User talk:Athene cunicularia/Archive 01

Overboard[edit]

I think going and calling "bad reference code" over at Fox News Channel is a little much... it's nothing more than a missing url= tag, and functionality is the same. Please go easy on the removal of descriptions or information, or claims of "bad coding" :) thanks /Blaxthos 17:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came off as overly sensitive -- the Fox News Channel article has always been a serious flame and vandal target, and I was a little confused regarding the removal of information from the citations that had no error at all -- it's one thing to add "url=", it's quite another to remove descriptions from working citations. It's been no easy task keeping the trolls off of FNC article, and I'm sure my WP:AGF reserve is lower than it should be. No hard feelings? :-) /Blaxthos 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-road vehicles[edit]

The new edit is much better. Thank you. -- I already forgot talk 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a proposal it starts a paragraph above Talk:Off-road_vehicle#Build_a_criticism_section. Please come take a look and see what you think. Jeepday (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a desire to participate in writing a criticism section for Off-road_vehicle? Jeepday (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is do I (Jeepday), make significant contributions to Wikipedia, look at Road and it's history. If your question is will you and I have different perspectives, I am pretty sure we agree in advance that will be true :) Hopefully I have outlined a process that will minimize the stress, in Place to discuss the steps and process I put an area to fine tune and reach agreement on what we are going to do before we actually start writting.

If your question is what body of work do I expect major participants (you and I, and who ever) to contribute. I expect at step 3, 4 and 5 we will each have an even division of labor on researching and writing about the subjects we select (maybe each will write 2 or something). I also expect that step 6 is going to be the hardest, but that can be minimized if we do a good job on step 1. I would expect that you I are probably pretty far apart on POV but I think as long as all participants are committed to working equally towards a WP:NPOV body of work and we do our best to assume good faith it should be fine. Jeepday (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have a paragraph posted at Talk:Off-road_vehicle#Place_to_work_on_the_paragraphs and a discussion about vandalism at Talk:Off-road_vehicle#Jeepday_paragraph_on_Illegal_activities_of_ORV.27s take a look and let me know what you think. Jeepday (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepday first draft of paragraph on illegal use of please take a look and give feedback. Jeepday (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it going? Jeepday (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I found this one http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9989&page=6 while looking for my stuff. Seems like a pretty strong reference, that talks to fuel consumption and such. Jeepday (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"punctuation always goes inside quotes"[edit]

I provided a Government Printing Office cite on my reversion of your edit with the above explanation at UCS since the Chicago Manual of Style site wasn't opening, but ran into a link to the Wikipedia MOS shortly after, so can now point to WP:PUNC (note the very first sentence) for examples of punctuation not migrating into quotes. You had me questioning my understanding for a sec, but... Andyvphil 08:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Thomas (disambiguation)[edit]

Thank you for your good-faith edit to the Scott Thomas disambiguation page. I have reverted your edit for a couple of reasons:

1. It has been incontrovertibly proven that Beauchamp fabricated his stories.
2. Per WP:MoS (disamb), the description associated with a link should be sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link.
3. Per WP:MoS (disamb), articles should not be pipe linked. Since there is no biography article for Scott Thomas Beauchamp (and since he is only notable for one incident, there should not be), the link redirects to Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. When there are exceptions to piped links, they should be explained. The article is about the fabrication controversy, not the controversial articles themselves--hence, noting that he fabricated the stories will lead the reader to identify the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Controversy.

In order to maintain a neutral point of view, the article could be tagged {{NPOV}} and other editors could comment. In the meantime, we should refrain from editing it further unless someone can come up with a more neutral way to mention that he fabricated the stories in a sentence fragment.

Thanks. MrPrada 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Scott Horton (lawyer)[edit]

A tag has been placed on Scott Horton (lawyer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Jonathan | Quality, not quantity. 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big reverts by IP[edit]

Hi. I wanted to thank you for this restoration of a revert. I feel like this IP users is following me around reverting anything I write which he personally disagrees with.

