User talk:Prototime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page! Please post new talk topics at the bottom of the page and use headlines. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. I will respond to your comments here. Thank you.
Start a new talk topic | Read archived discussions


Voting Rights Act of 1965[edit]

In the Voting Rights Act article, you made the following change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965&action=historysubmit&diff=561604715&oldid=561593510 Unfortunately, this adds uncited material that contradicts statements under the "Bail in" section. I'm particularly concerned that you added your sentence before a citation that did not support it. If you want to restore it, please put it after that citation and add a citation or a "citation-needed" tag. Such a citation should explain explicitly why the Section 3 jurisdictions are no longer covered. Note: I agree with your changes to the previous sentence -- keep up the good work. Mdfst13 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. The lack of a direct source for that particular sentence was a mistake in this instance, because elsewhere the same point has been sourced by SCOTUSblog. I have restored the sentence and added the source. (As an aside, note that the language of Section 5 references only Section 4; "bail in" under Section 3 imposes its own preclearance requirement, so the statement that "no jurisdiction is currently required to have any of their voting changes precleared under Section 5" is indeed correct, if a bit counter-intuitive.) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Section 3(c) vs. Section 5[edit]

I put it on the VRA Talk page but also wanted to say here how ashamed I am of not having recognized that you were correct and that I was wrong. Wikipedia et al. are fortunate to have you editing.Czrisher (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. It makes total sense to think that bail in would trigger Section 5, when I first learned about it that's what I assumed too. Nothing to be ashamed of! Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Democracy[edit]

I noticed from your user page that you're interested in democracy and related articles. It'll be at least a few months before I could get to it, but Democracy is an article I'd like to get to GA some day. I'm working on a lot of the most-viewed articles for WP Human rights, and that's often in the top 20. Would you have any interest in collaborating on that? -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out, I'd be interested in collaborating on that. I've actually put a fair amount of work into that article in the past, and I've been wanting to return to for a while because it still has a ways to go to get to GA status, particularly in its lack of sources. Like you, it'll be a few months before I could get to it though—my main focus currently is to bring the Voting Rights Act of 1965 up to GA status, and that'll probably take me well into August because I'm utterly swamped until the end of this month with other things. But do drop me a message when you want to start working on the article. In the meantime, our paths will definitely be crossing more on the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States article—which I wish I had even more time to contribute to, but at the rate things are going over there it will obtain GA status in no time. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Great, I will. And I appreciate the help at the 15A article--before this year, I mostly wrote biographies or book articles, so these law articles have been presenting me unusual challenges for research, terminology, and defining scope/assigning weight.
As for the VRA of 1965, feel free to ping me if there's ever a way I can help, especially with GA criteria questions. Good luck on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Definitely will do. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shelby County v. Holder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Lewis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Report[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Freedom of Speech for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Hope you have a great day. -buffbills7701

Obamacare Lead[edit]

Hey! Look, I know I'm being pedantic about this, and I don't want to appear to be edit warring, so I wanted to talk to you about it. So we've got the two versions:

  • The ACA aims to increase the quality, affordability, and rate of health insurance coverage for Americans, and reduce the costs of health care for individuals and the government.
  • The ACA aims to increase the quality and affordability of health insurance and to raise the number of insured Americans. It also aims to reduce health care costs for individuals and governments.

The reason I prefer the former is that rate is more accurate in a technical sense (by which I mean how it's referred to in policy) - if you check the Health insurance coverage in the United States page 'rate' is used frequently in relation to coverage, just as we refer to the 'unemployment rate' rather than the 'number of unemployed' - and to remove any ambiguity I had included the 'rate of coverage' in the hyperlink. I'd prefer to use the former because of that.

