User talk:Elinruby

Request for definition of Ahwazi

Hi . As your edit in Iranian Arabs talk page show , you want a definition about the Ahwazi ethnic group . I searched (as I could) to find a reliable source for definition , but didn't find a good one . But if you are interested I can give you my point of view . That term , Ahwazi , is perhaps a new coinage for an ancient group of Arab-language people in Iran . The separatist political groups (See Ethnic_politics_of_Khuzestan#Arab_politics_and_separatism) , tend to use that word to stress more on a separate ethno-linguistic group . But I'm not sure if the defining geographical , ethnic or linguistic factors is clear for they themselves. --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Howdy. I'm sorry about the edit conflicts. I find them frustrating as well, but you shouldn't be losing any typed text when you experience them. If you receive an edit conflict notice as you attempt to save your edits, your edits will be preserved in an edit window at the bottom of your screen (you may have to scroll down to get to that second edit window). When it happens to me (as it did just now while I tried to respond to you on the article talk page), I just highlight what I have written, copy and then paste it into the upper edit window. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just caught your latest comment, as well as your "eye rolling" edit summary. It appears you are determined to set up an unnecessary adversarial situation here. I'm not biting. Have yourself a pleasant evening. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

look, I had only so much time and you wasted all of it with 1) comments that no it doesn't do that (yes it totally does, dude, and if you think otherwise I will need a detailed explanation, preferably with packet captures) and 2) quotes from parties with an agenda (paid lobbyists are not authoritative sources. Or was he an RIAA exec? I forget. Definitely not a neutral observer tho). And all this was while the article was tagged as in use. And now the page is exactly where it was, in all its glorious mediocrity, are you happy? If that's not ankle biting... I am willing to try to explain the internet to your satisfaction and generally in the past I have managed to do so, but YOU HAVE TO LET PEOPLE WORK. Seriously. And then you go away as soon as I say fine, YOU edit. Without taking the tag off, I note. I'll do it for you. But please try to deal with the facts in your comments, k? Just the facts, man ;) Elinruby (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to each of the above points, as well as points you raised on the article talk page. After misconceptions are cleared up, perhaps we can again try to move forward productively.

• look, I had only so much time and you wasted all of it

Not possible. Only you can decide to spend time editing Wikipedia; I can't force you. If you make that choice, you must do so with the realization that your contributions may be expanded, deleted, or otherwise altered at any time, by any editor of Wikipedia.

• with 1) comments that no it doesn't do that (yes it totally does, dude, and if you think otherwise I will need a detailed explanation, preferably with packet captures)

I've reviewed my comments, and at no time did I say "no it doesn't do that". I have, however, indicated that certain content introduced by you into our article was not supported by presently cited sources, dude.

• and 2) quotes from parties with an agenda (paid lobbyists are not authoritative sources. Or was he an RIAA exec? I forget. Definitely not a neutral observer tho).

All commenting parties have an "agenda". Whether you personally agree with one agenda over another is irrelevant for the purposes of editing Wikipedia articles. We strive to accurately represent all significant points of view per the guidelines spelled out in WP:NPOV.

• And all this was while the article was tagged as in use.

Incorrect. I have respected the "in use" tag you have placed on the article, and have not made a single edit to that article since you inserted that tag. Instead, I restricted myself to the article talk page and answered some of your questions there, and commented on edits, so that I wouldn't disrupt your ongoing editing of the article.

• And now the page is exactly where it was, in all its glorious mediocrity, are you happy? If that's not ankle biting...

Incorrect. The word "Ideally" that you removed is still gone, for example, but I get your point — the article is in a state very similar to when you began editing it. Why? As I stated in my Edit Summary, and also on the article talk page, edits you made were either incorrect or unsupported by the sources to which they were cited. I know you later said you'd get around to providing actual sources to support your edits eventually, but I didn't know at the time that you were still actively editing the article. Perhaps, to avoid similar confusion in the future, it would be better to add your source citations at the same time as you add content. Doing so also has the added benefit of assisting you in accurately conveying what the sources say. (...and by the by, I am on the whole quite happy and well, thanks so much for asking!)

• I am willing to try to explain the internet to your satisfaction and generally in the past I have managed to do so

I have no idea what irrelevant tangent you are launching yourself down with that one. I haven't asked you to 'explain' the internet to me (although I'm tempted to encourage such an endeavor just for the entertainment value alone), and if you mean you'd like to explain the Internet to Wikipedia readers, that would be better done at the Internet article. The Protect IP Act article should consist of information specific to that subject, with easy-to-follow Wikilinks to related information in other articles if the reader wants more detailed explanation of those topics.

• but YOU HAVE TO LET PEOPLE WORK. Seriously.

But of course; and no one is stopping you. But please be more mindful Wikipedia's editing policies when you do so. Seriously.

• And then you go away as soon as I say fine, YOU edit. Without taking the tag off, I note. I'll do it for you.

I haven't gone anywhere; I'm still here. As for saying "fine, YOU edit" to me, I already did — you can see my edits in the edit history of the article. As for me removing the "In Use" tag that you placed, I wouldn't do that — you placed it, and you are to remove it when you have completed the edits you intended to make while that tag was in place.

• But please try to deal with the facts in your comments, k? Just the facts, man ;)

I have, and always do. If there are any other questions I can answer for you, please don't hesitate to let me know. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

getting harder to assume good faith

RE: your contributions may be expanded, deleted, or otherwise altered at any time, by any editor of Wikipedia

sure, but not normally within seconds or minutes. In that kind of time frame, especially on a tagged page, there's a presumption that a person might not be finished. I was, as it happens, looking up the exact wording of the technical spec that says a unique root is necessary. This would have come with a footnote. You want good references, right?

No argument from me there. When I made my edits, I had no idea that you were still actively editing article, so there were no presumptions. Once you made me aware that you were still editing, I stopped. Wikipedia requires good references, correct. What *I* want isn't relevant, but I find them to be useful, as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: editing talk page is not editing the page

OK, it's a nitpick, but fine, the talk page was not tagged. Since I explicitly said I was editing in small chunks, and wanted to document as I go for your benefit, since we seem to have a slightly adversarial process here, the argument seems a bit specious. But OK, I'll tag both in future if you'll respect the tags. Their purpose, after all, is to flag a page that may be in an intermediate state. I promise to remove them promptly once I need to leave or feel I am at a stopping place, as well as to respect any that you may put up.

I don't believe "In Use" tags are applicable to talk pages, but I can't say for sure. Of course I'll respect "In Use" tags on the article page, if not abused. If you are simply trying to avoid the annoying Edit Conflicts that can occur, I'd suggest following the advice I gave earlier about simply copying & pasting your additions back into the edit window after such conflicts arise. It's not the most streamlined of solutions, but it is the only one I know of right now. Heh, I see now there is actually a short Wikipedia article saying the same thing: Edit conflict. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: explaining the internet

You may feel you understand the internet, but if some of your requests for documentation are made in good faith, they say that you don't know much about DNS. A co-author of BIND is clearly a DNS expert or he would not be a co-author of BIND. Sure, we need to find a way to convey that. That's one of the things I want to get to. They are not "researchers."

