't believe that what I added in one sentence was excessive detail. Pdeck2013 (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I looked at it again and arrived at the same conclusion. The summary Borough (New York City) article has highly limited real estate and cannot accommodate the detail of your beautifully written one sentence. The other remaining information already there is either fundamental and/or interrelates with another borough, namely Marble Hill and its relationship with both Manhattan Island and The Bronx. I simply believe that your edit was inserted into the incorrect article! Why don't you just insert it (or add on any missing material from the present content) into the Manhattan article? Castncoot (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Catalysis edit

I reverted a change you made on Catalysis because the version that you created was not correct. Catalyst inhibitors do one thing and are not the opposite of a catalyst. JSR (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. Castncoot (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Silicon Alley Biotechnology RFC closed

I have closed a RFC you participated heavily in here. The result was that biotechnology should be excised from the article on Silicon Alley completely. If you have any questions or concerns about this closure, please feel free to discuss them with me on my talk page. Thank you. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Polyamorph (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Anglicisation of Tamil

Copied from Talk:Tamil language#Anglicisation of Tamil by user 2know4power (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

This is a continuation of anglicisation of Tamil recent talkpage note, copied here for continuity's sake. Regd: permanent link with image . This article has a large image (400px), File:Saravana Bhavan.JPG attached to it, with note (image caption) reading "Anglicisation noted in Edison, New Jersey, U.S. on one of the most popular overseas branches of Chennai-based Saravanaa Bhavan, the world's largest Indian vegetarian restaurant chain. Tamil script is displayed as an adjunct translation of the English spelling."

1. This reads like promotional material.
2. This appears to be not very relevant to the article "Tamil language" & this section's photo gallery.
3. This article " Tamil language" has featured article status, shown by a star on the top right hand corner on the article's page & seen as its template within wikiEd box.(FA also includes good article status). This image may detract from it.

So per guidelines, WP:PROMOTION, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, this image permanent link with image may need to be removed from this article. Thanks, User 2know4power (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC).

Hello User:Castncoot, Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Your hard work for 19,000+edits make Wikipedia great. Regarding your contribution to article Tamil language,in the spirit of working together & trying to build consensus:

New content here:

• Removed here by me, diff 1 with edit summary: (→‎Geographic distribution: Unattach Img saravana bhavan jpg- reason see Talk:Tamil language#Regd-File-SaravanaBhavanJPG.27s relevance .26 may be promotional purpose)
• Originally attached by User:Castncoot here diff 2 with the same image caption.
• Reattached here by User:Castncoot diff 3 with edit summary: (Undid revision 758953425 by 2know4power (talk) rv gf edit; demonstrates anglicisation well; doesn't appear promotional, that chain is already WP:NOTABE).
• Minor change in image caption (from 'most popular' to 'busiest') here by User:Castncoot diff 4with edit summary: (→‎Geographic distribution: reword to allay potential WP:NPOV concerns; still WP:NOTABLE) to "Anglicisation noted in Edison, New Jersey, U.S. on one of the busiest overseas branches of Chennai-based Saravanaa Bhavan, the world's largest Indian vegetarian restaurant chain. Tamil script is displayed as an adjunct translation of the English spelling."

I recently found the tool 'wikiblame' at article's revision history page which helps to find out who contributed what.

The concerns about this image caption are:

• What I meant in point 2 above was, for article Tamil language, a hotel's business success is not very relevant. I should have been more clearer. The photo size was large (400px) & not in the section's very relevant gallery with foreign currency notes having Tamil script, as smaller pictures.
• Translation is transferring word meaning form one language to another, but the words in those languages will be different. Transliteration is same word 'sound', but in different writing systems. Here the word 'sound' "Saravana Bhavan" is nearly same in both words. They are not words from different languages. It is transliteration from Tamil to English, not translation from English to Tamil as stated by User:Castncoot.
• Per article anglicization, the change is not minor but more drastic. Here an extra 'a' at the end of first word (English 'Saravanaa Bhavan' Vs Tamil's 'Saravana Bhavan') may not be a good example of it. Thiruvallikkkeni to Triplicane seems to be good one. Anglicisation of Thiruvallikkeni to Triplicane can be attached to the article.

So, because of all these concerns File:Saravana_Bhavan.JPG may need to be removed from this article. Thanks, by user 2know4power (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

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

Manhattan

added a link pointing to Bank of America Tower

New York

added a link pointing to Bank of America Tower

Skyline

added a link pointing to Bank of America Tower

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5