Also, as a side-note, I'm working on the 'Change in insurance standards' section and I hope to have something adequate finished shortly (which isn't to say it wouldn't require improvement), but once we've sorted this, the lead, and a bit I want to elaborate on the impact of Scott Brown's election (as it is a bit disconnected atm), I was thinking of nominating it for a good article - I was wondering about your thoughts on that? Thanks! =) Sb101 (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive my presumptuousness, but having finished the remaining edits I wanted to get done, I've changed the lead back to my version, on the assumption you are satisfied by my justification for it. If not, forgive me, and let's discuss the matter to sort it out. Otherwise, unless you have anything you still want to improve, I was hoping to nominate it for GA status now, as I'm satisfied with where it's at? (I am trying to sort out a couple of images and a video for the page, but they’re more bonuses than necessities). I intend to hold off nominating the article until I hear your thoughts.
Also, as an aside, I enjoyed your 'Tools of debate' section, and it reminded me of a post you might like: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/david-brooks-and-the-role-of-opinion-journalism.html Sb101 (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
You most certainly are not being pedantic (or if you are, it certainly isn't a problem; accuracy and clarity are important!). I agree that strictly speaking, you are correct: the term "rate of health insurance coverage" can refer to the number of persons insured. However, I do think that saying "rate of health insurance coverage" implies to lay readers "insurance rates", commonly meaning "premiums", and that this would be a source of confusion. While the wikilink can help to clarify, I don't think that readers should have to click it to understand what is meant. That said, I'm not especially attached to the language I added, and perhaps I am overestimating the potential confusion. So, how about this: let's keep your language for now. By all means, go ahead and nominate the article for GA status. I just ask that during the GA review, we see if the reviewing editor(s) bring it up on their own, and if they don't, then we ask them their opinion(s) as to whether they think it's confusing. If others think it's confusing, we'll change it (maybe, but not necessarily, to the way I had it); otherwise, we'll keep it. Sound fair? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I do understand where you're coming from, but suspect that you are overestimating the likelihood of confusion (not only due to the hyperlink and technical use, but also 'rate' in the singular suggests, I think, that it's not to do with premium rates, plural). However, I'm more than happy to get the opinion of a reviewer. If you do want a third opinion in the meantime, we could consult the talk page? Sb101 (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. I just didn't want to delay your efforts for a GA review, and (despite my premature placement of the banner on my user page) I will be on a total wikibreak for the next week (starting in a few hours), so I won't be able to participate in the conversation until after then. I see two options though. You can bring it up on the talk page now if you'd like and mention my concern with the current language, and then I'll join the conversation when I get back (unless consensus is overwhelmingly one way or another by then). Or, we can keep things as is until next week and I'll post on the talk page then. It's up to you, I'm fine either way. If you choose the latter, and a GA review happens in the mean time (which it probably won't, but it certainly can), I'd just ask that you bring up the concern then. Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll post something in the talk page shortly - that way we can be soliciting input while your away. And I'll be sure to bring it up, if we get reviewed in the meantime. Enjoy your wikibreak! Sb101 (talk|contribs) 06:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, sorry it took me so long to reply. Just notifying you that I've updated the PPACA talk page with my justification for the current language. Look forward to hearing what you think. =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 17:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I do think the article is a serious GA contender, especially given the number of reliable sources you have added over the past week. It could still use a bit of copy-editing, but its substance and sources are right on. Great work! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! =) Sb101 (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
And thanks for the article you linked. I'd love it if opinion journalists actually followed that advice! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"Uninsured rate"[edit]

Prototime, you're invited to provide feedback to a potential compromise on this issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey! Wasn't sure if I needed to say anything or not, but just in case, I expect you're also happy with me not bringing up the aforementioned issue with the reviewer now that we've settled it? (NB: full disclosure: I did just swap 'reduce' and 'lower' around but otherwise). =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 05:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, the issue is resolved as far as I'm concerned! Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead#Challenges[edit]