Would you like to take a look at this reversion too? I would appreciate it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rewrite of Politicization of science. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I did not make it clear about the "reversion" thing. I mistakenly assumed you had read the IP's Dec. 3 edit comment, "Reverting quite biased recent changes by Ed Poor. We're not going to have the Hoover Institute defining what constitutes this topic and article."

I probably should have made it clear that it was my extensive changes to the article - rather than the longstanding prevision version - that I was asking you to review.

Please accept my apologies for confusing you and wasting your time.

I will butt out now, except to make comments on the talk page. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring discouraged[edit]

You might not know it, Athene, but there is a Wikipedia:3RR which forbids multiple reverts of the same article in quick succession. You don't want to run afoul of this policy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politicization of science[edit]

Hi, sorry for any misunderstanding on my part of your intentions there, and for linking you so directly to Ed in my comments. I feel that you were trying to improve the article, but weren't aware of the conflicts or of Ed's rather tempestuous history. Ed has been around for a long time and is known for persistence in subtly pushing his conservative pov. Several editors, such as the anon., have tired of it. Anyway, I hope we can work together to improve the article after it is unlocked and again, I appreciate your good faith efforts there. Vsmith (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Athene. I don't know what you mean when you say that you were "tricked". I've looked over the matter and it looks to me like both versions of the article have merit and it may make sense to incorporate them together. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint about User:Steve Dufour's COI[edit]

Hello Athene. This COI item, which you opened on 11 December, appears to be winding down without much further discussion. Periodically I try to go through the noticeboard to see whether the various issues seem to be resolved, or if there is more to do. I really can't figure out what to do in this case. Your original complaint was a touch vague about what Dufour had actually done:

His m.o. seems to be to slowly remove information in an effort to prevent the appearance of controversy, or reduce notability, in an effort ultimately delete sections or articles. It is more difficult with a larger article like Insight, but much easier for a stub like Kuhner's.

Can you give an opinion whether the responses in this thread were of any use? If you wanted Steve to recuse from these articles, he seems not to have done that. Do you have a preferred draft of any of these articles to offer as an alternative to what's there now? Either respond here if you will, or add a further comment at WP:COIN. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to voice the strongest possible support for Athene's complaint. The combination of COI and tendentious editing among a small cabal of Unification Church members has NOT in any way been mitigated over time, and is rampant across virtually all Unification Church related articles, especially the Unification Church media properties. The effect is pervasive and pernicious. I will comment in greater detail, and Athene...let me know how I can help. WNDL42 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. I think you probably removed this template by mistake - but please just take special care as AfD templates should not be removed except by the administrator who closes the debate --VS ^talk 10:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was unintentional. I had reverted to an earlier edit and accidentally removed the notice.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I expected that to be the case. No problems everyone makes accidental mistakes. --VS ^talk 20:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insight magazine[edit]

Athene, can you get the Insight magazine "frozen" long enough to get the issues hammered out? The politico's actions are reinforced by the UC member's occasional "chime in" that presents the illusion of a "consensus" unless there are equally comitted editors "riding" all of the UC related articles. The latest round of edits turned the thing back into a virtual "parroting" of the Insight speculations, with a few "alleged's" thrown in for techincal merit points.

Anyway, can the thing be "locked down" in a reasonable state somehow?

Thanks, WNDL42 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athene, thanks for responding on my talk page, sorry to see you drop the topic, calmer heads usually prevail in the end, but in the short term, life's to short...and I understand fully.

FYI, things seem a little calmer now but the political sensitivities remain high. Hope you'll check in from time to time. WNDL42 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athene, I support your recent re-addition of the "smear" aspects to the page at Jeffrey T. Kuhner. I hope you do understand that my reason for removing it was in hopes of avoiding an edit war over this controversial subject. I wanted to make sure my intentions are clear...I do not wish to mitigate or soften the impact of what are clearly seen as Kuhner's journalistic abuses, but as the article is a BLP wrt Kuhner, I hoped to "short circuit" any possible complaints from the subject regarding the portrayal of the incident. Again, I do not object to your edit, just wanted to clarify my intentions. Thanks, and I do enjoy working these topics with you!!! WNDL42 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