You appear to misunderstand. I did not request documentation from you for my own use or edification. It is a requirement of Wikipedia that the content of our articles be cited to reliable sources, and that is doubly important when writing about living people. Two of our cited sources refer to the gentlemen as "internet researchers", so that is how our article reads. Your dispute isn't with me. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not to say that I think you are stupid or even computer-illiterate. Based on your talk page, you seem to know more than I do about wikipedia syntax, for instance.

You actually have no clue about my level of computer literacy, nor do you need to for the purposes of editing Wikipedia. As editors here, our primary function is to transcribe information from reliable sources (not our own personal knowledge) into the Wikipedia articles. You also have no concept of where my personal opinions rest with regard to the subject of the article we are editing, nor do you need to, if we are both adhering to Wikipedia policy when we edit.

I am about to spend an hour or so on the page. A productive one, this time, I hope. I estimate that it needs about 4-5 hours of work, btw. Elinruby (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic conversation moved here from an article talk page

By the way, in the meantime, please be aware that I do feel you have misrepresented my statements on several occasions. It is possible that some of your apparent obtuseness is in fact a communication problem or a failure on my part to understand something (ie not deliberate obtuseness) but please know that I am not sure of that. Therefore I am asking you, respectfully, to please not to edit my entries on the discussion page. It would improve the happiness index of this talk page immensely ;) Thanks ;) Elinruby (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• "By the way, in the meantime, please be aware that I do feel you have misrepresented my statements on several occasions." --Elinruby

At this time, I will ask you to please substantiate that statement with a diff, or diffs, to such an occasion. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a statement about my perceptions and phrased as such. It does not require a diff. I described them and asked your nicely to respect them. If you would like to address my perceptions, I suggest you address some of the requests above about specific edits. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY

No diffs? Not even one. You make a wild accusation, and when you are called on it, you back-peddle into saying it's a personal "perception" because you know full well you made a non-factual assertion — nonsense, in fact. That speaks volumes to me about your powers of "perception". Xenophrenic (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it ironic that I just tried to fix a typo in one of my comments and found I could not, because you had moved the comment. I am going to ask you again, nicely. Your objectivity is in question and WP:BATTLEGROUND is *very* material to this page. Please do not edit my comments. I cannot tell, for example, from your bullet points above, what you changed. I am having to comb through the history for that and don't think that should be necessary, since I went to the trouble to document the changes. Removing the documentation as you undo the edits just makes it harder for other people to see what happened. Elinruby (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. If you wish to discuss editors, or what you perceive as "battleground" mentality -- perhaps you should avail yourself of the WP:WQA forum. Article talk pages are specifically for discussion of article improvement. If you'd like to have a "frank" discussion here about biases, agendas, "playing nice", etc., I'll be willing to entertain that. But not on article talk pages. If you'd rather address your concerns formally, I'll see you at WP:WQA. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: As for Asking (and asking ... and asking) again nicely ... huh? Has anything changed since your first iteration? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, something has changed. You edited my comments. Again. In a section whose whole purpose was to ask you to refrain from the practice. Then you come admonish me on my talk page after doing so, pointing me to TALK. Where it specifically says:

The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit 

or delete the   comments of other editors without their permission.

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning...

Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution

in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection

So....none of the exceptions appear to apply. I am asking you again, for a third time, in the venue of YOUR choice, to refrain from playing with my comments. Thanks *so* much. Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've not "played" with your comments. In regard to the 3 partial lines you've copied here from WP:TALK: I have never deleted a single word of yours. I have never edited or deleted your comments unless they met the exceptions outlined (and even then, rather than delete, I've extended the courtesy of simply moving them here intact). I have absolutely never edited any comment to change its meaning. My edits are in compliance with WP:TALK, as will be any similar edits by me that you make necessary in the future. From that same WP:TALK page, here are the "exceptions" you failed to notice — some that appear to have been written just for you:

• Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling...
• It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above. Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion.
• Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible.
• Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one...
• Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate ... It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading...

In the spirit of reconciliation, I offer this: I pledge to not edit our talk page discussions if you'll pledge to stop making it necessary. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I have awarded you this barnstar in appreciation of your edits to Protect IP and your ability to remain calm and civil even in extreme conditions. You are a better wikipedian than I. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Biased RIAA study

Here's an article about the RIAA study, it does not say the RIAA study is wrong, but has a study that conflicts with it http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the-music-industrys-most-valuable-customers-100122/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smk65536 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the Barnstar, I really appreciate it! :) That article seems to keep getting a pro-content slant, and I'm feeling that perfectly good, cited statements are being removed illegitimately, but I'll keep a watch on it. Also, I swapped out the Mozilla image for the EFF image that was previously on the page, due to possible copyvios. EFF's site is CC-By, but the Mozilla picture includes the mozilla site, which I'm not sure of, in conjunction with a Firefox theme and Windows toolbar and logo. If you find the Mozilla home page is freely licensed, feel free to replace, but crop the image so it's just the site, not browser and OS. Once again, thank you :) I look forward to editing with you more soon.C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 11:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly good cited content falls off that page all the time. I am here to tell you. :) The page for the Senate bill is worse.

As for the image -- that's fine. There was no image there when I uploaded mine, incidentally, so it's not so much that I think the Mozilla image preferable to the EFF one, but that someone else had apparently already taken the EFF one down and I in my corner thought a picture would be nice. You are probably right about the Windows toolbar etc. I *think* the website of an open-source project would be ok, but you're right that I should double-check to make sure of the license that applies, in case someone wants to use it elsewhere. Meantime, if you are sure about the EFF website, that's one less fire to fight. Elinruby (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi. In this edit, you lost me with the "if I had your point of view" phrase. Could I get an explanation? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Just trying to practice empathy. If I was wrong and it's insulting then I am sorry. You seem to think the bill is a good idea, is all. Or maybe I just think that because you kept putting the quotes from its language back. I've already said I *don't* want to see it passed, but that doesn't mean I am going to distort the facts that support it. I am a journalist and those ethics, accuracy and fairness among them, are important to me. Please, I do not want to squabble. This article is the top Google result for this topic, so let's make it something we xan agree is accurate. I can only work maybe another hour. We were doing really well there for about a minute :) Elinruby (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You are "practicing empathy" with a very limited set of data. I know I've certainly not stated where I stand as far as this particular bill (or any of the related legislation presently pending or previously passed) goes, so your conclusion baffles me. I can only assume that you have misconstrued my insistence on adherence to Wikipedia editing policies as indicative of "support for the bill", simply because I keep 'enforcing' those policies in conflict with your editing - and you therefore conclude I must hold a position opposing yours. You have concluded incorrectly, and that has apparently prompted you to act in an adversarial manner; you'll find that won't serve you well as an editor at Wikipedia.

