User talk:ImperfectlyInformed/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Please comment on Talk:Debate on the monarchy in Canada

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Debate on the monarchy in Canada. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Permalink. Problematic failure to follow up on this request. No opinion on the question. II | (t - c) 17:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

your comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dunnet_(video_game)

Hi II, your comment was added on the 17th, which is after the relisting-action taken by User:DaveWild on the 16th. I've taken the liberty of moving your comment down to the bottom of the page, so that it doesn't get lost in the long discussion above the line. I also moved a similarly-misplaced comment made by 104.200.151.38 which was hidden inside one of the collapse-boxes. If for some reason you object to your comment being relocated, please feel free to revert me. Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That's a good idea. That discussion was such TL;DR that I put it above it, but I think you're quite correct that below is more visible. II | (t - c) 16:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Gasp! Someone has hidden away some of your AfD comments! Okay, no need to panic. It was me, who dunnit, after talking the move over with User:Czar. If you believe I've collapsed something that should have remained visible, or if you want to add a new summarizing-comment that states your position succinctly, please feel free to do so. Here is the tidying-up-for-excess-verbosity version of the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dunnet_(video_game). Thanks for your good work, talk to you later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Google

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Google. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Google/Archive 1#Google Play Movies listed at Requested moves - creation of a task force renaming Google->Alphabet. Should be automated. II | (t - c) 17:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Fine, then YOU fix it

See Talk:Trust law. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Permalink. We mostly fixed it. II | (t - c) 17:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:C/1980 E1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:C/1980 E1. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Permalink (because I don't know why this is in a subpage). Problematic lack of follow-up on my part, but fortunately others answered the call. The closure explains the situation well - 2 editors angry at each other. II | (t - c) 17:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Leschi (fireboat)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Leschi (fireboat). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Did not comment. Surprised (and sad) it had to come to a RfC: of course the mission statement could be included. II | (t - c) 09:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what discussion this was, but possibly Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_23#RFC:_Questions_about_RFC_closure_-_Country_of_origin which had no consensus. My opinion: probably best to leave it a contentious little phrase out and sidestep the debate. II | (t - c) 10:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gilles-Éric Séralini

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gilles-Éric Séralini. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Did not comment; no opinion. II | (t - c) 18:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Barrie R. Cassileth for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barrie R. Cassileth 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/Barrie R. Cassileth 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. Delta13C (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy keep. II | (t - c) 18:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Commercial general liability insurance

Hi ImperfectlyInformed. I see the new article on Commercial General Liability insurance. How is this different than the current Liability insurance article? I realize CGL is a subset of liability insurance, and liability insurance as strictly defined also means personal liability, and can cover automobiles and professional liability. Do you think that perhaps the "liability" article should be made more general, and much of the information moved to your article? I know a bit about insurance, if you'd like me to help out. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Good question! CGL corresponds to Liability_insurance#General_liability on that page, and could be summarized a bit better. I think the liability insurance article could perhaps be a bit more broad, but it is still fairly broad as it is. The employers liability, public, private, and product stuff on that page is not exactly CGL, although CGL can end up covering product liability. CGL will never cover employers liability. Also, the liability insurance article doesn't cover professional liability really at all. Basically the liability insurance is a very incomplete article.

I'd love your help! :) If you look at my recent contributions I've been doing a lot of insurance stuff in the past few days, and it would be good to have someone check it over if you've got the time. Unfortunately, my energy on insurance is somewhat spent. I used to work in the industry, but I transitioned out some time ago into writing software. I'm trying to get my knowledge into Wikipedia before it fades away completely, but I doubt I'll be able to continue spending energy on the topic. II | (t - c) 04:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 Chinese stock market crash

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Chinese stock market crash. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Did not comment; no opinion. II | (t - c) 18:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment at this RfC

RfC on the 'Veganism' article

Did not comment; no opinion. II | (t - c) 18:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

February 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Selenium (software), did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The sentence is unclear. Do not remove templates. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs), I've been editing Wikipedia for about as long as you. Have you never heard of WP:DTTR? If the sentence is unclear, fix it. There's no need to leave a template there forever. If you can't think of a way to fix it, the template should be removed. I can't see how it can possibly be unclear: Selenium RC is deprecated. II | (t - c) 01:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have but you're the second editor to remove the template without fixing the clearly identified sentence structure issue. I don't care what your problem with the English language is but if you don't want to read what an experienced editor says is wrong with the sentence (in order to get the original editor to fix it) then stay away from templates in general.

The sentence read

It is compatible with Selenium RC, which was deprecated, and is little-maintained.

and the template reason was

the wording here is confusing. Is the sentence about IDE or RC at this point?

