Open main menu

Please comment on Talk:List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimesEdit

Please comment on Talk:Miranda LambertEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miranda Lambert. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Promotional editingEdit

  Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Frequency Therapeutics. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Pleaase be aware that I am pretty close to seeking a topic ban for you, with respect to editing about biomedical companies. I do not have time to deal with the carelessness in the discussion (diff Ok. I didn't realize that that was the sentence you're taking issue with) when the diff cited is very small), where you were not even looking at the content under dispute, much less the dreck content you are "defending". Completely careless, completely promotional. Our article about Cipro is way out of date but i get pinned down by this kind of incompetent, promotional garbage. Not for much longer. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: - Please do what you feel you need to do. I don't think my editing is promotional. I have no personal link with the subjects of the articles I'm editing, and I'm curious why you think I'd be seeking to promote them.
I do appreciate your concern about being cautious when using sources that may have COI's. I think in my most recent response to you I indicated a willingness to properly qualify facts attributed to said sources.
On another note, I'd encourage you to consider discussion before wikilawyering. Frankly, I don't think the content change you're looking for is that different to the one I also think is appropriate. It's a tad annoying that you don't seem to willing to come to consensus through discussion. NickCT (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
this is not a narrow "lawyer" thing, this is a mission thing. You add way to much promotional dreck about companies and you are out of WP:ROPE with me. If I find this kind of promotional garbage from your hand again, I will seek a topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring to keep itEdit

Your recent editing history at Frequency Therapeutics 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 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. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

After a single revert? Really? Don't think we might be jumping the gun with the obnoxious warning messages? NickCT (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • diff your original addition, 16 June 2017
  1. revert to keep it diff 16:40, 16 January 2018
  2. revert again diff 20:04, 16 January 2018
  3. revert again diff 21:22, 16 January 2018

You are edit warring to retain spam-driven promotional content. Shameful. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you seek to discuss the topic before reverting? NickCT (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Technically, you added the spam to WP. You reverted to restore it. You should have instead opened a discussion per BRD as to what was wrong with it, and listened. Instead, like most editors who come to WP to promote things, you have blindly edit warred to keep the garbage. Whatever. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
What do you think my impetus is to promote the topic in question? NickCT (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea why you are hyping things, and I don't care. What I know is that you are hyping things. I know this from 1) the content - badly sourced (primary sources, press release, churnalism) ; 2) the behavior - adding it in the first place, and blindly edit warring to keep it. This is what people who come here to promote things do, content and behavior wise, all the time. That is the only way I can know. I can show this with diffs. You violate WP:PROMO all the time. Content and behavior. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Generally, people promote things because they are fans or haters ("veganism is great!!!") or they have a financial conflict of interest. Somtimes industry people come to WP who are used to press-release-like writing and are in some context where press releases matter, and they bring that crap into WP. I have no idea what your deal is. I don't guess. Sometimes I ask. I have not asked you. There has not been a clear enough case with one company to justify it. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 in scienceEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 in science. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

NoticeEdit

  This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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 that 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.

Alexbrn (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: - Well that seems inappropriate. Do you use templates b/c you have trouble conversing? NickCT (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The template is required as a precursor to WP:discretionary sanctions. You have been warned. Alexbrn (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: - Oh no! Really? Wow. I guess I'm warned then. Isn't there some rock you're meant to be under? NickCT (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Now asking...Edit

Due to your persistence at Frequency Therapeutics, I am now asking...

Your recent contributions are focused on Frequency Therapeutics, an article you created and have been the biggest contributor to. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

  Hello, NickCT. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requestsEdit

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Frequency Therapeutics, directly or through a third party (e.g. an economic development agency, an investor group, or a PR agency or the like working for people connected with the company)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: - This seems like a slightly disingenuous question as I recently told you that I have no relation to these folks. It's beginning to really weird me out that you continually seem to infer or insinuate I do. Please cease. If you don't believe me, go post to some appropriate noticeboard. Also, please cease posting to my user page. We're trying to address a content question which is probably best addressed on the talkpage of the article in question. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Seth MacFarlaneEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Seth MacFarlane. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018Edit

 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Frequency Therapeutics. 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. Note you are at 4RR already Alexbrn (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn - You are invited to cease leaving comments here Alex. NickCT (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SexEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sex. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Movement for Democratic Change – TsvangiraiEdit

Please comment on Talk:Peter ThielEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Thiel. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kate MaraEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kate Mara. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image RfCEdit

Because you have commented previously at other image RfCs, letting you know there's another one you might be interested in looking at here. Thanks,-- ψλ 20:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald TrumpEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A little noteEdit