While it is 100% irrelevent to my role as a Wikipedia editor on these articles, I don't mind mentioning that I do not support and would not vote for either bill for several reasons, not the least of which would be certain provisions that would negatively and severely impact business interests of mine. Equally irrelevent would be the fact that I'm far more "technically informed" on these matters than I need to be. (Seriously old-school ... I've been doing this stuff since I SysOp'd of one of the earliest, most trafficked hacker BBSs - remember those? - and I've been in the industry ever since.) What you don't seem to have grasped is that neither political passion, nor technical expertise is required to productively edit Wikipedia — and in fact, it can sometimes get in the way. We aren't supposed to edit from personal knowledge (or from personal conviction, for that matter) - take, for example, when you inserted uncited content into an article and said you'll find sources to support it later (a serious red flag). You should know by now that we're supposed to work first from reliable sources, and convey the information from those sources in our own words -- not the other way around by conveying information that we think we "know" is right, then trying to round up sources to support it. You came to these articles with definite opinions; declared on the article talk page that you had a definite point of view and possibly even a conflict of interest (a published editorial?); then charged right in to 'fix' the articles. While the subject matter can be controversial, you were wrong to assume that everyone else editing those articles has likewise chosen sides and is either friend or foe to you and must be treated as such. We don't do that here. (For the record, my participation in editing these articles would have consisted only of making sure certain inappropriate original research & synthesis specifically about 'workarounds' wasn't inserted - and I would then have left the article to other editors; but folks had to make an adversarial conflict out of it - so here I'll stay.) But I stray...

Anyway, getting back to my request for "clarification". It was rhetorical; I only brought it up as a reminder that you really need to cease with the commenting about your fellow editors. You really don't need to be making (clueless and incorrect) assertions about my "point of view" on article discussion pages. I've been citing the WP:NPA policy to you repeatedly, but to no effect. The point, literally in a nutshell is: Comment on the content, not on the contributor. What part of that is so hard to understand? I've seen your comments about editors on the talk pages of other editors, on article talk pages, on noticeboards — and every time I remind you that such comments are unacceptable, yet you persist. (Once, you even responded with this lunacy: However, if you like, I'll edit it to say something like "Based on his past behavior, I don't feel he is a listener." Actual wording is negotiable. I don't mind clarifying that this is an opinion. Seriously?! You really haven't read the policy, have you? Comment on the content, not on the contributor.) If you really feel the need to vent, send me an email or leave a message on my talk page - the comments and insults themselves don't bother me, as I have rather thick skin in such matters ... but we don't need to be poisoning discussions that should be about article improvement. Hence my complaints. Your persistence has left me in a rather unfortunate position. Rather than a cordial and collaborative editing relationship, we have ... whatever this is. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, Xenophrenic. I'm trying, is all I can tell you. The article had serious deficiencies as it was and I did my best to address them. You cite policies a lot but have announced that you ignore the good faith rule, which to my eyes is the heart of the issue here. Usually when I say something like "I will provide a reference in a second" it's because I know an article on the reflist supports the statement but I am in a section where I can't see what name was assigned to it. Yes, I could open another window but I am working on an iffy wi-fi connection on the lowest-end netbook there is and I get the hourglass of death all the time without stressing the 10% of physical memory I've got to work with any more than I must. I think your background is relevant to the extent that I now know that you probably understand that statement. *I* think the facts support that the bill is a terrible idea, but if you have other facts, bring them. The article as it stands needs them. I have my fingers in other parts of the dyke just now (is there really no wikipedia page on load-balancing?) but if you don't get to it before I am done with that I guess I will try to google an alternate point of view. I think, esp given your statements above, that you may do a better job of that, however. My agenda at the moment is the technical concerns and then the sections of the law section.

You are correct in observing that I cite policies to you a lot. Usually when I observe an edit that violates a Wikipedia policy, I'll try to determine what the editor was trying to accomplish, and then simply fix the edit in a way that is policy compliant. No citing of policies necessary. It takes a little additional effort on my part, certainly more effort than simply reverting or undoing or deleting the edit, but I usually don't mind. However, on these piracy legislation articles, I am no longer motivated to make that additional effort. Frankly, the caustic atmosphere generated by the personal attacks and the POV edit-warring have sapped that motivation from me several days ago, so now I've simply been undoing the offending edits, and citing the relevant policies.

You are quite incorrect when you say I have announced that I ignore the assume good faith rule. If you are referring to my User Page, it says: As a general rule, I try to avoid making assumptions. WP:Assume good faith is a Wikipedia suggested guideline, not a policy; I've chosen to opt out of this one. I will still interact with proper civility and respect, as required, but be advised that I have left all assumptions about your intentions at the door where they belong. See the difference? Perhaps reading WP:Don't assume will help you understand. Rather than not assuming bad faith about editors, I do the rule one better and avoid making any assumptions at all. Which leads me to ask you, now that you are clear on my stance, to clarify what you mean when you say AGF "to my eyes is the heart of the issue here". I've not assumed anything about you. When I asked that a statement about living persons (that certain engineers were "DNS Experts") be supported by a source citation, you argued that such a citation was unnecessary because, to you, the statement was so obviously true. Or your tagging as "citation needed" of content you inserted, and left in that state despite you making dozens more edits and then logging off. These aren't assumptions, and they aren't laptop technical difficulties - they are operating contrary to Wikipedia policy. But these are just side-issue quibbles; the real "heart of the issue" is the commenting about and attacks upon editors -- here's to a speedy end to it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I have done my best to be scrupulously fair towards you and have repeatedly walked away from contentious discussion, leaving you the last word. But when relevant statements with reliable sources repeatedly disappear, when ... never mind. It doesn't matter. Look. I did a rewrite of a highly contentious BLP that had been repeatedly edited warred. Mainly because I had never heard of the guy and he did seem to both deserve his due and to like to inflate his back story. I am telling you this because I looked up the conflict of interest policy because all the guy's friends and enemies were duking it out on the page. As best I can tell the policy is that they can do that as long as they do so openly. As themselves and while dealing honestly with the facts and any biases they might have. By extension, I can edit a page I have an opinion on as long as I am open about that opinion and respectful of the opinions of others. The same applies to you, as you have now admitted a bias you had not previously declared. That's fine. But in order for that to work properly I need to be able to work with data that may contradict my opinion, *and so do you*. If you are upset about the cn tags why not go find a citation? That's what I did when you did it to my work, and incidentally I am glad that you did since it seems that there was at least one link that went to a place I had not intended. The facts are the facts. If I say something that is not a fact and you can show me how it it wrong, then it is not a fact, period. The same should apply to you. If you don't get to the cn tags before I am done with what I am doing I will _ I said I would flesh out the law sections section. It's just that you wrote it and seem attached to some of that language. But I mean -- what's a particularly dangerous act of streaming? What does that even *mean*? But it keeps getting put back in.... Anyway, as I said, I don't want to fight; there is a lot to do. ok? Elinruby (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, as I said, I don't want to fight; there is a lot to do.

I guess that's the main take-away from this discussion, isn't it? And I agree. But you know me; I never leave an unadressed misconception unadressed, so ...

re: when relevant statements with reliable sources repeatedly disappear — Wasn't me; any such deletions I make are to bring an article back into compliance with Wikipedia policy.

re: I can edit a page I have an opinion on — There is no such thing as an editor without opinions, so that goes without saying. If an editor comes to an article without an opinion about the subject, they will soon form one. That is why we have the WP:NPOV policy, and there isn't a problem as long as we adhere to it.

re: you have now admitted a bias you had not previously declared — Indeed; I am biased toward Wikipedia policy compliance. Gosh, you caught me. But I've actually declared that numerous times throughout our interaction. As for my mentioning that I agree with you about the bill - insofar as I don't support it, and wouldn't vote for it — don't misconstrue that as "bias". That is merely a statement of my present position (subject to change at any time), based on a logical assessment of what I currently know about the specifics of the bill ... nothing more. I knew nothing of the bill before I began editing the Wikipedia article about it. If I had any "biases" about it, those would prevent unprejudiced consideration of the issue, which is the farthest thing from my situation.

re: why not go find a citation? — Under other circumstances, I certainly might, but that bridge has long since burned. Simply do a word search for the phrase "no longer motivated" in the conversation above for a refresher explanation as to exactly why.

re: what's a particularly dangerous act of streaming? — I have no clue; that is not content that I added. Perhaps check with the originating editor?

Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	Half a barnstar each to Elinruby and Xenophrenic - you guys bicker like cats and dogs, but somehow the result of your personal friction is damn good joint editing. The current state of the SOPA intro is something to be proud of, awesome job. Keep fighting I guess? (To Elinruby, kudos on being so prolific so quickly, the article needed it) Sloggerbum (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Hi! I just wanted to quickly thank you for your help on ugg boots. I'm not sure much could be done at NPOV, as I don't really see it as that sort of problem, but it was worth a shot - and your patience in helping out was much appreciated. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's actually smelling like somebody bills by the hour if you ask me, but of course we're supposed to assume good faith and all. You might consider COI (?) but that may require something beyond suspicion. The problem as I see though, based on that discussion, is that someone is insisting on having the last word, so voluntary mediation is *not* going to succeed. As fascinated as I am about some of the issues (which I see as rather akin to trademarked stereotypes of Native Americans), I have to go away now though - I said I was doing it before but it turns out my daughter is wearing ugg (generic) boots so I was telling her about the thread and showed it to her. Elinruby (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been suggestions of a COI before, but it is hard to show it, and I've been inclined just to let it sit. (The suggestions went both ways, of course, not just that people from Deckers were editing). It is an interesting case, legally, as it is an odd direction. Normally a trademarked term enters common usage, but in this case a common term was allowed to be trademarked, mostly because it wasn't a common term outside of the countries of origin. (This would be enough to prevent the trademark if those countries were non-English speaking, but the US ruling was that the legislation doesn't apply to common terms from English-speaking countries). Thus it is rather curious.

I agree that mediation is unlikely to work, but I'm not sure where the debate will head - my guess is ArbCom one day, but I'm hoping not. It will be interesting to see what the next move is. At any rate, thanks again for your patience in putting a different view, and for wading through all of our comments. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks are not necessary -- one of the reasons I participated was an interest in the US copyright angle. The discussion is also relevant to some of my prior research topics, such as language preservation, as well as to the deep-rooted Canadian distrust of the sheer noise level of American consumer culture, which assumes that its point of view is necessarily the most important. I may wander over and read the page someday. I have refrained from doing so as much of my personal time is currently taken up with an article about pending US legislation. I do not think most people understand the technical issues and since I do, at least enough to identify sources, that is where I'll be working for the near future. Later ;) Elinruby (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks very much for trying to help with this mess. Your fresh set of eyes on the situation was very useful, and while I doubt it will solve the problem (as the problem isn't of neutrality, as claimed, but of variants of language and of reliable sourcing) your effort is sincerely appreciated. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't burn out

Holy balls, friend, while the SOPA page is greatly benefiting from having a resident friendly dragon on board, if you don't force yourself to relax a little bit on the page over the next two days, you're going to WikiStress yourself out. I think the initial surge is over - I have a feeling SOPA will be appearing in and out of the news for a few weeks, maybe even months, with associated surges in new citations. But you need to take breathers - the page will benefit most from your ministrations if you have the endurance to stick with it in the long run, not exhaust yourself in the first week. Another hazard is you getting so emotionally attached to the state of certain sections that the inevitable sloppy contributions of future editors will drive you to the brink of insanity. You're doing great, just seriously, may I recommend you think strategically about your long-term WikiHealth? Bonified dragons are rare and seem to die off so fast, I'm tired of just letting it happen. Sloggerbum (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your concern but it's not sloppy well-meaning contributions that worry me. What am I supposed to do about the fact that Xenephrenic has re-inserted the same inaccurate happy talk I just removed? Again? Isn't there some way to say we should just leave this out until someone else comments? I don't even know why we need that text -- we have RS text under business concerns that contradicts the badly written inaccurate intro. Speaking of attached to text.....By the way, I asked for help with this at the discussion page of the Internet portal and the Law portal -- is that the right way to recruit some experts? Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really feel comfortable mediating between you guys - you might want to go talk to him in detail (maybe even on a private talk page) about the specific paragraphs you are edit warring over. Honestly, my guess is you two just are either using different Wikipedia guidelines to motivate your decisions or just haven't communicated something clearly enough yet, so private conversation may help. I don't know about recruiting experts, though it makes sense the project portal would reveal people. I just dislike floating tags at the tops of articles unless extremely necessary, though you may want to consider adding temporary expert tags to the specific sections you found problems. Sloggerbum (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If they can go on sections that might not be a bad idea. As for Xenephrenic, I've *tried* talking to him; usually he just tells me that I am wrong and that I don't deserve an explanation. See the extensive discussions on discussion page and on this page, shrug. Anyway. If you don't want to get involved, that's fine, but this is about to turn into another noticeboard item, which I would rather have avoided. Elinruby (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias - Conflict of Interest - Financial stakes

Hi, Elinruby! I've moved the following text here from the Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act talk page because it seems we have strayed away from discussing article improvement.

discussion quite material. Removed material includes factual disputes in addition to the personal attack on my by Xenophrenic, which he has now moved to my user page (gee thanks) Elinruby (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I left your article-relevant material on the article talk page. I also copied it here, below, so that we'd have the context of the full conversation with which to work. Please, let's agree to keep the discourse civil and on topic; we don't need to subject other editors to unrelevant wiki-drama on article talk pages. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the bit you are citing PCWorld for above is from section 103. This one says that if I am a web host and I see I host a web site that infringes on copyright, the website holder can't sue me for any breach of contract I may have had with him. The section 103 section says that reporting a website as infringing (this would be the copyright holder not the web host) when you know it is not creates liability. However, reporting the site as infringing requires that you say you have a good faith belief that it does, so it's like an IF statement that the application logic never gets to. If you have a good faith belief that something is infringing then you are not knowingly misreporting it. I have asked for expert opinion on this so please do not simply revert my edits saying "you're wrong." You have an admitted conflict of interest here and should at the very least be proposing alternate wording. But that would require that you do research. Elinruby (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not citing a journalist about a controversy, I am citing the PC World source about the content of the bill. You are confusing "bill content" with concerns about that content, or the ramifications of that content if it is implemented, according to experts. Valid stuff, for sure, but not in that section. There are other sources that give the same content summary; would you like those added, or are you going to provide a reliable source that gives a different content description?