You have been cunicularia/Archive 01 granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessens the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, which means that you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [rollback] (which should appear unbloded if you have twinkle installed) on the lastest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politicization of science‎[edit]

Hi there. I noticed you have contributed to politicization of science article, when you have time could you drop by to the Talk page to see my proposal for a NPOV leading paragraph and contribute to that discussion. Thanks. Mariordo (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego request[edit]

Hi Athene and Bovlb. Both of you indicate that you are in San Diego. I was working on the Psychotic Waltz and discovered that there was a legal case (see footnote 6 in the article) and the records are at San Diego County Courthouse, Older Records, 220 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, (619) 531-3244. The court records likely will have significant info on the history of Psychotic Waltz and may allow the article to be fully cited. If you have the time and inclination, would you please add the band biography material from the court records to the article? Thanks. JohnABerring27A (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

I've just nominated Julie MacDonald for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie MacDonald[edit]

Thanks so much for your efforts on that article! I was hoping that a third party would step in and drive consensus. hike395 (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn! I'm sorry it isn't working out: I can understand how you feel. hike395 (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later: on reflection, I think your comment on my Talk page may have been feedback on my editing: I didn't actively participate on the Talk page. This may have been an error: I was just trying to not inflame things further. If my lack of participation on the Talk page was a factor in driving you away from the page, I apologize and I would ask that you reconsider. Thanks! hike395 (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for re-engaging on the article. I'm hoping we can have a calm discussion about this, although many people say that I am a foolish optimist. hike395 (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has died off: do you we should restore the 3 points that were deleted? Or wait some more? hike395 (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness Diarrhea Getting Killed[edit]

Dunno, but it seems remotely possible you'd be interested in this. Wilderness Diarrhea is getting merged into Travelers Diarrhea by a couple of zealots who seem to have no concept of outdoor interests.

I get around a lot in the outdoors and rarely treat water, but WD article had some good stuff.

After a couple of weeks of calm discussion, I went ballistic and no longer want to participate. Rational voices might help.

These guys have irrationally convinced themselves that WD isn't a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article.

I've pointed out several bomb-proof arguements to no avail. I'd say the strongest is the vast number of published articles that discuss WD as a separate concern from TD. They are both environmental health topics, and obviously the context of each are far different.

What's with deleting Julie MacDonald? Is Sarah Palin an editor here? Calamitybrook (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left-Leaning[edit]

Hi. Those two sites are left-leaning and it is even mentioned on their respective pages. I suppose it would be better to argue our perceptions with those on the Washington Times talk page. Doug Sacks (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Comic-Con International meetup proposal[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiknic[edit]

Join us this Saturday for the Great American Wiknic!

	Great American Wiknic San Diego at Old Poway Park, Poway
	You are invited to the Wikipedia:Meetup/Poway/Wiknic/2013/ at Old Poway Park next to the Poway–Midland Railroad in Poway. We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck! :)

Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC and others.
I hope to meet you there! Jim1138 (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to The Art Institutes article[edit]

Hello, Athene. I noticed your recent edit to The Art Institutes article and I'd like to suggest an alternative. First though, let me explain my involvement with the subject: I am working with Education Management Corporation to update and improve a few articles (note: because of my financial COI, I am not making direct edits, but offering suggestions and drafts). I had very recently expanded this article prior to your change, and if you're interested, you can see the discussion I had with the editor who reviewed my suggested revisions and moved my drafts live on their Talk page here.

About your addition: having reviewed the source you've added, and being well acquainted with these legal proceedings from working on the Legal issues section of the EDMC article, I think that this update is really more appropriate for the main EDMC article. As noted in the first sentence of the source you added, the lawsuit is against EDMC. Also relevant: the available sources indicate Jason Sobek was not a recruiter for The Art Institutes.

I'm also very concerned about the specific wording you have used; I've noticed the original text of the news article is nearly identical to what you have added; I'm afraid this is a very serious issue per WP:PLAGIARISM and should be addressed very soon.