Hey NickCT. Just wanted to say, while I do agree your points, it's not a good idea to call out others for their POVs. We all have personal POVs. There are some editors who are mainly POV-pushers on the mainspace but 90% of the time it doesn't help to actually say so and mostly just undermines future possibility of editors with different personal POVs reaching agreements. He probably hasn't read the comment yet-- you have time to edit it. Feel free to delete this message if you'd like.--Calthinus (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: - I appreciate your thoughts and agree with you to some extent and realize there might be civility issues. But the fact is that the editor in question is pretty grievously distorting the references and rules of Wikipedia to fit his/her own personal viewpoints. As you're no doubt aware, some editors tend to do this more than others. I think it's important that repeat offenders be called out or else what's essentially a disruptive behavior may never get sanctioned. NickCT (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Tbh I probably spend too much time on certain obscure geographical regions, where it is very, very difficult to avoid having to make peace with POV-pushers :/. In theory you're right, really.--Calthinus (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sci-HubEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sci-Hub. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Catholic organizationsEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Catholic organizations. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:NextdoorEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nextdoor. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Liberty UniversityEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Liberty University. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy SavileEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Savile. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

TalkbackEdit

Hello, NickCT. You have new messages at Talk:John_Taylor,_Baron_Taylor_of_Warwick#rfc_211B605.
Message added 21:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A new image has been added, may be you would like to take a relook DBigXray 21:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:TrypophobiaEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trypophobia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you may to read a comment made about you. See "That the RfC has been called "vague and poorly framed" by one editor". That's not accurate. Others have also complained about the vagueness of the RfC. Is it about that article or is it about something else. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Only one editor stated "vague and poorly framed." No other editor stated that. So there is no inaccuracy regarding my comment. I fail to see why you felt the need to post this on NickCT's talk page unless it's to start unnecessary drama. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject VirusesEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced and promotional editingEdit

this violated WP:V and WP:PROMO. You are still heading directly for a TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Grow up bud. This is the second time I'm asking not to post on my talkpage. NickCT (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of 7400-series integrated circuitsEdit

Nomination of Third Rock Ventures for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Third Rock Ventures 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/Third Rock Ventures until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. HighKing++ 14:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in NanotechnologyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, NickCT. You have new messages at Talk:Anesthesiologist#Request for comment on definition of anesthesiologist.
Message added 17:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kwekubo (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Monsanto Cancer Case RfC - text has changed, please reviewEdit

Hi there, please see amended proposed text here and let us know if you still approve, thank you! petrarchan47คุ 05:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of cities in IsraelEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of cities in Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ben ShapiroEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George SorosEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Soros. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David M. CoteEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David M. Cote. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, NickCT. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer AnistonEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Aniston. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour PartyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving to sectionEdit

