User talk:1990'sguy

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi 1990'sguy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, 1990'sguy, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Good edits so far, but one thing to keep in mind: if you change something that could be contested, be sure to include a source for the information. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Federal Democratic Union of Switzerland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asylum (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) 08:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

CP ideologies

You really need reliable sources for this, have you read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY? And Constitutionalism isn't a political ideology in the sense I think you mean it, virtually all American parties are constitutionalist. No comment on the quality of the sources used, but see Democratic Party (United States) which is at least sourced. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have read your post and the links and I see your point with one exception: you question the reliability of my source, however my source was from the official CP website which is a very reliable source, so I don't see why you are questioning its reliability.1990'sguy (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Euroscepticism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neutrality (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) 08:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Blogs

Please read WP:SPS - I can't see that that blog meets the exceptions suggested there - besides the issue of whether he can actually be objective about a competing political party. You were also adding 'fiscal conservatism' without a source. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The 'fiscal conservatism' link was previously added by another editor. I just reinserted what was already there. 1990'sguy (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Answers In Genesis (May 2014)

Hi there. I've reverted this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&oldid=609332755) to the Answers In Genesis article. The wording of the current introduction reflects WP editor consensus; changes should be proposed on the Talk page. The introduction does not state that common descent is a reality (although it is, that's not relevant to the discussion); the phrase is "the scientific consensus on (i.e., the consensus concerning the topic of) the reality of common descent". Physicsandwhiskey (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the SA section in America. I reverted because such sections are for links not already in the text. See: WP:See also. – S. Rich (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Reflist columns

I notice that you've been adding a column-number parameter to the reflist template in a few articles (e.g. diff). This parameter's been deprecated in favor of {{reflist|30em}}, which allows the browser to decide on the number of columns based on the screen width. There's more detailed information in the template documentation at Template:Reflist, section "Columns". I've fixed it in the Nebraska 2012 Senate election article, but haven't done any of the others. Ammodramus (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was not aware of this. I will go ahead and fix the reflists for the other pages I edited. 1990'sguy (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Lieutenant Governor-elect

It's written "Lieutenant Governor-elect" as opposed to "Lieutenant Governor Elect". You can see that at this dictionary link here if you're interested. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Being a successor

To be someone's successor, you have to succeed them; that is, you must successfully take their place. If for some reason you do not, even though everyone is expecting you to do so, then you are not the person's successor and you did not succeed them. Everyone is expecting that Rauner will succeed Quinn on January 12, 2015 as planned (and I'm 99.9% confident that will happen), but until it actually happens, Quinn hasn't actually been "succeeded" by anyone. Something could happen that might prevent Rauner from taking office (in which case the Lieutenant Governor-elect would step up). We don't have a crystal ball, so waiting till it happens is the right way to go. Do you disagree? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pat Quinn (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Daley. 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) 11:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brad Ashford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. 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, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Please use the article talk page when your changes to an article are reverted. I don't see how your uncited claims that scientists are conspiring against Ham belongs in the article. Guettarda (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, this has NOTHING to do with any "conspiracies" and I do not see why I have to cite any sources for my edit. I am simply portraying this situation accurately and with no bias, and I'm following WP:NPOV. I strongly suspect that you are letting your personal beliefs influence your editing. Your personal beliefs, no matter how accepted they are, do not belong to Wikipedia. 1990'sguy (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you're inserting bias. So at the very least you should cite a source.

More importantly,, you edited a version that was the product of discussion and consensus. Yes, you are free to do so. But when someone reverted your change, the onus is on you to discuss it. NOT to edit war. So please, self-revert and build consensus for your change. Guettarda (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And use the article talk page. Guettarda (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I am simply portraying the situation accurately and without bias. I see absolutely no need to cite any sources because I think my edit is so obvious. You are the one inserting bias as you are violating WP:NPOV since your edits are passing on a judgment about the creationism/evolution debate. It does not matter that evolution is accepted by the majority of people, the fact that a large minority of people believe creationism is itself a reason why my edit is more accurate and fair. It is true that the creationism/evolution debate is more controversial and less one-sided than one may think. Just look at how expansive the articles Young Earth creationism and Creationism are. If the debate really were one-sided, these articles would be significantly smaller in content. I repeat once again, by my edits I am portraying this situation accurately and fairly. It appears that most other editors are against my edit so I will not revert this any longer. However, it is sad that experienced editors are violating WP:NPOV because of they are letting their personal views get in the way of their editing. Have a nice day. 1990'sguy (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the creation-evolution issue. I've read extensively on it, over quite a few years. But that's not the issue here. The problem with your edit is that it invents some sort of "scientific consensus" that "cites evidence" against Ham. It creates the misconception that scientists are busy making a case against Ham. The reality is that few of the scientists who are busy researching these topics are likely to have even heard of Ham. They aren't citing evidence against him - he's making claims that contradict many decades of work that have been argued over, revised and refined by new experiments and new data. Your edit is factually inaccurate, but it's also POV - it creates an inflated sense on Ham's importance. Guettarda (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

And, per WP:DUE, science isn't adjudicated by what the general public thinks. Guettarda (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. When science and religion mix together as with the creation/evolution issue (and this is the case with creation/evolution) public opinion plays a large role. Just look at the history of creation/evolution and see how much public and scientific opinion influenced the debate. You can see this in many other situations in history. Because religion, which is very sensitive, plays a large role, I think there should be more fairness when describing the creationism/evolution debate, but that's just my opinion. I had absolutely no intention of creating any "inflated sense on Ham's importance" or any "misconception that scientists are busy making a case against Ham" even if I did so inadvertently. Also, my edit did not "invent" any "scientific consensus". The simple fact is that there is a consensus among the scientific community that evolution is real and that creationism isn't. I was simply describing that fact. However I do see that I am in the minority on this matter, so even though I strongly disagree with the current version on Ken Ham, I will not interfere with your consensus, at least for the time being. Have a nice day. 1990'sguy (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Reince Priebus

Hi there 1990'sguy, I noticed that you'd made an edit to update the article for Reince Priebus, adding in details of his recent re-election for a third term as RNC chair, and wonder if you might be interested in helping with some additional updates for the article? In particular, I'm hoping to update the article with more information on his legal career and political roles prior to becoming RNC chair, and also adding more detail on key achievements during his tenure. I should mention, I'm working as a consultant to the RNC and due to my financial conflict of interest, I won't make any direct edits to this article. Instead, I'm looking for editors to to review and make any changes that I propose. On the Talk page, I've proposed some draft material to expand the article's discussion of his early career, would you be able to take a look? Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! Unfortunately, I will not have a lot of time in the coming weeks, so I don't think that I will be able to contribute extensively to Priebus, but I am interested in improving his article, so I will try to contribute in the time that I do have. 1990'sguy (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it! Let me know if you have any questions as and when you get to it. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Your edit summary here [1] is problematic - there is NO serious scientific debate on this subject - creationism as a scientific proposition (rather than a religious belief) is a pseudo-scientific position and is covered under the Arb com's Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions from the Pseudoscience case . Please stop edit warring and promoting fringe views. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dan Patrick (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page District Judge. 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) 08:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Discussion at Talk:114th United States Congress#What is a "Major" event?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:114th United States Congress#What is a "Major" event?. Thanks. —GoldRingChip 01:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reince Priebus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jennifer Rubin. 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) 09:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's default spacings around headings

I restored (note the edit summary) some spacings after you deleted them. Nothing personal. To understand how this works, try using your "edit this page" tab. Make a heading and a few letters of content. Then save it and view the code. You'll see what I mean. For older, and especially visually handicapped, editors, these spacings make it much easier to find headings and avoid misunderstandings. When you find these in the future, please just leave them alone. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Categorization

Regarding your edit on Reince Priebus: for categorization in Wikipedia, it's not relevant whether a person is or was Orthodox. Relevant is only whether it is a defining characteristic of the article, per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_characteristics. After all, the purpose of categorization is that readers of Wikipedia find more information about the category subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think this category on Reince Priebus should be kept. I have seen many numerous other articles with many similar categories that are seemingly non-defining, like, for example, Category:American Presbyterians for Ronald Reagan. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Politics and American Samoa.

Can you give me a hand with User Talk:Lvpapa? Thank You.Naraht (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I will soon set to work! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Your edits to Ken Ham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) consistently fail to achieve consensus and are being reverted by multiple editors. Please stop making contentious revisions and instead seek consensus on the Talk page in advance. If you continue as you are, you may be blocked for tendentious editing. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to inform you that I did try to achieve consensus on the talk page by explaining my posititon. I did not revise the article to what I thought was the better version after I started the discussion. I have not editied Ken Ham's article for days already. I would advise you to check the dates that I made the edits to Ham's article rather than to write to me immediately. I think I can say that in this case, you are very uninformed about my actions. Have a good day. Respectfully, 1990'sguy (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sarah Palin

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sarah Palin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sarah Palin

The article Sarah Palin you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Sarah Palin for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paul Ryan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paul Ryan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paul Ryan

The article Paul Ryan you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Paul Ryan for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Jack D. Franks

I feel naming a specific section "criticism" isn't an improvement to the article. I feel it should just be put in the article itself in a neutral way. I would have pointed this out before, but I haven't read his article until I needed a reference I put in his article for another article. I felt I should come to you before changing it.

Thoughts?