If you look at the EDMC article, you'll see that this lawsuit is already covered in detail in the second paragraph of the Financial aid and recruitment complaints section, although this update could be added there. Instead of the language you have added, I'd suggest adding the following sentence to the end of the second paragraph of the Financial aid and recruitment complaints section in the EDMC article:

In May 2013, EDMC's appeal to have the case dismissed was turned down.

Would you be agreeable to removing your original edit and making this change to the EDMC article?

As for the other addition you made to the History section about resignation of John Mazzoni, the edit looks appropriate. I did notice that "announced" and "effective" are misspelled, and "would". Would you be able to fix these typos and remove the extra space between the end of the sentence and the reference? Even though these are very simple housekeeping-type edits I would still prefer to not edit the article directly.

Let me know your thoughts on what I've suggested here. You can respond either on my Talk page or here, and I have both the Art Institutes and EDMC articles watchlisted, too. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the changes on both pages. All looks great, and thanks for the speedy response! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Athene. Today an IP editor undid your most recent revision to The Art Institutes, so once again the paragraph about the May 2013 ruling in the EDMC lawsuit is in the article. (You can see it here.) Would you be willing to revert this most recent IP edit, or does that follow BRD? Their edit summary is merely "Important info" but it doesn't begin to address the reasons we changed it last week. Let me know what you think, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your revert, and thank you. Fingers crossed it doesn't happen again. If it does, I'll probably look for another editor to help; I don't want this all to be on you. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the change because I didn't think it was proper for an edmc employee to dictate what can or can't appear on their page. Why the censorship of the legal issue? Are you an employee too?

Wikipedia Meetup in San Diego?[edit]

Hi Athene cunicularia, I am Sebastian Wallroth from Berlin, Germany, board member of Wikimedia Deutschland. I am visiting San Diego from February 3rd to February 8th, happily invited to a wedding. I would like to meet Wikipedians. Is there a chance for a Wiki Meetup in San Diego during the first week in February? --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:BeachErosionCabrillo.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:BeachErosionCabrillo.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:BeachErosionCabrillo.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Seemed like a lot of scissor happy people. (Wallamoose (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting Articles[edit]

Are there any interesting journalism related articles you're working on? That is an area of interest for me. Trying to find something fun to work on where people are happy for help instead of bickering like spoiled children. Party on.(Wallamoose (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art[edit]

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Pinsky-lat-fob.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Pinsky-lat-fob.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Orv-damage.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Orv-damage.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fab four?[edit]

The change you made sounds great! I don't think that the particular beetle we have described under ambrosia beetle is exactly the right one that affects redbay since they have a pointer under externals which seemed more specific. Always hard to tell with beetles (I assume). I am not a beetle expert nor do I wish to become one! :} Cheers! Student7 (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

You should find a better source for this edit, because Yahoo News links die in fourteen days. THF (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julie MacDonald[edit]

You should read the material cited in the opening paragraph. You are misquoting the document. It is unethical for you to misrepresent the information and thus disparage this person. Julie MacDonald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.160.92 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been discussed at length and a consensus has been reached by numerous disagreeing editors. If you have further changes, please make suggestions on the talk page. I have replaced the disputed sentence with a direct quote from the article that shows the exact opposite of what you've written here. It's pretty clear that your edits--and accusation that I'm being "unethical"--are being made in bad faith.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should cite the actual Inspector General's report rather than a NY Times response to the report. Does that seem agreeable to everyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.66.221 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about now? I went back in and refined the reference from the report. Also, your last edit had broken the references section.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you found a nice way to reconcile both sides. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.66.221 (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Coastal-erosion-inland.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Coastal-erosion-inland.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ilhr.jpg[edit]

Dear Athene cunicularia, I have uploaded the above named file on fr.wikipedia in fair use logo, which is also allowed. However, I was asked for the original source of en.wikipedia. Could you please tell me? With kind regards, --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I got it on their website.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Smith[edit]

I am not trying to "gloss over" the lynching of Smith. Please note that I changed the text from "guilty" to "accused" because he never had his day in court. Perhaps you should drop your accusatory tone. Jon Jonasson (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji Water[edit]