By the way, since you privately revealed to me that you are a paid lobbyist for EFF, you should probably consider tempering your edits on the more controversial subject matter. Just a suggestion. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Giggle. I have no affiliation with the EFF, apart from having stopped by their booth at the RSA Conference a year or two ago. I also saw them in action on a story I wrote about a DEF CON presentation. I have great respect for them but they are neither my employer nor my client. I have been very open about my opinions and the sources of my knowledge on the topic, and anyone who cares to verify this can find a link to an article written under my real name on the talk page of the Senate bill. I am most insulted, not so much by the flagrantly manufactured assertion, as by the idea that I would hide such an affiliation and then reveal it to someone who has admitted a financial stake in the bill's passage and has deleted important correctly sourced material from the page. I am not sneaky, nor am I stupid. (The financial admission is on the discussion page of my user page, should anyone want to look.) I am a trained network professional with experience in network security who sometimes freelances as an information technology reporter. Look me up. Meanwhile, who are you? Elinruby (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked to retract a statement I made above. I made the ludicrous assertion that Elinruby admitted to being a paid lobbyist for EFF, in response to Elinruby's ludicrous assertion that I "admitted conflict of interest here". I hereby retract that statement, and have struck it out as well. It was wrong of me to respond to a false statement with a false statement. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Elinruby, in the above discussions you have falsely asserted that I...

• "admitted a bias you had not previously declared"
• "have an admitted conflict of interest here"
• "admitted a financial stake in the bill's passage"

I have done none of that. I am requesting that you cease with such accusations. And just so we're clear, I do not have a bias about the legislation; nor do I have a financial stake in what happens to the legislation (either way); nor do I have a conflict of interest in any way with these articles. In the interest of "practicing empathy" in our discussion above, I mentioned to you that I have business interests (clients, in fact) that would be negatively impacted by parts of this legislation. I also have clients that would benefit from this legislation. As such, I get to hear the whole range of criticism and praise about specific provisions of the bill while working with my business clients. I mentioned to you that I wouldn't vote for the legislation in its present form, but please don't distort that to mean there's a conflict of interest, or that I'm financially involved, or that the moon landings were a hoax, or any other silly conclusions. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that in order to make the point that you feel I have misinterpreted statements you did make, and furthermore that you feel that I failed to intuit that you might have added to them, you lied. Saying that I told you I had committed a violation of professional ethics. Privately, since there is no public statement that supports this falsehood. And that you think lying about this was ok. Elinruby (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"So what you are saying..."

No. Of course not. But please feel free to continue to misconstrue and misrepresent my words to your heart's content, if you feel you must, here on our personal Talk pages. I'll continue to correct them. It's been your application of that same illogic and misrepresentation in the editing of our Wikipedia articles these past couple weeks that has been most problematic. I'll continue to correct those, too, as time allows, but it is growing wearisome. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have re-read and the above still sounds like "yes I did falsely say that you admitted doing something sneaky that would completely discredit you if people believed me, but it was understandable because I think you misinterpret my statements, and while it was wrong it was in response to an equal wrong." I have actually never had my reading comprehension questioned before meeting you, but look, this is an honest attempt to understand. If that's not your point, what is? Elinruby (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. What I said above is that I made a tit-for-tat statement in response to a statement of yours, which was wrong for me to do, so I have retracted it. It's that simple, really. Your additional synthesis, mind-reading or divination of meanings or intentions not stated (see your "you feel yada yada" and "you think yada yada" leaps) are inappropriate. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That was not an apology for whatever "synthesis, mind-reading or divination of meanings or intentions not stated" (don't you think this description is rather insulting?) that you may have felt I have done, merely a polite preface to disagreeing with your statement. By the way, what I am taking issue with here is exactly the fact that you see a misinterpretation (whether real or perceived) as an acceptable reason for fabricate accusations of bad behavior. As I mentioned on your user page a moment ago, all of these side discussions about what you did or did not say, and whether my failure to intuit things unsaid, such as *other* clients you might have, is reason enough to refuse simple explanations of what you do, *all* that is taking up ridiculous amounts of time that I'd rather spend on something else. So. It stops here. I'll take another look at this page tomorrow. In the meantime, have a nice day. Elinruby (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the source of the problem: "the fact that you see a misinterpretation (whether real or perceived) as an acceptable reason for fabricate accusations"

That's not a "fact". That is your (incorrect) assumption. I saw you post an over-the-top fabrication about me, so I tried to match your absurdity with one of my own. It's really that simple. I never saw "a misinterpretation" from you, I saw a flat out lie, and understandably figured it was just more of the same from you.

Please do spend time on other things; you shouldn't feel the need to respond to every post I make, immediately or otherwise. There is no rush or urgency here. Pleasant holidays to you, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Especially since it would allow your assertion that you answered a lie with a lie to go unchallenged, right? Yeah, it's not tomorrow, but I woke up and came in to look at my barnstar.

I don't lie. Ever. You can paste in your old rants all you want about me saying "It looks to me like you misquote me." It did. It still does. You just *did* misquote me, on your talk page. Or did I misunderstand poor widdle you again? Head shake. Face palm. Elinruby (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And again, no diffs showing that "It did"? Of course not. And there's another of your "don't lie. Ever" moments, yet again on the article talk page just a few minutes ago. You'd make a fine politician. And the beat goes on. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

why do you need a diff? It's the most recent entry on your talk page and you've responded to it several times. There is no dispute about authorship. Get out of my face.Elinruby (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. That talk page discussion on my talk page didn't exist yet when you cast your false accusation. So I've been asking you to provide a diff to back up your aspersions. I don't "need" the diff, as I already know it doesn't exist, but I'll keep asking you to substantiate your false statements just to hear your morphing responses. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

oh, the talk page: No idea what you're talking about. Elinruby (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Of that I have no doubt. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your unending contributions to Stop Online Piracy Act, even when the rest of us couldn't keep up. C(u)w(t)C(c) 22:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You bet!

A pleasure it was. And a real pleasure too (having heard about SOPA about four hours ago, stumbling on that WP article) having your appreciation (and then to see ... a bit more of what you and all ... have done on this; impressive!). ... On we go, I guess. Good luck! Swliv (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to Try and Drag You Back in This

Hi there! I've posted a few proposals for compromise on the NPOV page for Ugg boots. You've been very helpful trying to navigate this mess and I'd really appreciate your opinion on what I've presented. I hate to try and drag you back into this but I'd like to get an outside perspective on whether this is a productive idea. I think it would clean up a lot of confusion to keep things simple. Again thank you for your time and efforts.--Factchk (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for posting today. I really appreciate it. I know this debate can be frustrating.--Factchk (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	this seams so cheap for what you've gone thru with that NPOVN discussion on Ugg boots, though I suppose now that I've sent it you'll be considered an honorary bias Australian editor. Cheer up mate you could be called worse Gnangarra 11:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Elinruby, thanks for your hard work on the SOPA article. Much appreciated! Atlasowa (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your perspective on SOPA

Hi Elinruby, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I looked at your comments. Thanks! :-)

But I think you should tell me where my sources went wrong. Why is a source from 1894 not necessarily reliable?VR _talk 03:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not exactly what I said. I said I was not able to verify that the source existed in the time that I was willing to spend on the matter. In other words, the online archive does not go back that far and I was not fired up enough about this to find out what university library might have a copy. But that does not mean the source is bad. If you re-read slower you will find me saying a) that there is no requirement that a source be *easy* to verify, just that it must be *possible* to verify it and b) when Athenean sneered at it, that history does not have a sell-by date, unlike science or technology, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with an 1894 reference as long as it supports the contention it is supposed to support.