Signed, User:Mpen320 (talk)

Agreed. I will remove the criticism heading and try to incorporate the statement into the article. Thanks for pointing that out for me.--1990'sguy (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Illinois's 18th congressional district special election, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rodney Davis. 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) 09:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Good Article nominations

I would like to gently remind you good article best practices: "While anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, it is highly preferable that nominators have contributed significantly and are familiar with the article's subject and its cited sources. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Herman Cain

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Herman Cain you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Herman Cain

The article Herman Cain you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Herman Cain for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to review this, but it's finally done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United Kingdom general election, 2015

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United Kingdom general election, 2015 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Electoral history of Ronald Reagan into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate that!1990'sguy (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aaron Schock

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aaron Schock you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Scottish independence referendum, 2014

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scottish independence referendum, 2014 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Scottish independence referendum, 2014

The article Scottish independence referendum, 2014 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . 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:Scottish independence referendum, 2014 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Bare URLs

If there's only one bare url, I think it might be a more productive use of your time if you simply formatted it rather than tag the page. Cheers, Number 57 14:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your Good Article Nomination of Reince Priebus

Hello. Today I reviewed the good article nomination of Reince Priebus. I'm sorry that it took so long. I have decided to decline your request. My reasons for doing so can be found on the review page. Thank you and I encourage you to resubmit the article after making the suggested improvements or if you do not believe that my review was fair. Display name 99 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of members of the Swiss Council of States (2015–19), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philipp Müller. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

McCarter

Hi there: just wanted to let you know I'm watching Kyle McCarter and agree with your assessment that the article has significant WP:NPOV issues. I just made a few edits, trying to tackle some of the most egregious stuff. I'd like to work together to improve the article if you're game! Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! There has been an editor who has been making edits on that article that I think violate WP:NPOV, as well as WP:UNDUE. It would be great if I could have help improving that article. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

LesbianAdvocate

Hey,

I'm having problems with a user named LesbianAdvocate who's trying to add all the negative material she can to an article about the American Council for Capital Formation. I saw in her history that you seem to have had a similar encounter with her at the article Kyle McCarter. I've opened a discussion at the administrator board if you're interested in participating. Thanks, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That was an excellent catch on the Shimkus connection. As soon as I Googled who handled his digital media, I found LA's likely employer. Thanks so much! I'm new to Wikipedia, and this has been driving me crazy. Even if she stays on the article, now at least her agenda is in the open. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion has now been moved to WP:COI/N if you want to chime in. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christoph Blocher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 12:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

bare urls

I get into this in a longer discussion on my user page, but simply put, using a tag to complain about an article is the height of laziness. I take the opposite stance, there is nothing wrong with a bare url. Fine. If you disagree with that and want the complex formatting of a reference, then fix it--spend the time to use reffill, but do not deface the article, wikipedia's credibility and the public face of the article for other users to see, because you have a complaint. Trackinfo (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Whaddya think?

Is this all ready to go? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Acdixon, I made some minor edits just now, and I think its ready to go. The only thing is it would be nice to get an image of the Ark Encounter, either now or after opening day. Other than that, its ready! --1990'sguy (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ark Encounter has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, 1990'sguy. Ark Encounter, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The age of the Earth and common descent of all life are facts of science

End of story. Do not continue to pretend that this is not true on Wikipedia.

Thanks.

jps (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I know that you strongly dislike Ken Ham and AiG (should I use the word "hate"?). But just because you feel strongly on this issue does not mean you can just come in and edit the wording so it makes you happy. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I LOVE Ken Ham. Not sure why you got a different impression. jps (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Electoral history of Ronald Reagan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Electoral history of Ronald Reagan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Electoral history of Ronald Reagan

The article Electoral history of Ronald Reagan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . 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:Electoral history of Ronald Reagan for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ark Encounter

On 29 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ark Encounter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the July 7 opening date for the Ark Encounter theme park was chosen to correspond with Genesis 7:7? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ark Encounter. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ark Encounter), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @1990'sguy for your feedback on bold text. I'd never though of it it as SHOUTING or a form of editorializing. I had considered it only as a means of clarifying the organization of three paragraphs with three topics. Working on WP has been the best feedback I've gotten on the quality of my written work in years. Thank you for this side benefit. It is a pleasure to work with you. Rhadow (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rhadow: You're welcome, and I'm happy to help! Editing Wikipedia and becoming experienced with its guidelines do help people become better writers -- same for me. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Electoral history of Ronald Reagan

The article Electoral history of Ronald Reagan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Electoral history of Ronald Reagan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential election, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Flynn. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI: reFill is a cool tool

I noticed your edits to Ark Encounter today where you added several bare URL references, and then tagged them for someone else to fix. (Here: [2]) Are you aware there's a nice little tool called reFill that will do all the work of fixing these, instead of deferring it to someone else? Just pop over to https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/ and fill in the name of the article, set the options the way you like and it will build you beautiful CITE templates all filled in. A couple of clicks later and you're done. FYI I've done this for your bare URLs as well as the other bare URLs on Ark Encounter. Cheers. --Krelnik (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds easy. I've never tried it before, but I will in the future. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert V. Gentry

I changed the link for Creation_geophysics#Radiohaloes because it is broken. Could you please fix the link and point it to Radiohaloes and creationism somewhere? I was probably overzealous on changing it to pseudoscience. Best! Lipsquid (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lipsquid: When reverting, I didn't know that the link was broken. I assumed that is wasn't. Interesting that it redirected to OEC, even though Gentry was a YECer. I couldn't relocate the material, so I will not oppose you changing it again. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me see if I can fix it. Lipsquid (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed it Lipsquid (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Former Christian Young Earth creationists

I have proposed that this category be deleted: [3]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me! --1990'sguy (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit of Hilary's America page

Hi.

Please explain why you feel my edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:_The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party is unnecessary. Does it not give more of a balanced view of John Fund's opinion?

I also felt like the Trump comment was out of place at the end of that paragraph (different topic altogether).

P.S. On seeing your User page, I say you and I have a lot in common! Bravo.

Scott (scottlovessue) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottlovessue (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Scottlovessue: Thanks for contributing and for notifying me! The reason why I removed the quote was mainly because I was worried that it made the paragraph too wordy and not very concise. However, I will take another look at it because I do think it was a good quote. As for Trump's comment, I originally placed it after the John Fund review because both of them were positive reactions to the film. What I had in mind was grouping all the negative reactions in a paragraph, the mixed reactions in the next paragraph, and then the psotive reactions in the last paragraph. However, I do not mind changing this, as it does make sense.

P.S. Thanks for the complement! :) On Wikipedia, it is not very often that I meet someone with similar views as myself. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Institute for Creation Research, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You are adding material that is unsourced. The Ham articles references for this, fail verification. I don't know which other refs you are referring to but there are none in the Institute for Creation Research article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The source clearly states that Ham worked as a science teacher. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Apologies my view didn't show that. Theroadislong (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem. It happens to the best of us :) --1990'sguy (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Senate election in Illinois, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Stewart. 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) 09:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Multiple reversions on Joe Walsh article

Hello, I'm wondering if you could elaborate on this edit, since this is the second time you've reverted. I'm not understanding the reasoning here. As I noted, a person who is neither in office nor running for office is not a politician, so it's factually incorrect to call him one. His apparent intent to possibly run again in the future doesn't make him a politician now. In any case, I've restored the change while we talk about this. Per WP:EW, please do not keep reverting. We should reach consensus on what ought to be a fairly easy-to-resolve point. Regards - Hux (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hux: Walsh has declared that if Hillary Clinton wins the presidential election he will run for president in 2020. He is a semi-declared candidate for U.S. president right now. He is also listed as such on United States presidential election, 2020#Republican Party. I say we should wait until after the election and see what Walsh ultimately does. If he ultimately chooses not to run for whatever reason, then I will support inserting "former", but I think it is too early to do it now, and it is possibly a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious as to your citing of WP:CRYSTAL. You're saying we don't know whether he'll run or not, so therefore we should call him a politician anyway. In other words, you're advocating that we should call him a politician on the basis not of verifiable information but on speculation regarding a future event that may or may not happen. That literally argues dead against what the policy is specifically about.

The bottom line remains unchanged: if he's neither in office nor running for office, he's not a politician. That being the case, I can't support calling him one until that situation verifiably changes. (And please note that if Walsh says after this election that he plans to run for president in 2020, that would not be sufficient to call him a politician either. He would need to officially declare his candidacy for that to be the case, which he likely would not do until 2019.) -- Hux (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hux: Walsh is already listed as a "declared candidate" on the 2020 election page. I cited WP:CRYSTAL because it is too early to say that his political career is over. If we call him a "former" politician, we are speculating that his political career is over, when in fact it likely is not. My position is entirely in line with WP:CRYSTAL. I would support changing "politician" to "congressman", though, as that is something we should both agree on. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Which 2020 election page are you referring to? I looked at United States presidential election, 2020, but there's no mention of Walsh. There's no mention of any declared Republican candidates at all, as far as I can see. Regardless, as I already said, if he declares - and if that is reliably sourced - then I will support him being described as a 'politician' at that point. Until then, I don't. If that's not something you feel you can live with then I guess the next step is for you to seek consensus on the talk page, a debate in which I'll be happy to participate. Up to you. -- Hux (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. "Formerly" does not automatically imply that his political career is over. It literally means "at one time in the past". Is this misunderstanding perhaps the sticking point here? For example, if this were 1890, it would be correct to describe Grover Cleveland as a "former U.S. president". Famously, of course, he subsequently won the 1892 election and become president again - the only president thus far to serve non-contiguous terms of office. -- Hux (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hux: You checked too late. Trump won the election, so Walsh is not running in 2020. He stated he would run only if Clinton wins. See this version from before the election. Walsh's picture is in the "Declared candidates" section in the "Republican Party" section. In case you didn't see, I changed "politician" to "congressman" on Walsh's article. One doesn't have to hold political office to necessarily be a politician. Donald Trump's article called him a politician long before he was elected president. There is a difference, to use your example, in calling Cleveland a "former U.S. president" and a "former politician" in 1890. His first tenure as president was over, but he was still active in politics and would eventually be re-elected. I don't support calling Walsh a "former politician" in these circumstances, but rather a "former congressman". --1990'sguy (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

'Former congressman' is fine. That is equally factually accurate. -- Hux (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Glad that we have a consensus on that. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Allen Skillicorn

Even though you nominated it several weeks ago, due to low participation Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Skillicorn (2nd nomination) remained open as of election day and he indeed appears to have won his seat — so we now need to keep the article, and merely flag it for content and referencing repair through the normal editing process. Would you be willing to withdraw your nomination, so that the discussion can be closed? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Republican Party (United States), you may be blocked from editing. You admitted to writing the ref yourself, in Conservapedia, an unreliable source. Thank you.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Goodone121: This is simply ridiculous. You are plainly overreacting. Did you even see my edit? I cited three reliable sources (U.S. News & World Report, The New York Times, and Governing), and I did not cite right wing blogs or anything like that. The fact that I originally added this material to Conservapedia and then added it here, making sure that I did not violate any Wikipedia standards is irrelevant. Please see the talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Goodone121: Thank you for accepting my reversion and, presumably, my explanation. I see now that your reversion was, apparently, an honest oversight. If that's the case, I apologize for my very harsh language. Mistakes happen to everyone, including myself. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, 1990'sguy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