== A query Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Giles == Hi, NickCT I suggested the deletion of this page, but was knocked back with my suggestions, yet you were the only person who agreed with me. I'm a little frustrated given that I'm new to editing Wiki and instead of diluting Wikipedia with people such as this (those in paleontology that really aren't deserved of their own page compared with the notable individuals I've mentioned previously), I wondered what you would recommend in terms of deletion for that page? I was quite surprised to receive such harsh comments from other users. Thank you. Xioa72 (talk) 12.39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Xioa72: - Hey buddy, I agree with User:Ifnord's close of the AfD. Consensus was clearly for keep. I agree with you that adding people like this "dilutes" Wikipedia. I think the fundamental problem is that the bar for notability of academics is just very low compared to other BLP's. I think this has come to be b/c academics love to think of themselves as notable and deserving of mention on Wikipedia. This is despite the fact that academics are usually the first to berate Wikipedia as an unreliable source.
Frankly, unless there's a change to how WP handles notability of academics, I don't think there's a good chance of this page will be deleted. You can always wait a few months and propose deletion again to see if consensus has changed, but I don't think we'll get lucky. Alternatively you could propose tightening rules for notability of academics, but there to I think we may have an up hill battle. NickCT (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving to section, as not sure a misplaced comment pings the user, apologies if I'm overstepping valereee (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, NickCT Xioa72, did you just make a Wikipedia account to take down the page about Sam Giles? What is it about her research that you don't like? Jesswade88 (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jesswade88: - I think your comment may be better placed on Xiao72's talk page. I certainly don't have a problem with her research. I just question whether she (and a number of other academics like her) really meet the spirit of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NickCT (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@NickCT: - happy to place a comment there too, but you clearly agree with him/her. Which biographies dilutes Wikipedia? Jesswade88 (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jesswade88: - Academic biographies dilute Wikipedia. As I said above, the way notability of academics is written it's a lot easier to be a notable academic than say, a notable architect or a notable artist or a notable engineer or physician or cleric. Wikipedia treats academics as inherently more notable than other professions, and I'm just not sure that's fair.
With all due respect to Ms. Giles, I can't see anything in her biography that might be of interest to the general public. It might be interesting to a small group of paleontologists, but Wikipedia is written for everyone. If we forget that, then we basically just become a site like LinkedIn, or some other platform designed to relay information about members of the public. NickCT (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@NickCT: That's an interesting take. I'm not a palaeontologist but still find it cool that it's possible to find new models of anatomy, even when you're so early in your career. I'm all for notable architects and engineers and physicians being on here. I don't understand how it dilutes anything, you don't need to search for palaeontologists if you don't want. Jesswade88 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jesswade88: - Don't get me wrong, I find it interesting too. But just b/c I find something interesting, that doesn't mean others will and it doesn't me it's an encyclopedic or notable topic. re "you don't need to search for palaeontologists if you don't want" - That rationale could be used to justify inclusion of anything, no?
You don't see how including articles covering non-notable topics dilutes Wikipedia? Hypothetically, if I wrote an article about a huge piece of lint I found in my sock, you don't think having that article would somehow dilute WP? NickCT (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello NickCT, I appreciate your taking the time to reply to me. I would have to say that I agree with everything that you have said above. To answer your question Jesswade88, not at all! Having been a long-time reader of Wikipedia, I felt it important to (finally) contribute something. It just so happens that Dr Giles was the first paleontologist who I came across that I felt did not meet the criteria for notability in this field. Whilst one would probably agree it is not ideal to begin my wikipedian journey by deleting a page, I opted for this suggestion to reduce dilution in a field that I have spent more than three decades. I cannot help but echo what Nick says here, that this individual, who I would agree has published a few good papers, is far from the mark of being a notable academic in this field. If Dr Giles is deserved of a page, then quite literally 100s thousands of scientists deserve to be on here, too. Jesswade88 Please do know that this is nothing against you, or Sam, and having read your profile I can see that you have contributed a significant amount to Wikipedia for which I think is fantastic. I think that perhaps being stuck in my traditional ways, maybe this wiki editing is not for me. Xioa72 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2018 (CET)
@Xioa72: - Don't get discouraged Xioa. No one is going to tell you that WP is perfect. If you've noticed an imperfection, start a conversation to help get it fixed. NickCT (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@NickCT: Thanks, Nick. That's greatly appreciated. I cannot help but feel discouraged, but I'll stick around and maybe just edit here and there. Thanks for your support. Xioa72 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2019 (CET)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityEdit

Please note the discretionary sanctions for American politicsEdit

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

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | talk 20:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Good Humor
While the big meanies suggested you strike it out this especially the first comment, was good humor deserving of a barnstar. I'll likely get in deep doo-doo for defending such a "personal attack" but well, if the truth hurts then so be it. MONGO (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@MONGO: - Thanks mate! I thought my response to User:BullRangifer was pretty fair and measured, but apparently Mel and User:Awilley, didn't. Anyways, for the record; Bull wrote me a very pleasant e-mail. It turns out he's a pretty cool guy. We've had a virtual handshake over the whole incident. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

We all agree to do our best to write well...we just don't agree on what that entails. Sometimes after even heated disagreements, a reasonable neutral compromise happens, but on an article like the one in question, while tempers and passions are high, its doubtful during the fog of war that this is possible, even if the effort to do so is both right and valient. Best wishes.--MONGO (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Ooh, if good humour barnstars are being handed out for comments on that talk page I think this deserves consideration. Also, @NickCT, I suspect that's fairly common. When you strip away the anonymity of the Wikipedia user handle and the pretense of arguing about something in a public forum, getting to actually know the person behind the username, you find out that they're actually a fairly normal person that has more in common with you than you previously thought possible. I was once in a year-long content dispute with an editor. At one point we took things offline and communicated by email and it was surprising how quickly we were able to work things out. We're now friends on Facebook. ~Awilley (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
That's been my experience, too. Nick and I have exchanged several emails, and we share many POV. I could use 90% of his userboxes on my userpage. It's often relatively minor triggers here that cause big disagreements, which shouldn't really be that big, because in reality they aren't. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald TrumpEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I feel like I know you...Edit

Are you from Connecticut? Would you like to participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut?