So while both you and I know that RC was put out to pasture half a decade ago, it's still not clear if RC or IDE was little maintained. Did you miss the reason or do you think that other editors don't know how to use Wikipedia? assume clue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) If two people have removed it, maybe it's not so confusing. But hey, there's no reason to get upset on either end here, and we should try to be civil - after all, we're both volunteering to the sum of human knowledge. :) With that said, I did read the template - but I didn't see it as unclear, due to how I understand English. I suppose it could be confusing, but "which" is a relative pronoun which modifies the object next to it. So if I say "I was on the hill, which was muddy", it's basically the same thing. In no case should "which was muddy" be thought to refer to me ("I" in that sentence), even if it was changed to "which was handsome". Do you see what I mean? See here The Syntactic Functions of Relative Pronouns in English for more information. II | (t - c) 02:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, it's me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

What does that mean? And "never contact me again"?? I can see why your block log is so long. II | (t - c) 02:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Penny

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Penny. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Amway

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Amway. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The helping hand barnstar!

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to user ImperfectlyInformed for thinking about the concerns of editors, new and old, and fostering the development of editors. Thank you for your efforts in building the project. You are an awesome Wikipedian. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hilton Worldwide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hilton Worldwide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	...just an appreciation for all your wonderful work here at Wikipedia, and, importantly, for the spirit of kindness, as appears to be your nature warm regards (I'm French, we're warm; hope it's not embarrassing), Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 22:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder what might have prompted this? It doesn't seem like we've edited the same areas. Anyway, it is much appreciated. Cheers! :) II | (t - c) 17:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Proper citation of sources

Imperfectlyinformed, thank you for the words of encouragement and kind welcome!!

I've been an editor over at Dmoz for a few years now and thought I'd try something more challenging by moving on to Wiki pages. However, I am concerned with the integrity of certain editors on Wikipedia. I modified my last edit on the home insurance page because another editor decided that the source I used was not the original source of the information I provided in the table. I can assure you the source I provided is the only place on the internet that I could find with not only the complete set of data but also presented it in a way that met the criteria of not being "too technical for most readers to understand". Now I understand not wanting to use commercial websites as a source but I believe in proper attribution. If this website compiled the information and made it easier to understand than any .gov or .org I researched, I feel they should get credit for their work.

To prove my point I changed the information to match that of the new source the other editor provided. I'm sure we can both agree it was not as comprehensive nor was it as informative. I urge you to allow me to do my job properly and revisit my contributions with the proper citation prior to the edits made by KH-1. Raph3988 (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Raph3988 (talk · contribs), I actually side with KH-1 in that case. I looked at that Shift Insurance article and it didn't seem any better than the government article; it seemed pretty typical of what you'd see in a small agency. These types of websites often break and they're not typically as reliable. I think one of the things that we can accomplish is to make the Wikipedia content itself more readable, while using complex sources ourselves for citations. Also, there's the Simple English Wikipedia (with no simple:home insurance article over there) for really easy to understand information. I'm open to being convinced of otherwise if you think there's really something special about Shift Insurance, but I'm not seeing it. But again, don't be discouraged. And please try not to think in terms of questioning people's integrity - we try not to assume bad faith. I think some people would perhaps assume that you have a financial relationship with Shift Insurance given how strongly you want to cite them, but I'd rather not jump to that conclusion myself. II | (t - c) 05:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs), I'm not trying to convince you there is anything special about their site. I'm trying to defend MY WORK. I spent a lot of time and effort trying to understand the subject and figure out the best way to meet the wiki criteria of "making it understandable to non-experts". After doing my research, I found their use of tables to be the most relevant to my goal of "simplifying the concept without removing any technical details". Not even the III, NAIC, various .gov websites, nor .edu based research had a complete account of all the HO policy forms and their individual coverages in one place, so I gave them credit.

But look, I'm not here to argue. If you guys want me to ignore useful resources just because they are "small", I'll do it. Just don't expect me to use information from one place and cite another. I stand by my citation choice and am disappointed that I had to recreate the table with a less comprehensive account of the information. If you disagree, I understand. Raph3988 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Searle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Searle. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Heterodox economists has been nominated for discussion

Category:Heterodox economists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox organization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox organization. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder

Hello! Just wanted to remind you about the few questions I asked you at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Tap876vekadmetr0 . Thanks for your help, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Terry McAuliffe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Terry McAuliffe. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Mark Callahan

Thanks for creating! MB298 (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MB298 (talk · contribs)! II | (t - c) 02:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