Hey, me again. Just wanted to raise a couple of concerns about that sentence. I don't think it's completely accurate to say that " Implementation of the ACA continues to face challenges..." as it implies only the implementation is the problem, when in fact the challenges (e.g. in the courts, and Congressional repeal efforts) are broader than that. I was thinking of changing it to "Since the ruling, the ACA has continued to face challenges..."? I was also wanting to re-add '... from state governments' because I *think* that makes sense grammatically (e.g. challenges in Congress, challenges in federal courts, challenges from state governments - since 'in' doesn't work for the last)? I thought I'd quickly check your thoughts about them? =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 03:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think "implementation of" is correct even when describing wholesale repeal efforts, and I figured it was slightly more descriptive, but if you are passionate about dropping it, go ahead. Concerning "in/from" -- grammatically, the first "in" before the first comma should modify every word after each comma in the series unless there's an explicit modifier before those words, so grammatically if you want to vary in/from it should read "in Congress, in federal courts, and from state governments." But I figured "in state governments" worked anyway and was more inclusive than "from", given that some states governments that are internally divided on the issue (e.g., Florida's legislature opposes the Medicaid expansion, while its executive branch supports it, so I'm not sure it'd be correct to say that the entire state government opposes it as the word "from" would suggest, but rather the legislature "in" the state government has challenged it). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Just before I reply to the points, I feel I should check that you don't my questions? Wouldn't want to become a bore.
Whilst implementation itself does face challenges (like the employer mandate; sections 5.2-5.4), opponents wouldn't be satisfied with implementing it 'right'; their objections run deeper (5.1, 5.5). I think that the sentence implies narrower grounds for opposition than is the case. Especially in context, it could read that the ruling ended opposition to the law itself. To make it more descriptive, I've tried: "Since the ruling, the law and its implementation have continued to face challenges in Congress, in federal courts, and from some state governments."
(Thank you for the grammatical correction). The reason I prefer from > in, is that the ACA faces a challenge from a state when that state [doesn't implement an exchange/Medicaid, is noncooperative, has an Attorney General with a lawsuit, etc.] regardless of which official(s) in it are responsible for that challenge or how unified (or not) they are. I mean, we usually refer to the course taken by a state as a whole even if parts of state government and electorate aren't in agreement with that approach, so it feels consistent. And since the effect is not confined to a state, but affects the federal government, that too seems to advise against 'in state govts.' Besides, since we do only say 'some' state governments, even if 'from' did imply agreement among a state government, it'd still be correct since some state governments are - and we disambiguate which in the article with references. Don't you love Constructive ambiguity? =P Sb101 (talk|contribs) 07:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
"From" should work too, not too big of a concern just so long as all the modifiers are there since they're being varied (as they are now). Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Belated appreciation[edit]

Despite the potential for editorial disagreements to become nasty, I wanted to thank you

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
For your consistently polite and constructive conduct Sb101 (talk|contribs) 20:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sb101: I just realized I never properly thanked you for awarding me this Barnstar and for your own civility. I do wish to return the appreciation, though now I am a bit belated myself! It's always a pleasure to work with a fellow editor who is dedicated and constructive when collaborating with others to improve Wikipedia. Thank you! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 14:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

PPACA[edit]

I still mean to reply to you about electoral systems; atm however I wanted to mention this: Innab's recent contributions. Now I've gone through and checked them and fixed ones I disagree (in a non-revert way), whilst I don't have a problem with many of them. But just a heads-up. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 17:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, though nothing looks too out of place. I'm just glad the edit warring seems to have ended. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor[edit]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "Enable VisualEditor. It will be available in the following namespaces: $1". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Voting Rights Act of 1965, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Lewis, Howard Smith and William Tuck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Million Award[edit]

Million award logo.svg The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (estimated annual readership: 2,160,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

Million award logo.svg This user won the Million Award for bringing Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to Good Article status.