That said, this question has been somewhat interesting in that Athenean cited three quite scholarly sources, the sort of thing you might use in a thesis footnote, but two of them were not really reliable for the question because they were limited in their scope to Europe and therefore their failure to include al-Karaouine proves nothing. A third did not really support his contention, I thought. Yours on the other hand were a bit weaker overall. Some of them only mentioned this question in passing, but got rated fairly high because the authors appear to have expertise. Others I rated lower because, well, if they don't say where they got the information, it's hard to tell how much credence to give them. I went through them one by one but put that under a hatnote as it was a hugely long post. Take a look in contrast at some of the ones I listed, which deal specifically with early universities, although some of them in turn are specific to Africa...but these are not sources which can be mocked.

Reliable for purposes of Wikipedia is not the same as academically irrefutable, and for purposes of weight this matters. If that is unclear I will try to answer any questions you may have.

You should take another look at the discussion, by the way. Someone has correctly pointed out that the proposed changes diverge from University which has many of the same problems and in fact uses the same source, limited to Europe, that Athenean posted to the discussion. I proposed enlarging the scope of the discussion and waiting for input from involved editors. I am trying not to become one; I have a lot of things I have promised to other people that I put off for that discussion. In particular I promised to look at the sourcing for Pakistan's role in the Taliban article, which is also at NPOV. Right now I think that there is a case to be made for ISI involvement, but not for the claim that they *founded* the Taliban. But I am not done with the sources and have gotten in a job which must be done by tomorrow. If you have thoughts, please feel free to speak up there. I am just barely literate on the topic, but I suppose I do qualify as fresh eyes. Elinruby (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me get back to this. I had totally forgotten about it!VR _talk 05:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and update

Hi ElinRuby,

I wanted to thank you for your reply at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Academic_Conferences, and to tell you have I've now extended the query to cover three specific conferences relating to a particular paragraph (I'm a little worried that it's an old enough thread that it won't get enough attention, hence my hawking for more opinion here... :) Failedwizard (talk)

SOPA again (apparently)

Similar proposal to an earlier one, to suspend NPOV for the SOPA article. You put things so well the first time that I copy and pasted it into the current discussion. I hope I didn't overstep on this. It just exemplified my feelings very well. 24.11.87.186 (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hope you are doing well, and feeling ok! I agree with mr. anon - I was on the talk page and ran into your reposted spiel about npov, and think it sums everything up perfectly. Bummed by a blackout though. Wish this stupid law never appeared in the first place, 24 hours w/out wiki is going to be hell. Sloggerbum (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you alright?? Sloggerbum (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

yes. Just preoccupied. More later. Elinruby (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm holding you to that - let me know when you re-enter wiki world, you're missed Sloggerbum (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation

You may interested in this mediation as you were an active participant when this was on WP:NPOVN.VR _talk 00:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is in response to your message. You said you may still me interested in mediation. I have also asked GunPowderMa to enter into mediation due to our disputes. And, although my disagreements with GunPowderMa are more wide-ranging (including Madrasa and Medieval Muslim universities), I feel they are sufficiently related. Would you like to enter such a mediation if it happens?VR _talk 13:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugg page

As the page is locked I have set it up in my sandbox and made test changes per talk to see how it looks. I have also rewritten the history a bit. The page should not be seen as a replacement but one we can do test edits on. Feel free to have a look, make changes if you like and/or comment on the sandbox talk page. I have posted this message on several editors talk pages. Despite P&W's usual claims in this regard, we have a consensus for the edits per talk page so if we (editors who have shown they can work together and compromise if needed) can agree on how the article page reads it may avoid the inevitable long winded discussions in Talk once the page is unlocked. Wayne (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

just checking in

Hey Elinruby, you should seriously log on here every now and again and let people know how you're doing. For reals. Sloggerbum (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mexico

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexico. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marketing mix

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Marketing mix. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic Arts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic Arts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Great consonant shift

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Great consonant shift. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beef Products Inc.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Beef Products Inc.. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:DotConnectAfrica

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:DotConnectAfrica. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kickstarter

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kickstarter. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:CBS Records

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:CBS Records. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics/GMO articles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics/GMO articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Honeywell Turbo Technologies

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Honeywell Turbo Technologies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nuveen Investments

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nuveen Investments. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Astroturfing

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astroturfing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2008–2012 global recession

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2008–2012 global recession. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Organic milk

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Organic milk. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Discount-licensing.com

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Discount-licensing.com. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:VergeGameStudio

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:VergeGameStudio. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Extant organization

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Extant organization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Social market economy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Social market economy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flying car (aircraft)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Flying car (aircraft). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Effects of global warming

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Effects of global warming. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gift economy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gift economy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fascism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fascism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Great Commission church movement

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Great Commission church movement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Karl Marx

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Karl Marx. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PIGS (economics)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:PIGS (economics). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Silk Road (marketplace)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Silk Road (marketplace). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jerusalem

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jerusalem. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Litecoin

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Litecoin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Moldova

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Moldova. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murray Rothbard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murray Rothbard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food controversies

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food controversies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gary North (economist)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gary North (economist). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food controversies

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food controversies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kosovo

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kosovo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roundup (herbicide)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Roundup (herbicide). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kaliningrad

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kaliningrad. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Liberty University

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Liberty University. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

IP block exemption granted

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, TOR, or similar anonymizing tools, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Progressive tax

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Progressive tax. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Windows 8

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Windows 8. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sustainability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sustainability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alejandro García Padilla

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alejandro García Padilla. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BP

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:BP. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2003 in Afghanistan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2003 in Afghanistan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cryptocurrency

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cryptocurrency. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Progressive tax

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Progressive tax. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Single-payer health care

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Single-payer health care. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beef Products

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Beef Products. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yelp, Inc.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yelp, Inc.. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethecon Foundation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ethecon Foundation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Synthetic phonics

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Synthetic phonics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Latin Europe

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Latin Europe. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yelp, Inc.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yelp, Inc.. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox film

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox film. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bacula

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bacula. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ion Antonescu

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ion Antonescu. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Information revolution

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Information revolution. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Progressive tax

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Progressive tax. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Academi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Academi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Parmigiano-Reggiano

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Parmigiano-Reggiano. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Creation Museum

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation Museum. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Economy of Pakistan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Economy of Pakistan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Renewable energy sources

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Renewable energy sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Artpop

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Artpop. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Zim Integrated Shipping Services

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Zim Integrated Shipping Services. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nofel Izz

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nofel Izz. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nazi Party

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nazi Party. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Principle

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Peter Principle. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

=

Please comment on Talk:World Vision International

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:World Vision International. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Economic growth

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Economic growth. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:RTI International

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:RTI International. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fractional-reserve banking

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fractional-reserve banking. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Economy of Iran

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Economy of Iran. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Uber (company)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Uber (company). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David M. Cote

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:David M. Cote. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neo-feudalism

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neo-feudalism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of economic thought

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of economic thought. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Capitalist mode of production

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Capitalist mode of production. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Advanced capitalism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Advanced capitalism. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Capital accumulation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Capital accumulation. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MyWikiBiz