TPG

most of this is inappropriate on an article Talk page. I ignored those aspects and will continue to. I am sorry that you can not see the difference between an edit note "this is spam" and "spammy; please build the article from independent refs". To answer this -- no; am uninterested in the opinions on appropriate behavior in WP from someone who wrote the first diff. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Very well. To me, it feels like you're digging in your heels in and insisting that you (even indirectly) calling me a spammer is appropriate behavior, while me calling you out on it is inappropriate. And even avoiding the use of spammer, shooting straight to reverting someone's edits is not cool. Not sure why that's hard for you to understand, but whatever. Next time, I'll raise my concerns about your behavior directly on your talk page. II | (t - c) 19:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Responding to this: the reason that I made this personal is that Wikipedia has a really awful reputation for unfriendliness, and these days I particularly have my eye out for these people as I've been trying to bring new people in. It's not personally that big of a deal to me, but I wanted you to personally feel the hostility that you bring to to others. If you're going to dish it out, be prepared to take it. Neither of us are going anywhere so we can bury the hatchet I suppose, but I hope you can figure out a path towards taking etiquette more seriously. It would be more pleasant for you and others. I'm not perfect, but I know for a fact that I'm less aggressive than you (admittedly, you do hard stuff that I'm not willing to do). II | (t - c) 20:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources

We should be using secondary sources. Just because a primary source has been cited by a secondary source does not mean we should than use the primary source? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, we certainly should not be using a "secondary" non-peer-reviewed source over a primary peer-reviewed source... that in my opinion is completely backwards. It's also not true that a research study does not summarize earlier research, and any study summarizing other research is by definition secondary. But let's talk about this on the talk page. II | (t - c) 10:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Would generally agree with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ImperfectlyInformed. 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)

Please comment on Talk:Graph database

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Graph database. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Mark Callahan

On 27 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mark Callahan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 2016 Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Callahan once ran for the Oregon House of Representatives under the Green Party label in order to siphon votes from the Democratic candidate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Callahan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mark Callahan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not respond in time (a problematic lack of follow-through on my part). It appears this was Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive 40#RfC for Article Name Change. I agree with the resolution to keep the name the same. II | (t - c) 17:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tourism in Georgia (country)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tourism in Georgia (country). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Permalink. I did not respond in time to (a problematic lack of follow-through on my part). Agree with the resolution. II | (t - c) 17:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Alkaline diet

Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the scientific aspects were split off into Acid ash hypothesis which is an agreeable solution. II | (t - c) 17:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Did not respond in time, and glad that I didn't wade into this. There were like 4 RfCs around this time (e.g., Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_55#RfC:_How_to_describe_the_popular_vote_outcome). II | (t - c) 19:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White privilege

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White privilege. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:DAT Solutions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:DAT Solutions. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Did not respond in time. Do not see a record of a RfC (?). II | (t - c) 19:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Business-agile enterprise

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Business-agile enterprise. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Disk storage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Disk storage. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Data are versus Data is ... eh. A mountainous molehill. II | (t - c) 19:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Help with article?

Hi,

I noticed you have been active on the article about the Pritzker family and I wonder if you might help me with an update on a related article, Adam Pritzker Pritzker is funding a new policy advocacy and political contributions group. I'd like to add a section about this to the article.

I am a consultant to Adam Pritzker, so under Wikipedia rules, I cannot make these edits myself. But I have written the suggested text and references here: Talk:Adam_Pritzker for independent review by an editor like you.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

BC1278 (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278

Please comment on Talk:President of Zimbabwe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:President of Zimbabwe. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Amicably resolved! II | (t - c) 07:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ImperfectlyInformed. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Frank Ackerman, Harvard PhD?

Hi, you created the article on Frank Ackerman in 2008, including the original claim that he was a Harvard '75 PhD in economics. Your source (now defunct) was www.e3network.org/srcdtl.php?cnID=64. Unfortunately this is not a reliable source. I tried to verify the academic record, but was unable to. Harvard Library does not have a record of a dissertation by Frank Ackerman (to be precise, I'm referring to a database entry like this). Could you please name additional sources? --bender235 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a nonprofit professional network does not suffice for a relatively basic fact like this. And it looks like it's cited on the page. But it's not something I've really got time to investigate or even discuss. Good luck! II | (t - c) 02:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the fact that a dissertation is not listed in the library of the very institution the person graduated from raises some eyebrows, to say the least. Anyone can put fake credentials on a random website. They are plenty of people claiming degrees from Harvard, Stanford, or MIT, who actually just attended a summer course (if anything). --bender235 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Had a look again: problem solved. Nevermind. --bender235 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Great!! II | (t - c) 05:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:American Flagg!