If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Khazar2! I am honored to be one of the editors who helped bring this article up to GA status! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
It's good practice for if we do make a run at democracy someday! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Voting Rights Act of 1965, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Mitchell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for the welcome. ProudGamecock (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! Let me know if you'd like help with anything. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

no worries and thanks[edit]

no worries. it feels great to have some faith restored in the wikipedia way despite some petty squabbling sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.213.231 (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Absence and thanks[edit]

Hey! Apologies for my continued absence. I do intend to be back within the month. Truth be told, I was a bit burnt out. But I also have been swamped by work (I've been working off a deadline from when I last edited that will have my workload for this year ease after November 16th). I just felt I should mention, not only because I still intend to edit and maintain further (I'm sure there's several touch ups, and in particular I've been pondering the public opinion section and wonder whether/how much I should insist on the Kaiser video); but I didn't want you to think I'd done a 'dine and dash' and left you cleaning the dishes (well, you know what I mean... I think/hope =P ). So I thought I'd drop-by to thank you and DrFleischman for continuing to maintain it since we got it up to a good article (/high five!). =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 13:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Sb101; I'd get burnt out too after a two-month GAR! Thanks for the note, and I'm glad to hear you'll be returning soon. We can hold things down on PPACA in the mean time. What are your plans for when you return? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free rider (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

PPACA[edit]

Thanks for showing me where the "debate" was over the use of the word "myths". I didn't see it in the GA index. I, however, disagree, and intend to contest its usage. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I understand people will have different views about the use of that term, and I welcome further discussion. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBSchemer (talkcontribs) 21:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your Reverts on the Affordable Care Act[edit]

The change to the section (which you describe as "rolling back major changes" is only in its title, which is clearly a violation of Wikipedia's basic policy of the use of NPOV language. Another editor argued that the, the terminology could be described as a "myth" due to WP:Fringe. However, the language is clearly used in mainstream sources. In on citation, it is used by a professor of constitutional law, whose last three books were published in Cambridge University Press, Harvard University Press, and Yale University Press. Therefore we can't invoke WP:Fringe, and we are required therefore to used NPOV language for this section. Other than that, your removal of sourced and balanced content is simple vandalism. Avaya1 (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Avaya1, please discuss this on the talk page for the article (not just my user talk), where other editors can see and respond to your comments. There is an active discussion already occurring there you are welcome to participate in. Please stop reverting before actually achieving consensus for your edits per WP:BRD. My reverts don't just concern the title, they also concern rewordings and an entire new paragraph added to the section supporting the view that "death panels" are a reality. Just because you found one professor willing to support a view doesn't make it mainstream. You calling my reverts "vandalism", when they are in fact in line with WP:BRD, is nothing more than bad faith. Keep this up and I will report you for edit warring and ask that the article be fully protected. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

PPACA[edit]

I know you're going to hate me for this, but I'm going to take a break from significant work at PPACA. I'm frying other fish at the moment and feeling more productive. Plus I need a break from dealing with the kooks, who seem to come in waves. If I see debates that need input then I'm happy to add my two cents. I'd say you should ping me but I wouldn't want you to run afoul of the canvassing rules. I've really enjoyed working with you and learning from you in recent months. Cheers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I've enjoyed working with and learning from you as welel, and your presence at PPACA will be missed. But I can't say I blame you for taking a break, and the thought has crossed my own mind more than once (and things have been so busy for me that I took an unexpected break from Wikipedia entirely over the past few days, which is why I was slow to respond). It seems like much of what we've been doing at PPACA has been defending the article against socks, POV-pushers, and people who dislike the consensus-building process--and I, too, am getting pretty worn down constantly battling people, especially because it takes my attention away from other projects. We'll see how much more patience for it all I have. I do hope you'll continue to contribute to the discussions concerning "Common misconceptions"/"Myths"; I don't know if we'll ever come to a consensus on that section, but it'd be sure nice to move past that ongoing point of contention... at least until someone finds something else to fight about. Best of luck in your other projects during your break, perhaps our paths will cross on some other articles sometime. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, it's tiresome protecting this abomination? So sad to read! The good thing is there are armies of fine folks waiting to jump into that breach and reach maximum spin consensus. One just has to temporarily suspend disbelief and WOW this wiki page on the ACA is an encyclopedic look at the new health care law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: Third opinion[edit]