Also, you seem familiar. Are you involved in politics in this state? Just curious. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 05:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: - Yes, I am from CT and yes I would be honored to participate in the WikiProject dedicated to the greatest state in the union.
Other than having briefly met Chris Murphy and briefly canvased for Chris Shays, I have had no involvement in CT-related politics.
I've lived in DC for over a decade now, but was raised in Norwalk and still consider myself a Connecticut Yankee. NickCT (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
NickCT, ah gotcha. I thought for a moment based off your userboxes that you might have been someone I knew, haha. Either way, I am super glad to have you aboard Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut!! :D ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 23:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pamela GellerEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pamela Geller. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Psy-Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shabir AllyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shabir Ally. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suki WaterhouseEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Suki Waterhouse. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Otto WarmbierEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Decline in insect populationsEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Decline in insect populations. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SuperconductivityEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Superconductivity. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 Strasbourg attackEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 Strasbourg attack. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Indian general electionEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Indian general election. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Re your comment on "Backup"Edit

My ideal question would be "Should 'Enterprise client-server backup' be split into its own article, and—if I do that—can editors lay down a set of comments that will persuade 'new-to-the-subject editor' not to merge it back in to 'Backup' and dumb it down again?" The problem is that, IMHO for a combination of psychological and cultural reasons, "new-to-the-subject editor" simply won't listen to anyone's comments. I initiated a 3O, and he simply refused to respond to the Third Opinion editor. I'm hoping an RfC will have more influence on him, but I'm reluctantly prepared to go to Administrator's Noticeboard or Arbitration. I'd prefer not to get "new-to-the-subject editor" banned, because I think contributing to WP is an important part of his life, but I think that some of his conduct in connection with this and other articles would support doing so. As you can see it's a very tricky situation—which WP no longer permits dealing with directly via an RfC, and I'd appreciate any further advice you in particular can offer. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: - re "I'd prefer not to get "new-to-the-subject editor" banned" - Don't worry. You won't be able to.
My friendly guidance would be to remove your current RfC, and resubmit it. When you do, it should take the following format;

RfC Question: - Should 'Enterprise client-server backup' be split into its own article? (Date/Time)

  • Support - Nominator's rationale and interpretation of other editor's actions. (Data/Time/Signature)

Looking at Backup, the article seems too long, which generally means stuff should get split.
Also, quit with the new-to-the-subject editor shenanigans. Not clever. Not civil. Not convincing. NickCT (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions.
As far getting Pi314m (I think I can use his "handle" here) banned, look at the 4th paragraph here—the one beginning "Pi314m has a distinct fondness for 'cut-and-paste moves' that he calls 'mergers' ...." As that paragraph says, he was cautioned twice about that—the second time in 2018 by Matthiaspaul who said "If you continue these kinds of edits, they will have to be regarded as vandalism which may led [sic] to a block." As the last sentence of that paragraph states, Pi314m did a half-dozen of such "merges" into"Outsourcing" in the first 4 months of 2019, and of course last month he "merged" two other articles into "Backup"—deleting the entire body of the second article (and if that ain't vandalism I don't know what is). With a history like that, I'm not so sure I can't get Pi314m banned—at least selectively for "Backup" and any related articles.
And of course a selective ban would be sufficient for my purposes, just so long as it prevents his merging a separate "Enterprise client-server backup" article into "Backup" again with his "simplifications". When I call Pi314m a "new-to-the-subject editor" I'm not exaggerating; he truly doesn't know his a*s from his elbow about enterprise backup. Look at the single-sentence paragraph beginning with "Creating a synthetic full backup ...", which he added to the "Performance" sub-section of "Backup" as a replacement for my full paragraph on the feature. If you read Pi314m's sole reference in that sentence, it's a 2005(!) ComputerWorld article talking about enterprises' Recovery Point Objective being improved because synthetic backups allow them to reduce their "backup window" by doing incremental instead of full backups. If you read halfway down the "Full Backups Broken" paragraph in the ref, it says an outsourcer's senior storage architect found "it took him longer to perform a full data restore than it did to perform a full backup"—which means the Recovery Time Objective was actually increased because it takes longer to recover from tapes (which these days are likely to be off-site because of HIPAA/FDA/Sarbanes-Oxley requirements).
So how should I refer to Pi314m in the RfC? I previously got shot down on the article Talk page for using his "handle" in an RfC, and now you're saying "new-to-the-subject editor" is a "Not clever. Not civil. Not convincing" shenanigan. Pi314m is my real reason for filing this RfC, and I need some way to say that I need to protect a separate "Enterprise client-server backup" article from such actually-existing simpletons. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@DovidBenAvraham: - Look.... I'm not going to make a judgement on Pi314m's behavior. You might be right. But if you are right, you're not making your point a clear or succinct way. Just refer to him as "another editor". NickCT (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I forgot to mention that, when Pi314m makes "cut-and-paste moves", he does so without any preceding discussion on the merged-in article's Talk page—which survives when he redirects the merged-in Article page. That means in some cases he's deleting the entire content of articles entirely on his own say-so. IMHO that's against WP rules. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "NickCT".