November 2016

Hello, I'm JudgeRM. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Top 25 Report have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if the editors in charge of that article would be so kind to at least tone down their bias. Calling Steve Bannon "racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic" is not only an extreme case of POV, but it is also slanderous and hurtful. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that. But, it's outside the mainspace, which means their opinions can run wild there. The only thing we can do is leave suggestions that will probably be ignored. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @JudgeRM and 1990'sguy: I wasn't aware of this Top 25 page prior to noticing this talk page message, but holy goodness, if something is going to be that blatantly partisan, shouldn't it at least have a banner – something like {{essay}}, {{guideline}}, {{userpage}} or {{humor}} – that makes it clear that the page is not in the article space, not meant to be governed by WP:NPOV, and does not represent the consensus of the Wikipedia community at large? I mean, this is pretty egregious and could dissuade editors from joining the project if they think it is representative of the views of the larger Wikipedia community. (We are hoping this isn't representative of the views of the larger community, right?) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I sure hope not, and I completely agree with you, Acdixon. If the editors on that page are not even going to attempt to meet NPOV standards, then the page should have something to clarify that NPOV is not intended to apply. Not doing so is seriously damaging Wikipedia's reputation—I know I wasn't the first person to bring this up. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

{{humor}} might be the best of the existing banners to insert (that's what I tried to add), however, it probably is best to make a completely new banner or simply a written note at the top, like what we are discussing on Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: You'll never make {{humor}} fly; although parts of it sound a bit tongue-in-cheek, overall, it is probably not all that humorous to those who created it, nor is it particularly humorous to me. I was suggesting, as you correctly discern, something new be created that is much like the proffered examples but more tailored to this particular situation (or broad enough to cover other similar situations, if they exist). Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Acdixon: Point taken. Yes, {{humor}} is not the best, and the POV is not humorous for me either. For many people, at least without a proper explanation, it's actually quite offensive. In the next few hours, I will try to create a new template for this situation. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems that a template should be added, but the best template appears to be a whole new template altogether. I can't wait to see what you have in mind (but please don't add it to the page until we have some sort of consensus for it). JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Here it is: Template:NPOVexception. Feel free to expand and change it if necessary. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I like it (though some things could be changed, I just don't know how. Just have that feeling). I'll also be the first to admit that it's unlikely this will be put onto the page. But we can try, right? JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

One editor already voiced their opposition on the Top 25 talk page. I responded to the objection, but I guess we shouldn't add it until we have some consensus. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Electoral history of Ronald Reagan

I appreciate your thanks. I'm still waiting to see if inserting the topic works. Usually, I see categories change almost immediately, but this one still seems to be stuck. I may need to go back and insert one of the "approved" abbreviations (although I copied this topic from another Elections article, so it should work).  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Asa Hutchinson Official Gubernatorial Photo.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Asa Hutchinson Official Gubernatorial Photo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MB298 (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Warning! Your fawning edits about Donald Trump may be idolatrous

Hello, I'm an ip editor. I noticed that some of your fawning, sycophantic edits about Donald Trump could be construed as idolatrous, so I've removed them for now. If you'd like to try again, with a less awe-struck, worshipful tone, please go ahead. Thanks. 63.143.203.29 (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@63.143.203.29: I advise you not to engage in personal attacks. Removing blatantly out-of-place material which on top of that has a POV tone to it is not idolatry or worshipping. Your edits on International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016 were clearly POV. I've also recently removed pro-GOP POV edits as well and called them "garbage," by the way. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

On 30 January 2017, User 63.143.203.29 was appropriately blocked for block evasion. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Tag removal

While I agree with your removal of the primary sources tag at Mon Calamari cruiser, this -- They and related works are the only reliable sources we can use to describe the ships -- strikes me as a bit off. While we rely on in-universe primary sources for details about e.g. the "workings" of the ship, its combat capabilities, etc. primary (i.e. in-universe) sources aren't sufficient for establishing a fictional topic's notability or for meeting the expectations of writing about an element of fiction. Secondary sources like e.g. commentary on the ship's symbolism, the popularity of a licensed toy, etc. are essential to meet both of those thresholds. Fortunately, the Mon Cal article now has a few cited tidbits about merchandising, hence the appropriateness of removing the tag -- but, an encyclopedic treatment of the subject at Wikipedia requires much more than just a "descri[ption of] the ships". --EEMIV (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@EEMIV: That is a great point and thank you for reminding me of that. It was an oversight on my part, as I was only thinking of the in-universe information of this ship when I wrote that. Of course, as you noted, if secondary sources don't exist about the symbolism and etc., then the article probably shouldn't exist in the first place. I will keep that in mind. Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Chicago torture incident

Re [4]. The second paragraph you added. Please don't try to pull little stunts like that again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In what way was that a "stunt"? Also, your calling it "false" is just as POV (at the very best; I believe my edit was NPOV). --1990'sguy (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You blatantly and egregiously misrepresented a source. It's the kind of edit that can get you blocked very quick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The motives, though appearing to lean in one direction, are not set in stone, as the source shows.[5] No conclusion has been reached. It is still relatively early in the investigation, so calling these views "false," as you have, probably isn't best. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Use Twinkle!

Hi, you can simply tag an article or warn an editor for vandalism using the Twinkle app. You can enable it via "Gadget" menu in Preferences. It'll definitely decrease the burden of having to go back and forth the WP:WARNVAND just to paste those templates in an uncooperative editor's talk page. Bluesphere 11:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip! I will definitely start using that! --1990'sguy (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. After enabling it, you will see a "TW" at the top of the screen. Just hover on it and you're good to go. Best. Bluesphere 15:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Great! It's already enabled. :) --1990'sguy (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction

The article Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on 5% threshold

You may want to participate in this RfC regarding the inclusion of candidates in election infoboxes. MB298 (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, MB298, for the notification. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

rv

Hiya!
-it is not a reliable source WP:RS
-the source does not support the claims made in the article
-those links have been spammed quite a bit

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I will not contest this issue. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for your page on Switzerkand and weapons of mass destruction! Afernand74 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Afernand74: You're welcome! And thank you for your work on that article as well, especially by finding all those good sources! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:NPOVexception

A tag has been placed on Template:NPOVexception requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 02:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction

On 10 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Swiss government made detailed plans to acquire and test nuclear weapons during the Cold War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Politician Infoboxes

If you look at the consensus here, acting officials are not listed. Until the consensus changes, I will continue to make those changes. SlitherySentinel (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It's been agreed to not list the acting officials, once the confirmed officials take office. Not something I agree with, but that's what the majority of editors wanted. Though, I find it strange that this wasn't adopted for other cabinets. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both of you for your explanations. @SlitherySentinel: Why didn't you just tell me in the edit summary in the first place? Without adding an edit summary or going to the talk page or something, your endless reversions really do look like immature vandalism. Seriously. Thank you for massaging me, but I would appreciate it if you left edit summaries in the future. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Rob Sherman

Hi there. I came across Rob Sherman (activist) at the Wikicup reviews page, and thought about reviewing it: but then I noticed that a) it's very short, and b) you've made one grammar fix [6] to the page since the cup started, which means that it will not be eligible for Wikicup points at the moment in any case. So, might I suggest withdrawing the nomination for now, and expanding the article a little? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde, I did not hear of that rule until now, even though I do believe you. I will withdraw the nomination. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wait, should I withdraw the entire nomination or just its association with the WikiCup? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest withdrawing it from the Wikicup (which is not really withdrawing, because you haven't submitted it yet, just removing it from that list of pending reviews) because of this "must have worked on it this year before the review" rule, which is a hard-and-fast rule. I suggest withdrawing altogether because of the length issue, but this is a recommendation only. However, if you are able to expand the article substantially, it would then become eligible for the Wikicup as well. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I wasn't sure where to start a discussion about the US repesentative articles so I started it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics#Does one consequence of a bill belong in the article of every politician that voted for the bill? ~ GB fan 14:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Ken Ham 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) 03:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, are you serious!? I revert you once, and then you send me this ridiculous notice as if I reverted you five times? I'm striking this garbage as it is clearly inappropriate. You may disagree with my edit, but please act professionally. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Talk it out, don't edit war. I went ahead and opened a discussion on the Talk page, which is what you should have done after you were reverted. This is Wikipedia 101. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, you should have opened the talk discussion without posting this ridiculous message. To say the least, it's an overreaction. How many times did I revert you? Only once. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Read BRD. You clearly haven't. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I see nothing in WP:BRD saying editors can post templates that vastly over-exaggerate the situation on users talk pages. Your template made it sound like I reverted you several times when, in fact, I did not. This has nothing to do with BRD, as far as I'm aware. You could have posted a nicer message on my talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Key words "as far as I am aware." You first edit was bad editing. Your reverting to restore it was bad behavior. Your failure to open a talk discussion was bad behavior. Your comments here have been 100% drama. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I was given assurence by a well-respected editor that is was OK to add this info. When I reverted, I was acting off that assurance. You may disagree with my edit, but none of my behavior was "bad" (it was sanctioned by an editor who, like it or not, is respectable). With this in mind, my edits are not drama. You didn't prove anything regarding BRD. Have a great day! --1990'sguy (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: WP:DTR. Inappropriate. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Two replies:

1. Warning someone they are edit warring, is required as a prior step when bring someone to EWN, which I would have done, should 90s guy have continued trying to force this content in. The notice was required.
2. I understand that some people embrace "DTR". I view DTR as both arrogant and clueless but if someone finds template notices offensive they should provide notice of that on their TP so that others can avoid offending them. Had there been such a notice I guess I could have hand-written something, but given that 3RR notice is required I probably would have used the template anyway.

90s guy you should really be careful with regard to who you take advice from. You will of course do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rob Sherman

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rob Sherman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Great scott -- Great scott (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rob Sherman

The article Rob Sherman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rob Sherman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Great scott -- Great scott (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

John Marshall Harlan

You may have an interest in the comment I just submitted at Talk:John Marshall Harlan. I initially tried to use {{ping}} to request your attention when submitting that, but the template seemed to choke on the apostrophe in your username. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Encyclopedism/GA2

Procedural note: you're supposed to put at an article On Hold if the nomination is awaiting improvements. Bluesphere 16:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bluesphere: Have I not done this? I think the article can be promoted to GA status; it just needs some additional improvements, and I am giving the nominator a chance to make those improvements. Did I do something wrong? Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, a mistake; sorry about that. There's one more concern, however: it appears that the nominator is a sockpuppet of User:10W40, which has been indefinitely blocked by an admin. I don't think s/he will be able to address the concerns you raised on his/her GAC; the sock account has not edited since June 21, 2017. I'm sure you will have to fail it. Bluesphere 17:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I probably will have to. It's a pity, because I think the article could easily be improved. However, while the original sock account has been blocked, the account that re-nominated this one has not.[7] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You call the shots, 1990'sguy. But personally, I don't believe this person is eligible to make this nomination right now per those reasons above. Bluesphere 04:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

aig

Without wishing to duplicate discussion (I don't think I have a particularly strong opinion on the matter anyway), it does look like you're past 3rr. You may want to self-rv (doesn't help discussion when one side of a good faith disagreement gets blocked). FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions

I just checked and saw that you have never been given formal notice of the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience in Wikipedia.