Thanks for your response. I followed up on your suggestion and revised that bit about the songs and the effects. I restored my section, but did it piecemeal, so the other editor doesn't feel he has to revert the entire thing. Just in case he does tho, should I go back to the third opinion page and ask for another? Dan56 (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56: Doing so piecemeal was a wise decision. I would say that if reverts continue, try to keep communication open with the other editor to see if you can reasonably address any remaining issues he may have. If agreement isn't possible, you shouldn't return to the third opinion page since you've already exhausted that process. Instead, you may explore other parts of the dispute resolution process, such as asking for other editors to get involved through posting on the dispute resolution noticeboard or starting a request for comment. Good luck. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Voting Rights Act of 1965[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Voting Rights Act of 1965 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RJaguar3 -- RJaguar3 (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Prototime. You have new messages at Talk:Voting Rights Act of 1965/GA1#Update.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RJaguar3 | u | t 19:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Prototime. You have new messages at RJaguar3's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RJaguar3 | u | t 14:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The article Voting Rights Act of 1965 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Voting Rights Act of 1965 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RJaguar3 -- RJaguar3 (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you are working on the page for a good label, congrats. I did a couple of edits yesterday, adding in more data about James Bevel and his role in the Selma Movement (which was pretty much his movement) and the Selma to Montgomery march, which he initiated. While reading that history section I noticed that someone had posted that after Dr. King was arrested in Selma that hundreds of children were arrested in the next couple of days. I think the article may have that confused with the Birmingham Children's Crusade (another Bevel action). As I recall, the major arrests in Selma, outside of the regular standing in line waiting for the voter registration office to open arrests - which was the main action before the Selma to Montgomery march, along with C.T. Vivian's night march in which Jimmie Lee Jackson was killed (which caused Bevel to call the Selma-Montgomery March to ask Gov. Wallace if he had ordered the streetlights to be turned off, but really to give the people, many of whom had armed themselves, a way to nonviolently direct their anger and sorrow) - were maybe during the Teacher's March on the registration office organized by Frederick Reese, although I don't recall ever reading about arrests occurring during that. I just don't remember reading or hearing about any children being arrested in Selma, but may be wrong. So that one point may - or may not - need some polishing. Thanks, and good to meet you, and good luck with your project - nice work. Randy Kryn 18:06 18 February, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to the article and your words of encouragement, Randy Kryn. The information about Selma's arrests of schoolchildren comes from the book Eyes on the Prize by Juan Williams. The relevant passage is from page 261:

Spurred by news of King's arrest, 500 of Selma's schoolchildren marched to the courthouse, violating the court order, and were arrested. The city's jails were getting crowded. The next day, leading newspapers including the New York Times displayed page-one photos of King praying just before his arrest. Wednesday brought the arrest of more than a hundred additional marchers, followed by the arrests of 300 more schoolchildren. Each evening, the television news covered the mass arrests and showed children being led off to jail.

As an aside, I'm hesitant to describe James Bevel as the "director" of the Selma Movement. He clearly played a pivotal role, especially in the Selma to Montgomery marches, and that information should certainly be included. But I'm not sure it's best to so definitively characterize any particular person as the movement's "director" given the tensions between SCLC and SNCC and the fact that SNCC's Selma organizing predated the SCLC's. I'd appreciate any further thoughts you may have on this point. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, nice work. Maybe we should move this section over to the talk page. I don't recall hearing about children marching to the jail to protest King's arrest getting arrested by the hundreds, but could have just overlooked that in my research (added, here is photo of young students in Selma about to get arrested, 10th one down from the top: http://crmvet.org/images/pkouns.htm ). I do know that Bevel was the Director of the Selma Movement, at least on SCLC's end (and recognized by his friend, Bernard Lafayette, who had run the Selma Movement for SNCC until he moved to Chicago). The one tweek that I made, and you reverted, may be a point to discuss. The line in question: "In January 1965, Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders organized or participated in several voting-rights marches in Selma that led to violent clashes with police." I had added James Bevel's name in front of King's on this one, because Bevel organized the marches (as SCLC's Director of Direct Action and the founder of its Alabama Project - really Bevel's and Nash's and Orange's Alabama Project), King did not. King didn't organize any marches in Selma, it wasn't his role in the movement, it was Bevel's role. Are you sure you're not solely putting King's name in that sentence because of his public prominence? I would say adding Bevel's name, and as the first name, is the historically accurate way to go.