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Flagg!. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Iranian Majlis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Iranian Majlis. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The issues you recently raised

As to the first issue you raised, I was using a term that I saw as neutral to challenge non-native English speakers' edits that introduced entirely unnecessary errors into the encyclopedia. (It's not that hard to use Google Books to double-check prevalence of various usages to test one's grammar.) I have never seen it as offensive, but after careful reflection, I understand how some might see it that way and I will refrain from using that term in the future. As to the second issue, if the issue is the use of the word "troll" as unnecessary, I apologize for the poor word choice. I was concise at the expense of being polite. If you are saying there's anything wrong with pointing out that User:Arrivisto hadn't actually advanced any real argument on the merits, then we do have a problem. The only way we are going to build a more civil and productive Wikipedia community is to call out behavior that is not reasonably calculated to work towards that end. I acknowledge that one has to be diplomatic about it under WP:CIVILITY, but there is a clear distinction between arguments made in good faith with some reasonably coherent basis and arguments for which no basis has been provided at all. If you're saying that WP:CIVILITY requires humoring all proposals without any regard as to whether they have any logical basis or were even made in good faith, I'm not sure where one gets off that slippery slope. For example, I could change the articles on Barack Obama and United States to state that President Obama is currently serving a third term (which, of course, is untrue), and then it follows, if I understand your logic correctly, that anyone who criticized my edits would be in violation of WP:CIVILITY. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, I just remembered that you were responsible for restoring the non sequitur in State law (United States). You have still not responded to the discussion I initiated on the talk page. Please explain the point of restoring a clear tangent that does not fit into the context in which it sits in the article. What relevance does the printing of the statutes of Connecticut possibly have in the middle of a discussion of interstate (not intrastate) diversity of state law? --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Coolcaesar (talk · contribs), I really, really appreciate that you're taking this seriously. And of course I appreciate all the wonderful contributions you make on Wikipedia! Of course, you can continue to disagree, even forcefully. But the key is to focus entirely on the arguments and the content and avoid any sense of motive or personality traits of the reader. Of course, it's also good to be gentle when describing content - describing content as "nonsensical garbage" (which is similar the verbiage that you tend to use) seems unnecessarily inflammatory to me, but I'll be a bit less inclined to bring that type of language to Arbitration.

In going back on your history, I noticed that 3 Feb 2015 you were warned by TJRC (talk · contribs), and that coincided with the use of the word Engrish that day (diff). People have been dropping messages on your talk page about a civil tone for many years. Is it really going to be different this time?

Basically we should treat Wikipedia as much as possible in a professional manner. As I'm sure you've experienced, sometimes lawyers make mistakes. Do you say "your argument is garbage and full of non sequiturs" in court, or in a law office? Usually people are able to word their criticism in a professional manner.

Also, real trolls are looking for an angry rise - to go on a rant and throw out insults feeds the trolls. We should try not to do that. But in general we assume good faith - the user you called a troll a few days ago has been editing on Wikipedia since 2007.

Again, I really appreciate all your contributions, and I don't want to get you into trouble if we can help it. As you may recall, last I heard we lived in the same general area - you're welcome to email me and we can meet up in person if you'd like to talk about it. I can also let you know privately when I think you're being unnecessarily cruel so that we can maybe avoid ANI / Arbitration.

I'll respond to the State law comments over there, but if you want to get my attention and it's not on my talk page, best to actually notify me using that User template

{{User|<username}}

II | (t - c) 14:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Event coordinator

Hi, the English Wikipedia recently created a new user permission for editors involved in off-wiki outreach work, event coordinator. This new permission allows users to mark accounts for confirmed for up to 10 days, and also allows them to create accounts for events without rate limits without some of the features of the account creator right that aren't used at edit-a-thons and other events. I have added the event coordinator permission to your account and removed the account creator permission, as you appear to have been using it mainly for outreach work.

This should have no noticeable impact on your ability to create accounts, and will give you the extra ability to temporarily confirm accounts if you need to. For more information, you can see the information page on the right, or you can ask me if you have any questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, the vast majority of my edits over the past 11 years have been unrelated to outreach, so "as you appear to have been using it mainly for outreach work" doesn't seem quite accurate. Anyhow, thanks - actually, my outreach edits under this account are usually accidental... still trying to preserve a bit of anonymity. II | (t - c) 19:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem: if you don't need it, I can remove the right. We are switching over people who were permanently assigned account creator and aren't involved with ACC to EVC, the main reason other than ACC being outreach. Sorry if the template wording wasn't applicable here: there are a lot of accounts! Let me know if you need anything. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

hey – nice to meet you ^ _ ^

stussll (talk · contribs) Stussll (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-26

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• PAWS, our JupyterHub system, got an upgrade and a logo. Several bugs should be fixed.

Problems

• When a link text was in italics or had other formatting you could sometimes not edit it in the visual editor. This has now been fixed. [1][2]

Changes later this week

• Content translation users who translate between any two of Arabic, English, French, Japanese and Russian will be asked to be part of a research project. This is to create better tools for translating articles. [3]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 June. It will be on all wikis from 28 June (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 26 June at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 27 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

23:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Many thanks for your appreciation of my edits on the Tort page. Arrivisto (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Good Friend Award
		Thanks for helping to demystify the article creation process and for all you do to promote participation at the Wikipedia:Bay_Area_WikiSalon. Stussll (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)