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 pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you 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.

Template:Z33 Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ooops

Sorry about that. That wording was supposed to be added to my comment, not to yours. A cut&paste slip-up. My apologies, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I've seen worse mistakes than that. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Different Types Of Point Of Views

Hello 1990'sguy everyone has Different Types Views on the Page. If you can please take time counting the green and the others on the other page and see what number you come up with and if the President or the White House names the person who ever they my be we got to add them all Ambassadors of the United States are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I am trying to be nice right now. Please give other people time to voice there Opion on the matter and if they have Different Views we should respect them. Thank you so much. If you need to reach me you can email me at Bobbybattaglia@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, but I still stand by my position that we should follow the WaPo article and that career diplomats should not be added. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi 1990'sguy if you have a proplm with me please email me at Bobbybattaglia@gmail.com . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Political appointments by Donald Trump Picture's to add on the page

Hi 1990'sguy here are the names of leaders that have a picture to be added to the Political appointments by Donald Trump page

David J. Glawe Under Secretary of Homeland Security (Intelligence): https://www.dhs.gov/person/david-j-glawe

Claire M. Grady Under Secretary of Homeland Security (Management): https://www.dhs.gov/person/claire-m-grady Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I see you already uploaded the images and added them to the page. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi 1990'sguy here are the names of leaders that have a picture to be added to the Political appointments by Donald Trump page

John Ullyot Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Public and Intergovernmental Affairs): https://www.va.gov/opa/bios/bio_ullyot.asp Heather L. MacDougall Member of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission: https://www.oshrc.gov/about/Commissioners_bios.html I don't really know how to put Pictures on the Page or Uploud them the person who did the last two was Corkythehornetfan and I know school is starting for some User's. So If you know how be my guest. I will try to send you and him Pictures to add on the page. thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi 1990'sguy here are the names of leaders that have a picture to be added to the Political appointments by Donald Trump page George Edward Glass Ambassador to Portugal: https://pt.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/our-ambassador/

Brooks Tucker Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Legislative Affairs) https://www.va.gov/opa/bios/bio_tucker.asp

Amy Thompson Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Public Affairs): https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/images/hudimg?id=Amy_Thompson.jpg

Anne Hazlett Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development: https://www.rd.usda.gov/about-rd/leadership/assistant-secretary-rural-developments/anne-hazlett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@96.36.68.29: If these files are not uploaded soon, I will do so, but I encourage you to try to upoad them yourself -- go to Wikipedia:Files for upload and make a request. Press the "Make a new request" button and indicate that you are not autoconfirmed and that your images are public domain as they are U.S. federal government images. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Please stop edit warring and show a respect for the principle of consensus. 2600:1001:B12C:E1CF:B975:17F7:C003:5AB9 (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

1990's Guy,

I would like to thank you for your support about the Ken Ham article. Unfortunately, the skeptics that own/rule this website are accusing me of inciting a riot. But it means a lot that you care enough to thank me for the changes.

—Zachary Snell

Zsnell443 (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zsnell443: I do appreciate your edits to the article. :) Unfortunately, it is essentially impossible to remove their bias -- I've tried for a while unsuccessfully. If you are unable to make your changes there, I recommend CreationWiki or Conservapedia, which offer a different point of view on creation. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: Thank you, I will be sure to look into that. I appreciate the alternative source.

Zsnell443 (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zsnell443: CreationWiki and Conservapedia do not meet our standards for reliable sourcing. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thompson: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that anything conservative/Christian was not valid on Wikipedia. Zsnell443 (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zsnell443: That's not it at all. Conservative and Christian are not identical, so the slash is not entirely accurate. There are conservative atheists, conservative Jews (who may or may not be Conservative Jews), conservative Buddhists, conservative Hindus... Likewise, Young Earth Creationism was not crucified for humanity's sake, so that is not what defines a Christian. If you think that popularity matters so much, most Christians outside of America (and a significant portion in America) accept Theistic evolution.

When it comes to politics or religion, all Wikipedia does is neutrally summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources (as is relevant, journalistic sources generally more relevant to current and local events than to history or science). Wikipedia sticks to mainstream science. There is no denying that mainstream science has found evolution to be the surest explanation for how life started on earth. "Why" is still left up to the reader to decide. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I think Zsnell 443 is referring to theologically conservative Christians (I prefer the term "orthodox" over "conservative", but it is the same thing). However, it is also true that WP has a bias against political conservatism. Even Wikipedia admits this: Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship and Reliability of Wikipedia#Liberal bias. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not that's true, it has nothing to do with evolution and creationism. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia using mainstream sources, so of course it presents the scientific view as the main view. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the Cookies

I've been intrigued with Wikipedia for a while. Thanks for your help/advice. I was trying to add some clarifying information, but it seems it sometimes gets canceled/reverted. Impressed with your comments on your home page. Is there a way to talk offline in Wikipedia, or is everything public?

Again, thanks for the welcome. (And am I doing this right?) Boeldieu (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Boeldieu: You're welcome, and I do appreciate your edits. Most Wikipedia editors (along with the wider culture) are biased against YEC-related topics, and that is the main reason why your edits are reverted -- I've tried a lot to make the content more neutral, but it is very difficult. I do have an email address that I use for my accounts: 1990sguysdg@gmail.com Feel free to contact me there. :) --1990'sguy (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Boeldieu: As the person who reverted most of your edits, I'd like to clarify that I didn't do so because I'm "biased against YEC-related topics", I did so largely because they weren't in line with our manual of style. This is a set of conventions that Wikipedia, like any publication, uses to maintain internal consistency. For example, we usually don't use academic titles ("Dr.") and post-nominals ("PhD") when referring to people, because this clutters up the prose with no other purpose than to aggrandise the person they're attached to. We also don't link to external websites in prose; relevant links are instead collected together into an "External links" section. Two other important Wikipedia policies are verifiability and neutral point of view, and some of your edits have fallen afoul of them too. You should never add information that can't be verified by a reliable source.

NPOV is especially important in articles about a fringe viewpoint like YECism. Regardless of your personal views on creationism, you must take care that anything you add to Wikipedia conforms to a neutral point of view, i.e. it reflects the fact that the vast majority of reliable sources consider YECism a pseudoscientific, fundamentalist religious idea with no basis in reality. Going out of your way to emphasise the educational credentials and supposed scientific expertise of the people who appear in a creationist film looks a lot like you are trying to editorialise in favour of creationism, which is not consistent with a neutral point of view. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

Your recent editing history at Andrew A. Snelling 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) 20:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

More silly templating. I marked it out. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Controversies in Genesis

I've apparently started a controversy on Answers in Genesis when I tried to remove bias from the page. While I have been on Wikipedia for years, I am a mere "casual Wikipedian"; I do not wish to make the Answers in Genesis article refute or deny Evolution in its POV, I merely wish to make it accurately describe AiG. I myself am a Christian, but I realize that certain things that I do not believe must be written as fact on Wikipedia. (due to reporting from "reliable" sources like CNN, NBC News, Salon, Associated Press, etc.... * rolls eyes *)

You have quite a resume, and I am quite sure that you are much better in this line of work than I am. Can you please join the conversation regarding my proposed edits here (Talk:Answers_in_Genesis#Bias.3F)? AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 21:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@AKA Casey Rollins: I will. I have tried a lot in the past to improve the wording in the AiG, Creation Museum, and Ken Ham articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@AKA Casey Rollins: Would you please contact me at "1990sguysdg@gmail.com"? --1990'sguy (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: Sorry, I don't give my email address to Wikipedia users. If you read my user page at User:AKA Casey Rollins I say that I'm paranoid as far as identify theft is concerned. Feel free to PM me on my talk page, though. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 14:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@AKA Casey Rollins: OK, that's fair. I don't blame you -- that's why I created an email address solely for my wiki accounts (here and on the several other websites I edit on). I asked because sometimes it is better to keep conversations confidential, rather than have the entire wiki community see them. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello 1990'sguy. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih^Talk 16:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Alex Shih^Talk 16:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Template removal

Hey. Do not remove templates placed by another contributor until the issue has been resolved; this instruction is even in the template itself [8]. Thanks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Thomas Hughes

As far as I can tell, you didn't do anything wrong with your review here, and I hope the bot's edit didn't give the impression you did. Just remember in the future to keep the |ts= param when declining (it makes sure things go into the right categories). There is a user script that makes reviewing much less painless so you don't need to mess with template magic. — Earwig ^talk 07:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Earwig: Thank you for your help. I am still learning how to do this, and I first learned about the user script yesterday. I will resume with the reviews today. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Idea

I have an Idea Now for the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security we should make a page called Military appointments by Donald Trump. Becuse the President can make Military appointments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security

here are some more jobs the President can appoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cardillo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geospatial-Intelligence_Agency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_J._Sapp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Reconnaissance_Office

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_Defense_Intelligence_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Intelligence_Agency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Robinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Northern_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_W._Tidd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Southern_Command

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Votel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Central_Command

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_W._McDew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Transportation_Command

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense

If we could get this done that will be so great if we can work on this togaver quitly and then show the other Users maybe some of them can help and like it so are you with me on this or not? Afther this we will Make Wikipedia Great Again! And about my Spelling I am a Spical Needs person so ya. ADHD.

Thank you for your request, and I understand with the spelling. However, if you want to split DoD and DHS appointments into a new article, a better place for such a request is at Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump. I think you made such a request already, and if there is no consensus for such a move, I don't want to interfere. However, I think that the president also makes military appointments separate from political DoD and DHS appointments. If you want to make a military appointments page with those appointments without splitting the DoD and DHS sections, I'm all in and will help where I can. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User LacrimosaDiesIlla

Hi 1990'sguy this user LacrimosaDiesIlla is Undoing my usefull edits on this page I made the White House Chief of Staff Gray and Added John Kelly to that section becuse he is the new White House Chief of Staff and user LacrimosaDiesIlla is saying Gray has no meaning and it has Gray listed as

Individual took office with no Senate consent needed And The Job is not Senate doing

Its in this table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_Donald_Trump%27s_Cabinet#The_Cabinet

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your edits. While I want to help, I think it is better if you go to the talk page and explain your position to LacrimosaDiesIlla. That way we can solve this dispute and come to an understanding without an edit war. Either way, I think the article could be clarified so readers are not confused. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Genesis History?