"I'd say 98% of the plans and activities in Selma were Bevel's. The Selma Movement was Bevel's baby." - James Orange

"We would have never gone to Selma, and there would not have been a Voting Rights Bill today if James Bevel had not conceived of the idea" "Jim was the originator of the idea of the march from Selma to Montgomery. Jim Bevel is the author of that." "Dr. King could not have done the things he did unless he had a James Bevel." - Ralph David Abernathy

I know this is only a part of the overall article, but, as you know, an essential part of the history of the historic Voting Rights Bill (an aside - Bevel, for many of the last years of his life, organized a yearly honoring of Lyndon Johnson for his contribution to Voting Rights). Randy Kryn 16:48 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: I'm sorry, I realized that I neglected to explain why I removed "James Bevel" from the opening sentence in that paragraph. I'm not entirely opposed to his name appearing there, I just wanted to make sure it's appropriately sourced; that sentence is currently cited to an Eyes on the Prize passage that does mention King but doesn't mention Bevel (although a different passage in the book does mention Bevel in connection with the Selma to Montgomery marches, and I added that cite to the sources you added further down). Perhaps you know of a source we can use that says that Bevel came to Selma in January? (Admittingly, I haven't thoroughly read the other sources you've cited, and don't have access to your book, so perhaps it's in one of them.) That said, I suspect that it may still be necessary to highlight King's work a little more than Bevel's, even though Bevel had a more direct organizing role, simply because King's work, fairly or unfairly, has received more weight among published sources. But we should certainly be accurate; perhaps we could highlight Bevel by saying, immediately after the opening sentence that mentions King, something along the lines of "James Bevel oversaw SCLC's organizing efforts in Selma"? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The article Voting Rights Act of 1965 you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Voting Rights Act of 1965 for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RJaguar3 -- RJaguar3 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Gerrymandering in the United States[edit]

Hello, Prototime,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Gerrymandering in the United States should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerrymandering in the United States .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Imaginatorium (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 17 March[edit]

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

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) 00:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Voting Rights Act of 1965, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English and Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Half Million Award[edit]

Million award logo.svg The Half Million Award
For your contributions to bring Voting Rights Act of 1965 (estimated annual readership: 568168) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Bobnorwal (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, great job! And sorry it took so long... Bobnorwal (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bobnorwal! I appreciate it! :) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Voting Rights Act of 1965[edit]

Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Binding arbitration and consumer rights laws[edit]

Saw your work on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (from today's DYK).

Wondering if you would have any interest in helping improve Wikipedia's content in the area of consumer rights and, in particular, on the subject of consumer arbitration in the US? These are topics of potentially immense importance to the public but largely neglected by Wikipedia editors, particularly editors with expertise in the law. The article on consumer arbitration, for instance, has been edited almost exclusively by a single editor. Even the article on AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion has received very little attention from editors. Could you help take that article to GA status, for example? Dezastru (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dezastru, thanks for your appreciation of my work on Voting Rights Act of 1965. I'm not very familiar with consumer arbitration issues, though I do empathize with the situation; lately, I've been devoting much of my time to improving articles about voting rights in the US, which is another area of potentially immense importance to the public that has been mostly ignored by Wikipedia editors. That area will probably continue to be my primary focus for the near future, but I will take a look at some of the consumer arbitration articles and lend a hand where I can. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on a new beta feature called Hovercards[edit]

Hi Prototime, We are collecting feedback for a new beta feature called 'Hovercards' - https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Beta_Features/Hovercards. Beta features can be turned on using the tab in the top right. It would be great if you could turn the feature on and give us your feedback on the discussion page. Thanks Vibhabamba (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: FACs[edit]

Thanks. Realistically, I doubt it's going to pass this time, considering the two oppose votes and the difficulty of reaching their posters, but I appreciate your comments very much anyway, and I hope you'll come back (with an updated opinion, if necessary) if it fails and I re-nominate it.