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MyWikiBiz. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Production, costs, and pricing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Production, costs, and pricing. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nature's Harmony Farm

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nature's Harmony Farm. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Xiaomi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Xiaomi. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vivint

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vivint. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ask.com

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ask.com. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Economy of Argentina

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Economy of Argentina. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thomas Piketty

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thomas Piketty. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Space Elevator Consortium

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Space Elevator Consortium. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Genre infoboxes and footer templates

Just a head's up, footer templates like Template:Punk and Template:Hardcore punk are for articles about music genres, not individual bands or labels. The same is true for Template:Infobox music genre, which in addition should only include the relevant genres. (It's very unlikely that a punk genre, for example, would be influenced by all of the listed stylistic origins.) So edits like this and this are unnecessary, plus this even added unnecessary maintenance tags as if they'd been there from 2013. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Woodroar my bad then. I will try to revisit this and fix my mess. What I was trying to remedy was a whole lot of scattered orphans in the Latino punk genre, where I don't have a lot of subject knowledge. Perhaps you know of a list I could put these on? I got into this because I noticed that Latino punk was an orphan, and had no wikilinks, and Saicos apparently was really important... and... so it goes. Right now I am wikignoming off on another adventure and just broke Henning Mankell, so I need to fix that chop chop. And he is famous and just died and these have been languishing a while. Let me know if you have suggestions though, I am definitely open to hearing them. I do not normally play in the music pages, Thanks for the feedback. Elinruby (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Latino punk is probably the closest thing we have. I couldn't find any categories, and I don't think we have any lists, either. Looking at Latino punk, there aren't many related articles at all. Which is sad, but I know those bands have to exist. (Of course it's possible that there aren't sufficient sources on them to support articles, or maybe nobody has located the sources and started the articles.) I'm not an expert on Latino punk/hardcore bands, either, just a fan of Los Crudos. Anyways, I think that a link to Latino punk is fine for most or all of those articles, just without the genre templates. I can try to find some time to clean them up in the next day or two as well if you're busy. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Woodroar they do exist; but almost all the groups I wikilinked on the Latino punk page (which was an orphan) were also orphans.And yeah, I thought it was kinda sad too. There was an Argentine punk page and a Punk in Brazil page which were also orphans. There was a page for El Vez which was an orphan. Pretty sure his record label page was also an orphan :) maybe a list is the answer. Also, a lot of the bands mentioned on these pages seem to still be in existence but not have wikipedia pages. I fixed the fire on Henning Mankell, but there is quite a bit still to do there -- he's relatively obscure in the US but everyone is doing a retrospective and in the noir genre he's actually fairly significant. And he's one of my favorite authors so I'd like to clean up the page. Latino punk was something I picked off the list of pages that need help as a pro bono project and it developed a whole scary bunch of project scope creep. A lot of the text needs re-writing and while I did a first and second pass, mumble, I have no idea what a reliable source is for punk rock and yada yada. I am interested kinda but I sank a bunch of hours into it already and had moved on... I'll come back to it when I am done with Mankell though, which is a single page vs a whole tar pit Elinruby (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy with work. I'll undo the genre templates for now and see if there's any other tinkering I can do on those articles. Feel free to dive in if or when you're done elsewhere. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:ExxonMobil

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ExxonMobil. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 Chinese stock market crash

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

Please comment on Talk:Penny

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Penny. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beepi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Beepi. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Carter (film)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Carter (film). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:American Petroleum Institute

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Petroleum Institute. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Biodynamic agriculture

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you so much for your tenacious edits on the Panama Papers page, especially regarding the Clinton links! Much appreciated – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 23:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you so very much also from me! – --79.223.29.95 (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Panama / Taiwan

Hey there. Just dropping a note to say that that paragraph bothers me too but I don't feel up to the task of rewriting it entirely as I think the issue is a little more complicated than that. And oh, thanks for your work on the article! :) TKY (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@TKY: it usually is ;) Doing anything at all with Georgia gets you a gold star as far as I am concerned...Elinruby (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Benazir Bhutto and messed up refs

You are screwing up the references. Please do them right. I've reverted your edit. You can undo my edit IF you fix the refs. See the two notices above this, you did the same there and I've been fixing those mistakes. No more. Bgwhite (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: hmmm I am under the impression that I am mostly getting these as I go -- a lot of the above are already fixed, I think -- but hey, alright, if I am upsetting you I will stop for a minute and make sure. And check my user page more often I guess, though usually I go by the reference section errors But I am moving big blocks of text around, losing the odd bracket in cut and paste does happen and I do fix them. Usually quite promptly. Are you getting an error message every time one exists for any length of time because of your script or whatever that tool is? Is that what's going on? Not sure what I can do about that if so as I am already tring to be careful, but I will see what I can do. Scrolling up to check over what bracketbot says now Elinruby (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: I reverted you and there were zero (0) reference errors on the Benazir Bhutto page. I am still going through the messages on my talk page to make sure I didn't leave an unpaired parenthesis somewhere but I really --- well, this is not a good time for me to discuss this with you. I think you should figure out a way to update the logging on your tool or at least do a reality check before you accuse people of "trashing" wikipedia. Maybe check your assumptions. For one thing, you haven't been fixing the references listed on my talk page because I remember fixing them. But I will check, just in case I am missed one, because I said I would. Where you have seen me before is Panama Papers, which, yes indeedy, is chock-full of machine translations of plagiarized text and untranslated syntax from wikipedias in other languages which probably never heard of the MOS, and oh, references that contain wikilinks and no title and all sorts of happy stuff like that. And some of my drpped brackets, because I've done big edits there too. But even I cannot fix all wikipedia errors in the blink of an eye, buddy, much less introduce universal use of cite ref by all the non-english-speaking newbie IPs that ...argh. Bottom line, it appears to me that your tool does not expect errors on wikipedia to get corrected, and while I certainly feel you on that, you would appear in this case to have been quite wrong about that, mmm? So my suggestion is a) maybe a for loop to see if all messages are still actually present before you start fix operations or lose your temper, and b) maybe consider switching to decaf. Elinruby (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

North Mount Lyell

Is a company, mine and place, I have no idea whatsoever where your edits are coming from, I do hope you are ok. JarrahTree 02:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC) The other way to put it, is do you have a reasonable explanation as to why ? :-

• 06:54, 4 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+32)‎ . . North Mount Lyell ‎ (added Category:New Zealand people using HotCat)
• 06:52, 4 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+43)‎ . . North Mount Lyell ‎ (added Category:Businesspeople by nationality using HotCat)
• 06:50, 4 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+32)‎ . . North Mount Lyell ‎ (added Category:Mining in Tasmania using HotCat)
• 06:50, 4 June 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+33)‎ . . North Mount Lyell ‎ (added Category:History of Tasmania using HotCat)

Mining and History, maybe,(technically there should be a more complex array of mining companies, and history of the west coast rather than the whole island, but not now) but then there is the problem of parent and child cats and category trees... JarrahTree 02:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I just saw your diffs come in and I am looking at them now. I got them as I was writing this; "@JarrahTree: I am fine. I am trying to fill in some mining history. My topic only tangentially touches on New Zealand though, and I admit to utter ignorance of the place. I did get that much though, that the company had a mine and that that is where the place name came from. If there is something specific that I did that is wrong with the article now then please be specific and I will address it. If we're talking about the change you reverted last night and that I thanked you for reverting, as I said, I must have thought I was in another window. It wasn't something I would do on purpose and thank you again for fixing it. If you are talking about something else, then please let me know what. Elinruby (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)" If it's categories, mmmmaybe... I've been accused of being category-happy before, checking it out. Elinruby (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead sentence is North Mount Lyell was the name of a mine, mining company, locality (sometimes as North Lyell) and former railway

• It is on the west coast of Tasmania, and is not a person or a New Zealander
• It was not a businessperson - a defunct mining company maybe...