I've been biting my tongue about Jytdog's behaviour at Is Genesis History? since the AfD closed, and now others are piling on with threats and "warnings", I just wanted to say I for one think your handling of things there has been exemplary. I certainly wouldn't have been able to keep my cool as well as you have. – Joe (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment -- I appreciate it. I must admit, it is hard for me to put up with Jytdog, so it's good to hear that I'm handling things right. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Political appointments... RFC

Looks like this RFC is actually this RFC from August 7, 2017. I've removed the ID and a new one will be placed for the new RFC by a bot. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 20:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: The bot removed the template for the ambassador/career diplomat RfC again. Though the consensus is clear, I would like someone to close the RfC, but since nobody has done this, I'm not sure why the bot did what it did. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, guy, I forgot about this and got busy with school work. I don't think there is any policy against one of us closing it – unless someone specifically said they want an uninvolved editor to close it. The RFC expired (regardless of whether or not it's been closed as they only last a certain time) so it's time we close it. If you don't want to since you created the RFC, I can do it. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 13:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I took care of it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Steve King

Here is the link to the Steve King vote https://www.c-span.org/video/?435203-1/us-senate-debates-federal-reserve-board-nomination&start=29550 this is the time it's on 08:12:30 https://www.c-span.org/video/?435203-1/us-senate-debates-federal-reserve-board-nomination&start=29550#

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

And here is Barbara Lee https://lee.house.gov/news/press-releases/congresswoman-lee-appointed-democratic-congressional-representative-to-the-united-nations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right -- and now that the U.S. Senate website has updated the list of confirmed nominations, I can see that it also affirms this. Thanks!. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I have noticed your consistent desire and effort to make Wikipedia a great place for information. Here's a link to my draft I'm waiting for approval maybe you can help with that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dwight_Williams I am creating this page for the Army All-American Football Athlete Dwight Williams Nflpa (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nflpa: Thank you for the barnstar! I will look over your AfC, to see if it is something I would feel comfortable reviewing. I skip over many AfCs that I look at because I don't feel I will be able to make a good judgment on them. --12:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Miller RFC

Consensus for the RfC seems to be remove. Would you go ahead and remove it? If you don't want to do it, I would do it myself.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Certified Gangsta: As much as I really want to remove that biased mention, an administrator (or at least a non-involved editor) probably should close the RfC. The !vote tally is 9 (remove) to 6 (remove), which means that 60% is to remove. It's a clear majority, but probably not enough for a speedy close. Hopefully, more "remove" !voters will take part in the RfC, which would help achieve a consensus to remove. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Pssst...

Here's a fine addition in your collection of userboxes, which I accidently found at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/humour: User:Conservapedia Slightlymad 10:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: Thanks for the suggestion, and yes, I do think CP is a great site (obviously, since you probably know that I edit it; I keep my activities and behavior on both sites separate). However, the fact that this userbox was found in the "humor" section makes me very reluctant to put it on my user page. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I believe it was just misplaced, considering there's a separate user box for those who find this site horrendous: Slightlymad 04:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This user finds Conservapedia hilarious.

That could be true -- many WP editors, however, hate CP and might see the infobox as sarcasm. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

in what world

is this "unimportant info"? Also, I went and put your punctuation correction back in with subsequent edit so that part of your edit summary is false as well. Volunteer Marek  13:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Yes it is unimportant (if I and other people on the Right think Obama is a socialist, does that belong in the intro of his article?), and you only fixed the quotation marks, while I fixed the placement of all the periods and commas in the paragraph, so my edit summary is correct. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: By the way, you're obviously invited to participate at the RfC I started on Bannon's talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

False equivalence. If you had lots of reliable sources calling him "socialist" we could say that. But you don't. Here we do have reliable sources, and even Republicans calling him that, not to mention the contacts between Bannon, Yiannopolous and neo-Nazis. So please try this apples and oranges somewhere else.  Volunteer Marek  13:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and it's great that you started an RfC. Except that 1) the wording doesn't say "white supremacist". 2) While RfC is ongoing the appropriate version is the status quo version which is this one. So please self-revert. An RfC isn't magical "protect my edit warring" dust you sprinkle on your reverts. Volunteer Marek  13:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Mmmm, nm, I see that the info was added right before that by another editor. But then the whole paragraph should be removed. Volunteer Marek  13:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• I see your RFC was hatted because it was, in fact, malformed. Also, please review WP:RFC. You really should have some sort of discussion on the matter before resorting to RFC. I was looking for a talk page discussion, and there was absolutely nothing. This could be construed as gaming the system, because you essentially prevent all editing on the topic for the 30 days or so that the RFC is going on. Please start a discussion on the article's TP. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

That was the purpose of the RfC -- getting a talk page consensus discussion. I have no underlying motives for an RfC and enjoy using it because it is the easiest and clearest way of gaining a consensus. The two editors who opposed the very existence of the RfC are Leftists, based on their edit and talk page comment histories. I take their comments about my RfC with even less than a grain of salt. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert : post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people

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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 18:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

01:34:28, 26 October 2017 review of submission by Mursimon

• Mursimon (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tom Palazzolo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I investigated your comments and don't quite know how to distinguish a resume from an encyclopedic entry. I see many artists pages that are filled with exhibition, art exhibitions, publications, awards and grants. It appears to be rather non-specific as to how much info is permitted or not. All I could gather is that I have listed too many of Tom's accomplishments and that reducing the number of entries would make it more acceptable to you (which, at this point, is what this is all about). I have increased the number of sources and hope that this will make the sourcing less weak. When commenting on some artists having many references, I'm referring to people such as "Roger Brown", Chicago artist who has an incredibly long list of credits. Thanks for any advice you may have. Murray Mursimon (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mursimon: Overall, your draft needs more prose. Having only bullet points makes it look like a resume, and since this is an encyclopedia article and not a resume or simple profile or list, the draft should be in prose, discussing Palazzolo's life and career. It's the prose that really shows how be is notable. While the Roger Brown (artist) has a list that is ridiculously long, it also has a lot of prose that discusses his life and career. Readers are generally more interested in that part of the biography. You probably don't have to remove much, if any, of the bullet points (though I question the "grants" section), since they are his works. But the prose should definitely be expanded a lot.

While not my reason for declining the draft, I also recommend adding more in-line citations to the article, particularly the bullet points. I see that only some of them are cited (I'm sure that all the information is in the external links section, and that's fine, but it's always good to know where exactly everything came from). When you add more prose, I also recommend adding the in-line citations. I hope my advice helps. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC

There's an RFC you may wish to comment on here: Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump#Request for comment on tracking progress of nominations. Marquardtika (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain these comments on a Conservapedia article you edit?

I don't expect "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia"[9] to be fair, but don't you guys have anything like our BLP policy? Eg "Another user called User:Grayfell, was accused of abusing his power for also deleting and blocking any user who disagreed with his views. He has also been confirmed to be a sockpuppet, as he made other accounts which agreed with his edits, and attacked those who did not. Those fraudulent accounts are User:Eden5, User:Nasty, and User:I am One of Many." I added the links. This is nonsense. Grayfell isn't an Admin, the other accounts aren't socks. "A user who is from Serbia called User:Vanjagenije, is inappropriately editing pages that are related to the United States, even though he has never lived in America." Is there some sort of Conservapedia policy that you can't edit an article about a country unless you've lived there? "Another user named Doug Weller and his brother User:C.Fred both Canadian, have been going to any anti-trump pages and prohibiting anyone from editing anything pro-trump. They both have admin privileges. User User:Bakilas and User Doug Weller have removed edit summaries, so that people cannot see the history of edits. They both have removed verified information that did not agree with their far-left political beliefs." I'm not Canadian, C.Fred isn't Canadian (like me, he's from the American South) or my brother. I don't haunt anti-Trump pages, in fact as a matter of practice I generally stay away from anything specifically about him. Bakilas can't remove edit summaries and although I can, you know I'd get caught if I did it for political reasons. I'm also not far-left and it doesn't look as though Bakilas is. I don't know who is responsible for these lies - they're so blatantly false it's hard to call them anything else. About the only accurate thing is the statement that C.Fred and I are Admins. I know you didn't write them but you did edit 2 hours after the edit about Grayfell and Vanjagenije.[10] I'll be interested in your comments. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Here are the diffs of the info being added:[11][12] Two accounts added this info, and these were the only edits they ever made (thus, they're inactive). I believe these two accounts are socks with each other, based on a comment by an admin with checkuser rights.

I did edit the section right after the person made the first edit, in order to add permalinks. I had no interest in the content when the guy added the info -- what concerned me was the fact that he didn't add permalinks -- but I assumed this person had a bad experience here (which does happen, and sometimes it's not the fault of those people) and created an account on CP to add it. But since you brought it up, I looked at the content in question and since you appear to be right, I removed it. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Your explanation doesn't make much sense when you linked the page to your user page because you thought it had relevant content.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@I am One of Many: What do you mean? If you're referring to my CP user page (which D.W.) linked above for some reason, I only linked to it once in order to remind myself to eventually get around to adding additional info and improving it. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And no, CP doesn't have any policies about editing articles about countries. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that they were one off edits and checked to see if the usernames matched any here. They don’t. Thanks for removing it, but the edits were there 7 and 5 months. Who knows how long they’d be there if I hadn’t noticed them? What I’ve learned from this is that Conservapedia doesn’t seem to care much about BLPs and certainly not at all about sources. Doug Weller talk 20:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding it. CP has no effective policies for BLPs or for sourcing anything, but reliably providing information is not their goal, but rather promoting right-wing-religious propaganda.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn’t mean to link to your user page. I’ve got s program that stores clips and selected the wrong one. Doug Weller talk 21:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring warning Nov 2017

I am very, very close to bringing you to AE.

Your recent editing history at Answers in Genesis 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) 14:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

More of the same. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Your threats about discretionary sanctions and reporting behavior have become quite frequent. I am thinking it would be helpful if you could cite which aspect of the final decision you feel is being violated. Otherwise, we are kind of guessing at what you are taking exception to. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no "threat". We have DS to deal with persistent disruption driven by advocacy on contentious issues. I have already provided him with notice of the DS and am giving very, very fair warning that we actually apply them. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: So, you consider his reversions, even if they do not run afoul of 3RR, to be "persistent disruptions", then? Are you recommending that he note every edit he disagrees with on the talk page before/instead of reverting them? I'm honestly just trying to get to the crux of the biscuit here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not OK to use editing privileges for advocacy. We get people doing that anyway of course, but advocacy for pseudoscience got so bad that we have DS on that specifically. 1990s guy is establishing a very clear pattern of pseudoscience advocacy.