I'll check out the Voting Rights Act FAC tomorrow. I knew you'd gotten it to GA, but for some reason I didn't even notice it was at FAC. And I like to think I can contribute my fair share to non-gaming-related FACs, e.g. to those of Miley Cyrus, Thomas F. Bayard, and American football, so I expect I'll be qualified. Tezero (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Hey, it's really...[edit]

I don't even know if I want to stay; just when I thought I'd gotten the hang of what constituted notability, which was all I'd had to hold on to, I triggered massive outcry. It could happen again with some other abstruse sentiment, formal or otherwise. With that said, I'm also not dead-set on departing; I don't want to decide anything too rashly, which is why I'm taking a leave of absence from Wikipedia as soon as all of this murk is done with to mull over what my work here is really worth and how, if at all, I ought to continue. I'm not looking optimistic on much of anything being preserved in merges, as most of it will probably be thrown out as cruft. Thanks for stopping over, though. And what's this about other users leaving? Tezero (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations[edit]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Voting Rights Act of 1965 to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,307 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 18:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright work[edit]

Just wanted to stop and say that it's really nice to see somebody who hasn't previously been involved (that i know of) in copyright work on Wikipedia taking an interest, and your efforts to improve the description of those policies and processes are very much welcome and appreciated! If you should at any point feel like pitching in on the cleanup work itself, there's plenty to be done. :D Probably the easiest forum to get started in is Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, which would be horrifically backlogged at this moment if the copyright bot didn't keep breaking, but the biggest area of backlog is at WP:CCI, which is frequently more complex. Anyway, should you ever want to pitch in, I hope you will! And if you ever want to talk about it with somebody who pokes in all areas of text copyright, I'm happy to discuss practices, processes and philosophies.

Either way, again, thanks for working on the policy pages and guidelines. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl! I've been a bit concerned about the effect of policy creep on new editors and I thought it may be good to highlight certain key aspects of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as the copyright- and plagiarism-related policies that many newcomers aren't all that familiar with. I have found these topics pretty interesting to delve into, so I may check out Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations or WP:CCI soon--thanks for pointing them out to me! And thank you again for your kind words! :) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Animal rights[edit]

Hey, do you still want to collaborate on animal rights-related articles? If so, got any in mind? Tezero (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero: Quite possibly, but for the time being, I have reduced my editing for various reasons and am reevaluating my on- and off-Wiki-priorities. I'll drop you a message sometime soon should I decide to venture into areas of Wikipedia I haven't edited much previously, which I am considering doing--and if so, animal rights articles would probably be high on my list. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't be afraid to take a few days or longer off from Wikipedia entirely and mull over your priorities here in your spare time IRL, especially if real-life concerns are weighty. I did recently, and I found myself drawn to work on an article far from my comfort area of video games: Czech language. One of the best decisions I've ever made here. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

TFA[edit]

Congrats on Today's Featured Article! Tezero (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tezero! Unfortunately it turns out to be right in middle of an unexpected mess IRL, but I'm ecstatic that the article is on the main page on the anniversary of its signing! :) Hope all is going well for you. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

rights, protection and care
Thank you, professional lawyer trying to do the right thing including gender neutrality, for quality articles on legislation such as Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, for improving Democracy, University of Central Florida and Freethought, interested in the highest quality of sources, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gerda Arendt! I greatly appreciate the recognition and feel honored to receive the Precious award! :) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 14:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Article tagging for WP:Elections & Referendums[edit]