JarrahTree 02:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I see. My apologies. One reason we are having this conversation is that Tasmania is not in New Zealand. Doh. How embarrassing. I did know that, yet for some reason when I did that I was thinking it was the north island of New Zealand. I see you took that one off, and good. As for the business person, I was thinking about Crotty, but I suppose that would be better on his own page, since he has one. Chances are there isn't a Businesspeople in Australia category either; there were very few subcategories there as I recall. If you think the category is too broad for the article, then fine, chalk it up to youthful exhuberance ;). On History of Tasmania and Mining in Tasmania: yeah, was just trying to get the article connected to others of its kind. One of the things I am finding in the mining articles generally is a lot of siloing and incomplete accounts. If there is some sort of West vs East dichotomy in the category tree in Australia, then do whatever you think best. It's just a driveby attempt to be helpful. Sorry that not all of it worked out ;) Elinruby (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

np,... JarrahTree 02:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Angola

@Elinruby: I just saw your extensive editing in the "Angola" article which is part of my main line of interest. I wonder whether it is also of permanent interest to you? -- Aflis (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Aflis: I am not sure about permanent interest but I got here from Panama Papers and mining concessions in Africa and there is plenty there to do. In Africa I would usually work on French-language countries. Mostly it was copy-editing, or intended to be. Did I do something wrong? Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: ok, this research line is certainly most relevant. And no, as far as I can see there is nothing wrong with your edits on Angola. Aflis (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC) @Aflis: OK. I do not know much about the place and sometimes when the verb is wrong and you guess... I dunno. I try to be careful, if something is wrong, it's wrong, is what I am saying, but most of what I was doing there was pattern-matching. There was quite a bit of stuff in the Panama Papers coverage about Angola; I couldn't get much further with it than money was definitely going to people with connections. Portugese gives me a headache ;P Once of several Panama Papers stories that could really use some illustrations, like really, the one about conflict resources too. Elinruby (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent comment

Hi, Elinruby. I hope this note finds you in good health and spirits. I just finished reading your comment here. Could I please impose upon you to provide diffs showing where you say I:

"... lied to an administrator when I complained about this...", and also

"He also told the administrator that I didn't want any other point of view in the article ...

I just want to be sure I'm addressing the correct instances when I post my responses, and when I have uninvolved administrators carefully examine and evaluate each allegation, I want to be sure to point them to the correct exchange. That was such a long time ago, and some of our discussions were quite lengthy, I admit I'm now a bit foggy on the details. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethereum

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethereum. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup Barnstar Award

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For considerable work on the Shooting of James Boyd from Activist (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Haiti–United States relations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Haiti–United States relations. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Vid for you

Panel: “Clinton Scandal Update – Emails and the Clinton Foundation” → https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsgapaYCs40

In response to the revelations about the pay-to-play scandal tied to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s non-state.gov email system and the Clinton Foundation, Judicial Watch hosted an educational panel discussion: “Clinton Scandal Update – Emails and the Clinton Foundation” on September 29, 2016. Panelists include author of the New York Times best-seller Clinton Cash and President of Government Accountability Institute Peter Schweizer; Joe diGenova, former U.S. Attorney, Independent Counsel and founding partner of the Washington, D.C., law firm diGenova & Toensing; and Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch. Moderator will be Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. --87.159.120.181 (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Putin

I'm glad you're paying attention to Putin, etc. I just looked at the article for Neil Bush and was astounded to discover that it hadn't been updated in maybe ten years and was referring to what Boris Berezovsky was doing a decade ago as if he were still alive. Is nobody minding the store? Activist (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

In many cases no. It has been some time since I looked at Putin's article, actually, although he came up with reference to the Panama Papers. Elinruby (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sketch

I've just gotten home after driving about 2,400 miles and not getting enough sleep. Looked at the article and am glad I didn't waste more than minutes while I was gone on what appears to be a lost cause. It seems akin to finding oneself in the middle of a troll feeding frenzy. If I do get time to spare, I'll see if I can figure out the best way to involve arbitration or administrative remedies. Activist (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

right now he is arguing that the picture of the knife is ok as a citation on the no original research board. I am taking a break from the article, but I will be back Elinruby (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I've got to run to town for a couple of hours, but I've been unable to devote the time the situation here demands. I have to admire your perseverance in the matter. Before I response to the bizarre conduct, I wonder if you could answer one question. Supposedly, the responding officers in the JBS situation became aware of his violent history at some point before his tragic homicide. Do you know if or when that was the case? Thanks so much. Activist (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I moved to NPOV since nobody answered at the OR noticeboard. Several of officers have testified that they did. They repeatedly say he was dangerous because he was mentally ill. (Sandy and Perez for a start) Let me see if I still have the link up tp Jason Carpenter's testimony, for example. Elinruby (talk)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLYb5ueFm8U )0:38 and following says he was not being reasonable, which is not quite the same thing. I'll post refs here as I come across them tho. Elinruby (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There was some stuff about the CAD messages. These are flawed tho. For example, there is mention of an officer getting a broken nose, but we don't know if he punched her or this was collateral damage in the scuffle. The "citizen" he got into a fight with was at a pretty rough soup kichen in downtown, and there is no telling what happened there. I still cannot find any charges for these incidents. I think it is important that Mikal Monette testified that schizophrenics can't stand to be touched. Boyd did not pull a knife until they tried to pat him down. @Activist: 02:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Archive at Talk:Shooting of James Boyd

Hey, I just temporarily unarchived it. What happened was that 290K of stuff makes the archive page itself too bulky. I'm archiving a part of it manually right now. For the rest, I propose letting the bot run as it automatically divides it into chunks and properly archives it (it's going to run in like 12 hours or so). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

thank you for the help. This is a piece of wikignoming that II am not very familiar with. I am just getting lost in all these indents. Trying to introduce some clarity for all of our sanities. Please feel free to help as the urge strikes. I just don't think there's much point in me trying to explain original research; he is sure I am wrong and you know what? if I am, fine as far as I am concerned. I just identified about four topics that should really be updates to another article but the other article is not there. Without dealing with all the other shooting and lawsuits in the pipeline. It looks like someone else needs to look at the original research questions and if necessary explain them to Beany. In any event, I'm done trying, at least for now. Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Clinton Foundation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Clinton Foundation. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 October

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

• On the Honduran folklore page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neoliberalism

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

Please comment on Talk:Vehicle registration plates of Vietnam

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vehicle registration plates of Vietnam. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kenny y los Eléctricos

Hello Elinruby,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kenny y los Eléctricos for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Abbottonian (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)