With this comment you are now INVOLVED on this matter. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not advocating for YEC (and don't use the word "pseudoscience", as I don't even access the articles of other topics) -- I think that your preferred wording is inaccurate, does not follow the source, and does not describe AiG's positions well. That's far from "advocacy", and I don't even edit YEC topics a lot compared to politics. Your response, Jytdog, shows a lack of WP:AGF. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I see. I was hoping that there was some procedural correction that could be effected that would alleviate your concerns, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Whether 1990'sguy's editing constitutes advocacy or not is a matter of opinion. I also find it interesting that you seem to have fired an unnecessary preemptive shot by citing WP:INVOLVED, as though you believe I was preparing to take some kind of admin action to which you would object. If you can cite evidence, beyond the fact that he and I happen to agree in our personal beliefs about YEC, that I have been preparing for such action, please do so. Otherwise, I second 1990'sguy's admonition about WP:AGF. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Acdixon. Its not about procedure but about where 1990s guy has been coming from. Whether someone's editing is advocacy is not just opinion, but rather is something that can be demonstrated with diffs, which I will be doing at AE if 1990s guy continues as they have been. It will not be the first time that I have demonstrated that someone has a very clear pattern of advocating for something in a way that disrupts the project.

With regard to the INVOLVED thing. Look at it from my perspective. DS are under discussion, and a person with admin rights steps in and asks questions..... I was actually surprised to see you go weigh in at the article. Clearly you didn't post here originally as an admin -- but that was not clear at first. Now it is. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh -- and thanks for saying that you share 1990s guys YEC beliefs. I was unaware of that (if I was aware of it before, I forgot). Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I'm not sure what you think is thankworthy about saying I share 1990'sguy's YEC beliefs. I would very much like to hear you elaborate on that. Further, the fact that I have been editing YEC-related articles since at least 2014 without your being able to discern my personal beliefs should tell you much about my ability and desire to edit neutrally and within policy.

Regarding INVOLVED, I think if you examine my history as an admin, you'll find that I use the tools very sparingly and usually only in very clear-cut cases. I generally dislike getting into the weeds of administrivia or the conflict that comes from seeking or imposing sanctions in any case beyond obvious, consistent vandalism.

Finally, I'm well aware of much of 1990'sguy's editing history in the YEC realm, and I do not believe it constitutes advocacy of YEC or any of the related topics. He and I are both keenly aware of the dismal view that most folks take on the topic, and I think both of our editing histories show that we're not afraid to add material that is critical. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It is thankworthy because you didn't have to say it, and you did. I appreciate people being transparent. You are correct that I could have perhaps discerned that by looking at your edits. I have not done that and even so, that might not tell me that you come from that position.

With regard to INVOLVED, I have not studied your history of using the tools. Good to know that you use them carefully.

I do understand that you do not believe that 1990s guy is not establishing a pattern of advocacy.Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no COIs with AiG or other YEC organizations. Also, I try to adhere to NPOV when I edit YEC topics. What appears to be "advocacy" for you is simply differing opinions between us. Your (false) claims that I am an "advocate" for YEC (when that's not even the main topic I edit) say more about yourself than me. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have raised no concerns about COI. This is a pure advocacy issue as far as I can see. This is not about any bit of content but a long term pattern you are establishing of promoting YEC in Wikipedia. The best way to avoid advocacy is to reach for high quality, independent, and ideally scholarly sources and summarize what they say. If you find yourself constantly citing low quality sources or SPS, it probably means that the thing you are passionate about is driving your editing, instead of high quality sources driving your editing. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

When in the world have I cited bad sources? This dispute revolved around me conforming the wording to represent the source better. And if you're talking about IGH, the consensus was that the sources were just fine. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not about me throwing up arguments and you trying to knock them down, nor is this the actual AE, nor did I come here for dramah. I gave you something to consider about how we work here, and you can heed that or not. There are all kinds of things that advocates do and have always done here over the past 16 years. I think I have pointed you to these before, but please do read WP:ADVOCACY, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and all of NPOV, especially WP:YESPOV and of course WP:PSCI which is the locus of the DS. (and not just their letter, but try to hear their spirit). Please also review the comments of two uninvolved admins in the section above, here. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

IRS chief

He was appointed by Trump on October 26 and is effective as of Monday. Also an Assist. Secretary of Treasury. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 00:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Thanks. I didn't know that. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem! In the future, I think it'd be best to look up the person in question before removing so we don't have to revert all the time. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 13:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: If you're referring to an internet search, yes, I'll keep that in mind for the next time I see something like this. I usually look at the WP articles of the people in the acting position, but there was no article linked to Kautter's name, and I didn't know he was elsewhere in the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That's why I had inserted the comment <!-- Per WP:OVERLINK, we don't link his name due to it being listed above -->! But I see your point as well! Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 15:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops! My apologies, I didn't bother looking at the code when removing the comment, so it seemed to me that Kautter was just another career official appointed because he was next in line. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A User

Hi 1990'sguy as you know a user has been makeing changes to the Political appointments by Donald Trump. and that user been yelled at by all of us I think its time for someone to get a administrator. To send a werning to the User if you can please find one to like Worn not block the User that will be great. Thanks96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, 1990'sguy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy Holidays

This user wishes you a very Happy Holiday season.

Marquardtika (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: Thanks, and same to you! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Advertising

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Is Genesis History?. 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) 18:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Advertizing? I'm not surprised, considering these charges are coming from you, but I don't see how even fanatic zealots would see my edits as "advertizing." --1990'sguy (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Is Genesis History? shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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) 18:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:DTR. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Request on 09:03:01, 26 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by WeilSH

• WeilSH (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Shanghai Institute of American Studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article the Shanghai Institute of American Studies is rejected and your comment is that it should be neutral and refer to a wide range of reliable sources. I want to make improvements so I take articles in same category such like Chinese Academy of Sciences and Shanghai Academy of Social Science as reference.These articles are quite simple with few external links. I am a little confused and I wish you could help me improve it. First, am I right the reason why you think my article appearing to be advertisement is that I list too many publications without reference? Is that ok if I delete some items and make this part more concise. Second, since this insititute is located in China, the sources I refer to are mainly Chinese website, would that be ok if I don't refer to English websites? Thank you very much.

WeilSH (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@WeilSH: For the first point, you are correct. Essentially, (without plageriing) the draft should say whatever reliable sources also say about it. If no reliable sources (reputable publications, independent from article topic) discuss a certain part of the Shanghai Institute, that part should not be included in the article, or at the very least, only a very passing mention should be made about it. Otherwise, the draft looks like you're advertising for it. But when you add sources for the article, the sources generally should not have any connection with the Academy.

For the second point, using Mandarin-language websites (or any non-English website in general) is OK -- just as long as the sources meet WP:RS, the language doesn't matter. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello 1990'sguy: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Corky 02:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Hope you had a good Christmas, as well! Corky 02:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Thanks! I had a great Christmas, and I wish all the same to you as well! --1990'sguy (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning, again

Your recent editing history at Is Genesis History? shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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) 00:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Your attitude is ridiculous. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully request you stop reverting my changes in the article of Greg Abbott. Your claim that my wording is POV is inaccurate. My statement does not dismiss her title of the first Latin First Lady of Texas. It simply clarifies that she has other lineages. Thanks. Julio P. 20:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Puentes (talk • contribs)

Claudia Tenney

Would you have a look at Claudia Tenney? Also Anthony Brindisi if you have a chance. Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Is Genesis History?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wheaton College (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) 09:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Stephen P. Vaughn

He didn't actually resign did he? Trump appointed him as General Counsel, and immediately elevated him to acting Trade Rep... to me he's like the other "acting" officials and wouldn't be placed in the "resigned" section... He should definitely be added above in the USTR section, though, since he is an appointee... Corky 01:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: True -- if you think he's better placed in the USTR section, I'm OK with that, just as long as he's placed somewhere. I knew that he is the general counsel, but I didn't think of keeping him in the main section since general counsel seems insignificant compared to the other listed positions (though I could be very wrong, and if so, please correct me). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, but we have added other positions that aren't necessarily notable as others... CIOs, human resources assistant secretary, etc... those who are appointed by Trump but doesn't need confirmation. Maybe we should set a "guideline" on who should be included? Vaughn was kind of a controversial one due to not working in the agency and immediately elevated to acting trade rep. I don't think we need to include he was the acting trade rep, though we can... Corky 02:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I think we should mention Vaughn's former status as acting USTR, since he clearly was a political appointee and because he led the entire agency for about three months. Guidelines might be a good idea, since agencies have a lot of non-confirmed political appointees (though I am not against allowing non-confirmed people be listed). --1990'sguy (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Ark Encounter. Your revert reintroduced deliberate factual errors. If you continue, I will ask for administrator intervention. jps (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I crossed out your stupidity, since you're the one inserting blatant POV into the article. Tell me what is factually incorrect about my wording? That it doesn't go out of its way to read like an atheist blog? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You may remove my message but you may not strike through it. If you cannot be bothered to learn why your creationist beliefs are incorrect, it's not my job to educate you. But you will find it unpleasant to work here. jps (talk)

I can do what I want with my talk page, and be thankful that I didn't delete the message outright. Please show me examples of how I'm somehow inserting YEC bias into the article? Because I oppose wording that makes the article read like "RationalWiki", or because I don't want the article to go out of its way to just to call YEC pseudoscience? And your latest comment is about my personal beliefs, rather than my editing -- which is inappropriate and is a borderline WP:PERSONAL attack (if I were writing an article from a YEC perspective, it would look a lot different from the wording I am proposing). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You are within your rights to delete the edit outright. You are not within your rights to put strikethrough around it. WP:TPO. jps (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@ජපස: Yes he is within his rights to strike your post as long as he does not change the meaning. Striking the whole post does not change its meaning. 86.153.129.239 (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Hi 1990'sguy! I noticed that you have an interest in creating high quality content. I was wondering if you would be able to help out and be a co-reviewer for Margaret Thatcher. The article is already GA so the review should be straightforward. The review page is here and the A-Class criteria are here. Thanks! – Lionel^(talk) 06:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: Yes, I can do that. Thanks for asking me! --1990'sguy (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Trump appointees who've left the Administration

I don't see the point in keeping them on both pages... they've already decided to keep List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations after I had nominated it for deletion. Corky 04:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: If every person listed in that section is moved to and listed in the sub-article, I will self-revert. However, as I think I pointed out before, what will happen is the sub-article will grow larger and larger as more Trump Administration appointees resign (and most appointees in every administration don't serve for four-to-eight years). --1990'sguy (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Alrighty, I see that as an issue now. Do you know where the discussion is where we decided to keep those who have resigned from one position to take another within the Administration? There are others who are only mentioning my name in reference to that discussion and I know I'm not the only one who agreed to it... I want to point them to the right direction... Thanks, Corky 01:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: This might be the discussion where we decided this -- it's the only one that specifically discusses appointees who resigned to take up another Trump Administration position. However, this discussion might also be relevant. I hope this helps. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ueli Maurer

Hi! That information was placed so that when the Swiss Vice President Ueli Maurer assumes the presidency of the Confederation next year.--Stalin990 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Border article

Please self-revert this as it is currently being discussed on the article's talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Hi... I also edit Wikipedia. Actually, Wikipedia and RationalWiki (I can mention it here) are how I heard of Conservapedia in the first place. I was reading RationalWiki history on Wikipedia and it mentioned CP --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Anyway, thanks for saying hello. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Keith Kellogg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously

Seriously, though... All I did was simply state an opinion or corrected what I saw was wrong. And now I am blocked for eternity by your sysop... What rule did I violate? I was blocked for the crime of knowing more biology? I respected the website, and contributed a lot! This is UNJUST (though not unprecedented) --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian right, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Christian Coalition and National Restoration Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are you biased against me?