Hi Prototime. I saw that you posted a request for assistance in tagging election/referendum articles with the WikiProject tag in June. I have now made a request for a bot to do this (having compiled a list of around 7,500 categories with relevant articles), but am being stopped from doing so because there is no apparent consensus for this to happen. Could you possibly comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Bot to tag articles for the WikiProject so I can demonstrate that there is one (if there is). Cheers, Number 57 12:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Animal Rights 2: Eccentric Boogaloo[edit]

Seems like you're editing again, so I thought I'd remind you of my willingness to collaborate with you on a topic you're interested in. Apart from the appropriate measures to transform my existing GAs to FAs, I think I'm going to spend my Wiki-time during October primarily on subjects outside my normal comfort zone of video games and Sonic. This project has odd origins: I got on board with the idea when hearing about the GA Cup during this month, and when I learned that's not what it is, I didn't see any reason to cancel my plans - in fact, the more articles I take to GA during this period, the more opportunities reviewers will have. Anyway, write me back if you're interested; animal rights seem like a topic you would be most but perhaps there's something else. Tezero (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tezero, and sorry for taking so long to reply. I am editing again, but only intermittently for the next few weeks due to various RL issues. Come mid-November, I hope to return to more consistent editing and work on taking on an article or two up to GA status. It would fantastic if the two of us could collaborate on something then, animal rights or otherwise. I'll ping you in a few weeks to see if you're still up for a joint project then. Thanks! And happy editing in the meanwhile--I see you have quite a full plate. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletions warning[edit]

Hello prototime, just after logging in, i noticed a deletions warning on my talk page. I swear, i haven't logged in for over a year. Someone must have hijacked my account.Joey13952 (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Half Million Award[edit]

Million award logo.svg The Half Million Award
For your impressive Quality improvement work to bring Voting Rights Act of 1965 to WP:FA quality, I hereby present you with The Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CITE discussion[edit]

Just a quick note to say that I'm not blowing off your comment. I'm just headed out the door right now. I'll look it over and probably expand on it a bit more tonight. Thanks for creating the summary section, by the way. We were definitely spinning out wheels for several days. This is much more productive in my view even if I'm arguing a minority position. -Thibbs (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No problems, Thibbs, I appreciate it. I'm just glad we've gotten the discussion back on track! Hopefully we can reach some resolution, one way or another. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thibbs, thanks again for your persistence and civility in our conversation over at WP:CITE even though our views have differed. Just an unsolicited suggestion, feel free to take it or leave it (I hope you don't take offense to it)--but I think you may want to disengage from your conversations with JJ. They're going nowhere fast, no one else agrees with his perspectives, and whether he realizes it or not, he appears to be gaslighting and projecting his own incivility and sensitivities onto others. Regardless though, thanks again. Cheers. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
You are right. I actually just told JJ that I wouldn't be returning to his talk page to carry on the discussion just now. I will continue to dispute his extreme view on the policy we're discussing, but I'm determined to ignore his jabs. I am mystified by his behavior. Or rather I understand anger and insults relating to a disagreement, but the initial guns-ablazin' reaction to my view (the view that is in fact far closer to his than the majority position) has blind-sided me. Anyway thank you for being polite as well. -Thibbs (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Article feedbak/assessment request[edit]

Hi,

Undersigned had created article Legal awareness in may 2012. Since then I updated and improved the article many times in past one and half year.

I will be happy if you help me in reassessing tags in article namely {{Multiple issues|confusing|date=February 2013|reason=Laudable effort has been put into this article, but it seems rambling and incoherent.}}{{essay-like|date=February 2013}}

and also

may be article is due for udating class status futher from {{WikiProject Law|class=Start|importance=Mid}}.

I suppose a peer feedback will help me improve the article content still further. You are one of experinced and active, and I request your kind support in this respect.

Mahitgar (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—December 2014[edit]

VisualEditor-logo.svg
Screenshot showing how to add or remove columns from a table

Did you know?

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

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

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

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

Recent improvements[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

You can again create and edit galleries as wikitext code.

Looking ahead[edit]

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

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

Help[edit]

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

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