So,

• 1.I get blocked, ask you for help in e-mail, and you refuse to do ANYTHING
• 2.I get unblocked WITHOUT YOUR HELP (you refused to do ANYTHING about ANYTHING!!!) and you block me for "removing content"
• 3.Then you police my articles and upon finding the SLIGHTEST MISTAKE "warn" me
• 4.If I go to someone else's Talk page you cut in... AND ALWAYS try to make me look bad... If I talk to Andy or ask him a question, you jump in to show him how "worthless" I am.
• 5.I write something on your talk page... I get blocked for my views (My block LOG LITERALLY says that the reason I got blocked was MY VIEWS ABOUT EVOLUTION) you DO NOTHING!!!!!
• 6.When I ask a sysop, you revert my request so as not to let him see my request...

Do you do this to everyone or just me? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The first three (and #5) are easy -- CP is a conservative wiki (duh), so info should conform to its POV. Your edits did not (if it wasn't already obvious) -- and I'm the one who generally checks peoples' edits (yes, I do it with everyone). Also, I'm not going to change a ban by someone superior in rank to me (it's not allowed, and it's not good conduct even it is was) -- and remember, I wasn't the one who banned you. Also, you don't know about the "behind-the-scenes" conversations we have about matters like this (no, I'm not going to divulge).

About #4, it has nothing to do with your "worth", but your lack of understanding of CP's rules. You were obsessed with becoming an admin (though you literally just started and had been blocked more than once for bad behavior). It's not like RW -- it takes a long time and a lot of good edits that don't go against CP's POV. I don't even have full rights. Then you come and expect quick promotion? I find that offensive, actually.

I chose to respond to prevent you to correct these misconceptions, but I won't respond anymore on my talk page, since I don't want to discuss CP matters here. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to bother you again with CP stuff and I promise I will try my best not to bring up CP here with you...

Look, about my current situation. I do not protest my block. I understand that I broke my promise and started to heat up the situation... But I think 2 week block is ENOUGH ok... Lesson learned. Look, all I want you to do, is just let Karajou, when he is cooled down, see this... just let him read this, and in a COOL state of mind make a decision. First of all, I do not plan to continue arguing or pick a fight... I don't care too much. I just want to edit CP and be a member. I am not a troll. Like you have noted I was not a particularly big fan of RW was I? And in over a year I have created only mainspace articles. I have been blocked several times, I was once blocked, ironically, "for being a creationist."https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AKingdamian1&type=block Anyways, I wish to edit Conservapedia again... If I was only allowed to create pages again, I could improve CP significantly. For some reason, Karajou does not see this. I know, he is a good guy, he loves CP. But if you look at his block list, some people who are clearly there JUST TO DISRUPT are sometimes given 6 months. This is unfair. I know I am not perfect, I inserted leftist POV (though I am NOT leftist), but when corrected I always accepted it... Also, is it really such a big crime that I was arguing. I mean ok, lesson learned, right? Block is to prevent vandalism, can Karajou or you HONESTLY look at me and say that you are genuinely afraid I will vandalize CP? OF COURSE THE ANSWER IS NO! Neither of you think that even for a SECOND... Both of you know FULL WELL, that I respect CP, I respect the power structure, what the project is for. I heated up a discussion, I understand, I was blocked... And I accepted it, now can we move on? Can I continue editing Conservapedia? So again, I know you will see this, though you might not respond... All I ask you is let Karajou see this... That is all, let him pread this in calm state of mind, and decide whether blocking me is to prevent vandalism (which we all know is NOT gonna happen from me), or for something else... And btw, I am not a little kid, hungry for attention. I am younger than Karajou but that does not make me a little kid. Please, let him read this, let him see what I write and let him decide whether I am a danger to Conservapedia or am I being blocked for something else? I know, that my chances for being unblocked may not be good, but can I at least know, do I have a chance for later? And I can't state this enough... I AM NOT AN RW troll. I even provided my block log for you to see... I have kind of run out of traditional sock accounts to create... I would appreciate if you let me know that you understood and saw what I wrote here. I will try my best to NOT bother you with CP matters. Have a great day.. Thanks Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Karajou is in a calm/cool state, and I don't think his biggest worry is you being an RW troll or a vandal. I understand what you wrote here, but I will not and cannot argue with him -- he's been on CP for over 10 years and knows what he's doing. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

ok... I understand. You are a really helpful person and I than you for that. One last thing, what do you suggest, forget about cp forever? Or is there a speck of a hope my situation can be reconsidered? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Is Genesis History? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Is Genesis History? 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/Is Genesis History? (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Thomas Francis Davis) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Thomas Francis Davis, 1990'sguy!

Wikipedia editor TeriEmbrey just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for creating this article.

To reply, leave a comment on TeriEmbrey's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hashtag tool

Here's the link to the Hashtag tool: http://tools.wmflabs.org/hashtags/search

The hashtag #1lib1ref is being used by libraries this month to track contributions to Wikipedia. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Article Rescue Barnstar
	Is hereby awarded for your valiant effort to rescue from deletion Is Genesis History?. Keep up the great work! – Lionel(talk) 06:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: Thank you! :) I appreciate it, though the fight's not over yet. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Fredrick Steinman Foltz) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Fredrick Steinman Foltz, 1990'sguy!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed, well done, in-depth article. Thanks for creating!

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SamHolt6 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Gary Washington

Do you know if Gary Washington, the USDA Chief Information Officer, is the same as the one that was appointed to the Commodity Credit Corporation? I am thinking so, but I can't really find anything about the guy! Corky 17:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: It is, according to agri-pulse.com. It's true that there aren't many sources about him. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I couldn't access the article earlier due to not being a subscriber, so I am glad you are able to confirm! I can add his picture now. Thanks again, Corky 21:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Edward Alexander Miller

I think the correct name of that general is "Edward Alexander Millar". Comp: [13][14]. regards, Alexpl (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexpl: You're probably right -- this wouldn't be the first time (much the opposite!) I've seen different spellings used for the same person. Would you please perform the necessary article title move? Thanks for pointing this out to me! :) --1990'sguy (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I dont think its a controvertial move. So I just did it. Alexpl (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Awaiting your apology

waiting... Kevin McE (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It's obviously no fun being investigated for socking when you're not actually a sock, so I definitely empathize with that. However, it seemed very odd that Cliveplug created an account after you crossed 3RR to support you when you have virtually no support on the talk page for your edits. Also, on that SPI, a clerk endorsed my claim. I think what I did what right, in light of the evidence that was there at the time of filing, and comments like this are ridiculous. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Slander and no apology noted. Kevin McE (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry C. Hodges, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rutland, Vermont (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please explain

You appear to be systematically going behind the edits of James mccosker and removing COI tags and the like, without doing any significant cleanup.

This appears to be either proxying for a banned editor or renewed undisclosed paid editing.

Please explain. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: That user was banned over two years ago, and the history of the pages I edited show that you and several other editors examined them and removed promotional info. In the two years since, the pages were virtually untouched, indicating that the current versions are the consensus. Since that was apparent to me, and since User:James mccosker is banned, the tags are redundant. And please, WP:AGF for once. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the talk pages still have the COI notices -- and they should stay that way. But if these articles have been stable for two-and-a-half years (even after being noticed and edited by you and others), having a tag at the top of the article is an excessive solution to a real problem. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not answering the question, as to why you are going behind this particular person's edits. That is the question. Please explain. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I answered the question, and I'm not "going behind this particular person's edits", whatever that even means. You had two-and-a-half years to remove the banned user's promotional garbage, if there was any left. At this point in time, tags like that are unnecessary and even hurt the article. If you have no issues with the articles as they are now (judging by the fact that you haven't touched them for years after looking closely at them), the tags should be removed. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

See below. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Scare quotes

It wasn't scare quotes, it was wiki markup for italic. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Is Genesis History?. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 17:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh well -- Wikipedia is a great site for most topics, but most of its editors -- clouded by their extreme animosity for YEC -- don't even try to be objective on topics related to YEC, as we can clearly see on IGH. Apparently, it's a blockable offense to remove blatantly false information about Ken Ham that closely mirrors (exclusively) atheist blogs and other articles criticizing (rather than reporting on) AiG and Ken Ham.

I joined Conservapedia specifically because of this bias (one of the best moves I made in the wiki-world) after dealing with it for nearly three years, and that's where I'll be for the duration of this block. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh look, these same people will start ranting about bad faith when someone points out their bias (which by the way is visible from your user page). But they freely say the other is biased themselves, in this case those not supporting Christian conservative view.

The actuality is you only care about your opinion. Isn't it time you were blocked for bad faith disruption? I am not related to any of the guys he fought with, though a banhammer is long overdue for people like him. Fundamentalist1 (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If you actually look at my edits (rather than blindly believe what others say about them), you'll find that I've been very objective in my editing -- supporting compromise edits that most conservative Christians would cringe at. The problem is, anything short of "YEC is false and factually incorrect pseudoscience" (and not just that, but using those terms every time creation science is mentioned on any article, as is currently the case) is accused of somehow being "YEC propaganda." No, it's YEC propaganda to say "YEC has the strong support of millions of qualified intellectuals while evolutionism has nothing" -- but I never proposed such wording, not even close.

Interesting you want me to be banned for taking a contrarian (yet, objective) view on WP's treatment on YEC, when I actually rarely edit the topic these days.

Rather than creating an account just to criticize me, go make some real edits. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Lol you pretend you're being "blocked" for your opinion when it was due to 3RR clearly. What else proof is needed that you're only here to push your own bias? Fundamentalist1 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As for YEC, Wikipedia prefers scientific and historians rather than creationists (experts in the field). And of course every scientist isn't an atheist. Wikipedia allows adding an alternate viewpoint, if it's notable. That includes criticism from reliable sources per BLP. As long as the source isn't pure propaganda or a known political hit piece, it's allowed. If Ken Ham's article doesn't meet this, then you can "correct". Fundamentalist1 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Bishonen, this guy's userpage is pure political propaganda. While one can ignore the attacks on Christianty claims and his strong belief in Christianity is okay, other userboxes show he is only here to push his agenda. He attacks the EU as socialist and globalist, true or not these are used as common slurs by right-wingers against their opponents. He rejects feminist dogma, though in its basic form it is just equal rights. The last image is of Obama family, criticising them over choices of their children's school. All of this is WP:NOTHERE.

Especially revealing is his faith in Creation science over evolution which explains why he was he's so obssesed and even edit-wars on creationist artciles. Though he claims bias of others and talks about neutrality, he claims he is being blocked for his opinion that Ken Ham info he removed was false. It is clear that this guy is himself biased and not here for the good of Wikipedia. Just ban him already. Otherwise all he and his gang does is hound people like me. Fundamentalist1 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's not forget his bad faith claims on bias about creationist sources, when in actual Wikipedia mostly uses scholars or news, not creationsists. Fundamentalist1 (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Fundamentalist1: yes, 1990'sguy's religious opinions are clear from his userpage. In my opinion their userboxes are not in violation of our guideline WP:USER, but if you want to bring their page to the attention of the community, I suggest WP:ANI. I doubt you'll get much traction there, though. Partly because they're fairly normal userboxes, and partly because of the point 1990'sguy makes above: you're a new account created just to post here, and — in my opinion — most likely a sock of an established user. Please don't come here to bait a blocked user. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC).
• User:Bishonen Actually it does matter because I was talking about his motivation. Because it explains his behavior. Regardless of what you think, you must act against this user. He’s himself attacking most other editors as biased against a creationst organisation, even though such sources are usually not accepted here, and refusing to concede he was blocked solely for edit-warring rather than the edits he made. If he's not pushing his agenda, he'll target other users. Such people can't be let off the hook and it's time you did something about them. Fundamentalist1 (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Bishonen I read WP:USER but you should read it. See WP:POLEMIC. Attacks against organisation or individuals are prohibited. Also user pages can't be used for soapboxing or battleground behavior. 1990'sguy has clearly breached this. If you aren't going to ban a guy who edit-wars, promotes his agenda, improperly uses userpages, even has been involved in meatpuppetry on articles he has no interest in like University of Chicago Law School [University_of_Chicago_Law_School&oldid=856864652] where he didn't edit except to restore edit version of an associate. Is this a joke that these people do whatever they want? Fundamentalist1 (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not about his religious opinions anyway, but his religious and political bias which enters into his edits as well as his other nonsense behavior. Fundamentalist1 (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Fundamentalist1: Take a hint and fuck off from this page before I block you. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC).

User:Bishonen Don't use foul language against me. I’ve had enough of your nonsense. The user himself has show his bias but all you do is speak foul words. Blocking me after what you said anyway is a violation of WP:INVOLVED. So be careful. You are being reported. Fundamentalist1 (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm unfortunate; I see that it's your first block, so very short. Oh well -- Wikipedia is a great site for most topics, but most of its editors -- clouded by their extreme animosity for YEC -- don't even try to be objective on topics related to YEC, as we can clearly see on IGH. this is victimization. As often, a lot of time was wasted at the article's talk page after a driveby routine WP:PSCI-violating edit (see my previous concern here about the same issue (here is a troubling pattern...) As for Fundamentalist1's edits, you may ignore them as they likely were a sock (their comments are commonly even marked with <s>...</s>). Since you mentioned Conservapedia, I think that I understand the motivation to edit on Wikipedia too, considering its high profile, higher quality and accuracy (vs ridiculous claims like "Unfortunately Bible deniers, including many atheists and evolutionists, refuse to read the Bible, and their irrational closed-mindedness against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science." [15]), but Conservapedia is indeed a better place to promote or defend creationism. —PaleoNeonate – 02:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikisolidarity

• Guy (sorry, I don't like typing out usernames when I'm not pinging because it always feels like an insult if I misspell something), don't let this sock get to you. You and I disagree on a lot of things, but that doesn't make it okay for some asshole to make an account just to put you on blast for having a different worldview. I'd rather work with you on an article than with some atheists I know, including this dickhead.

And Bish? If Guy here were to post an unblock request, I'd support it. Things just got hot for a bit, then settled down into the usual talk page fightingdiscussion. the 3RR vio is not that big of a deal, and I really can't picture him pushing forward with continued reverts. I don't know that he will (a 24h block is not that long), but I just wanted to be clear that I don't think this block will really prevent much. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed the comment here a moment ago by another sock. As an FYI, I think the 24 hours is fine enough to allow cooler heads to prevail, and I can kindly suggest if you're approaching 3RR, walk away for a bit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not gonna argue against it (I'm of the opinion that there ought to be an function that automatically blocks anyone who hits 4RR, and them let them use a dedicated 4RR unblock request to request a vandalism/BLP exemption), I'm just saying that the 3RR vio Guy engaged in was out of character for him. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I've seen the edits and I agree. I always want to see cooler heads prevail, and if it leads you to revert over and over, walk away for a bit. Wikipedia will be here tomorrow. Just some friendly advice that's all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your support, MPants. Honestly, the moment I reverted the fourth time, I was not thinking of the first revert, which was on a different content matter, so for a moment, I thought I was reverting for the third time -- I was not planning on reverting again either way. Of course, that fact is irrelevant to the merits of the block/unblock, but I want to let you know nonetheless. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

unblock

User:Bishonen and User:RickinBaltimore, I have posted my unblock request. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed it for you - you were supposed to post it at the bottom of the page, not edit it inside the block template... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

1990'sguy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I see that I violated 3RR, and I apologize. I won't do it again, and I will edit constructively, like I have done on the 3,400 articles I have edited in my five years here. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

OK. Happy editing. Bishonen | talk 10:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

So 1990'sguy is released from the block, and their next edit to the article is this, removing the sourcing supporting the content that creationism is pseudoscience - leaving it actually unsourced. I am asking each of User:Bishonen, User:RickinBaltimore, and User:Boing! said Zebedee to consider taking action under the PSCI DS. Do let me know. If this is not sufficient for you (which I would understand) please let me know and I will prepare a full case at AE. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The sources clearly violate WP:COATRACK -- they have nothing to do with the movie. The sources/facts/whatever may be true (that's irrelevant), but what does it have to do with the movie? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And no, this is a policy dispute -- I haven't violated any policies/guidelines, and disagreeing with you because of WP:COATRACK doesn't constitute a policy/guideline violation. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

And removed again. For pete's sake. WP:PSCI is very clear that we do not discuss pseudoscience without describing it as such. And sources are needed for that. Period. I won't revert again; I am sure others will do. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

For crying out loud, I clearly labeled YEC as "pseudoscience" in my edit -- I made it less wordy and removed the WP:COATRACK violation. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's an article of a movie -- I fully support those refs in the creation science article, which deals with the belief. I strongly oppose treating an article of a movie like that of a belief. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

1990'sguy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

So I can defend myself at the ANI noticeboard and edit on political topics. If unblocked, I will voluntarily not edit the IGH article for at least the remainder of the 48-hour period. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

That seems fair enough, unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• You have just come off a 24-hour block for edit warring, and you go straight in to edit warring on a related the same article. You are heading for a likely topic ban from anything related to creationism if you keep this up. When you are unblocked, you need follow BRD - if you make a change and it is reverted, STOP, do not do it again, go discuss it on the talk page and seek a consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: May I comment on the talk page of the Ark Encounter article before the 48 hour period expires? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine by me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Hi 1990'sguy. You and I have diametrically opposed views on the world, but I've always respected your commitment to NPOV and consensus-building on topics you have strong feelings about, despite considerable hostility from other editors. So if you will take some friendly advice: this issue isn't worth getting banned over. Is Genesis History? has become a battleground out of all proportion to the significance of the film. I unwatched the page months ago, and if you do the same I think you'll find editing a much more enjoyable experience again. – Joe (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I may do that, but it really pains me to see edits like this (1,2; which several editors, with the same views as you, have agreed with me on at the ANI) actually be defended by experienced editors despite their POV and COATRACK problems. Honestly, I doubt that if I didn't act, this would still remain unchallenged. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, if it weren't for you, that article might well be deleted. I agree to a certain extent that the state at one point very recently was very pushy on the "creationism is bunk" front, and I think that's a reaction to the fact that the article should have been deleted but wasn't. But I agree with Joe. This article isn't worth ruining your wikicareer over. Hell, this topic isn't worth it. You're a good editor in general, you just have a weak point. If you accept (or even self-impose) the topic ban that's being discussed at ANI, I think you'll find that your tenure here will become markedly less stressful. That's exactly what I did with American Politics: I took all the overtly political pages off my watchlist, refused to get drawn back into the topic, and I honestly feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders, no matter how hard it was to do in the moment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Apology

Just wanted to apologize here, too, for my poor judgment in hastily bringing CP edits into a WP discussion without fully understanding what I was linking. The blunder could've happened with a diff here, too, I suppose, but it being an off-wiki reference just makes it more embarrassing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted -- we all make mistakes. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Creationism and NPOV and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, funplussmart (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This arbitration case request has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Tea

By the way, 1990'sguy. You likely already know about the popular and welcoming Teahouse, but I would also like to mention that you're always welcome to my talk page as well. I don't hate you. User talk pages are also not like article talk pages: they are allowed more freedom of expression (although noone "owns" them, including their user). Even if we end up not agreeing, there's no harm in asking questions, including on article content. I however don't officially "adopt" editors, but if you would like, there are other experienced editors who do, and may be helpful. As I wrote previously, I think that much of your editing is valuable, it's on particular articles that tension was apparent. It seems that the recent ANI thread wasn't fruitful, which is also a message for everyone, including myself. By being careful this could soon be something of the past... One thing to always remember is that Wikipedia is also only an awesome website and that editor sanctions only affect their access to that site, having nothing to do with the real person, their life, their value as a human being, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 11:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

DS Alert

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.

Since you were last notified over a year ago. –dlthewave ☎ 11:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I was just legitimately confused. I'll make sure to do more research in the future. BrownstoneKnockn (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)