Thanks for your contribs to the Fiji water page! (Adding the POM Wonderful association to the owners. I don't know why I left it out!) And refining some of the grammar and sentence flow, its tedious to rewrite these small corporate pages when so much of it was flawed in the first place. It really helped what you did. Thanks! Retran (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outing[edit]

Please refer to editors using their usernames, even if you know their actual first name - using real life names could be considered outing. ATren (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize it was a secret.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not really a secret per se (some editors do know who he is), but it's still not appropriate to use it. There are many editors here who have had their identity revealed (or even revealed it themselves in certain contexts), but still wish to remain pseudonymous in their interactions here -- if that's their wish, we should respect that. ATren (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

Hello, I am here because you decided, knowingly or not, to violate our policy on WP:ROLLBACK. Rollback is granted to users, and as any special permission, such as checkuser, oversight, or sysop, it comes with restrictions. The big one here is what rollback is restricted to. It is only to be used, and I really stress, only to be used to revert blatant vandalism. It is not to be used for good-faith edits, such as my own, on the water article as you did not so long ago.

So please, instead of blindly reverting, assess, and discuss. WP:BRD. In case you chose to not read my edit summary, which, I am pretty sure you did not, I cited the manual of style. At the time, I didn't really link to the relevant section, mainly because I couldn't remember the specific link. However, to the point, the MOS says that such sections should be worked into the article body, instead of having specific sections, which in and of itself, violates undue weight.

I don't know how much experience you have had with sockpuppets and alternate accounts, but please hear me out. I could, and I could not, be considered a sockpuppet. I am an experienced editor, on my username, with at least maybe.. or coming close to, 15,000 edits to my account. Due to ... complications I had half a week ago, maybe more, I'm on an enforced wikibreak. This is why I am logged out. I'm really trying to stay away from disputes, which, instead of simply reverting, I left a message on the talk page, and a message here. I have tried to be polite, and civil. If any of my messages could be taken as uncivil, then I apologize. The last message is in bold so it's double-hard to miss it.

c.c

I was on the wikibreak so I could calm down, but, as you may, or may not know, wikipedia is kind of addictive. I keep coming back to it as a point of reference, and if I see something I just can't ignore, I try to fix it.76.175.3.43 (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please don't leave a message on my talk page. When I am able to log in again, I will email you. However, do to the fact that I wish to protect my identity, I will have to ask that you keep this between us.76.175.3.43 (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to log on tomorrow.76.175.3.43 (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are a banned user who is not allowed to edit, it seems that I did not violate Wikipedia Policy. I would suggest undoing any edits you made while on your "enforced wikibreak" until you are allowed to log in again.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to be polite with you, but that is just too much. Do me a favor, and try to read my comments, and not assume. By enforced wikibreak, I meant specifcally, the wikibreak enforcer, which is javascript a user voluntarily places into their monobook.js file. Nowhere did I say I was banned, and nowhere did I hint I was. I haven't been blocked on my main account. I took a break because I honestly needed one.

So yes, you did violate policy by reverting me. Do so again, and I'll take you to ANI to have your rollback removed. Oh, by the way, you'll be getting an email from my main, and only account after this message.76.175.3.43 (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune[edit]

What in my edit was OR? Everything was supported by the NPR article cited.

It's fairly common practice to use the <ref></ref> tags for footnotes (in fact, you'll notice that page lists this use before citations). It keeps distracting side-issues out of the main text of the article. Alternatively, the pronunciation issue could be split into its own section, but that seems like undue weight.

Also, please don't remove reliable sources like that NPR page. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, although it was almost impossible to figure out what was going on there. I don't really see the point of the nested refs, if it's only one ref anyway. I have no problem with the NPR reference, however, I tried to clean it up so that the citation is easier to understand.Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David G. Ludwig murders[edit]

The article David G. Ludwig murders has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is not a notable criminal. The subject fails WP:PERP by a distance, and WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS by just as much.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David G. Ludwig murders for deletion[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article David G. Ludwig murders, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David G. Ludwig murders until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Deadwood (TV series)[edit]

An editor asked me to look at this edit of yours.[1] Even if it's not an outright personal attack, it isn't exactly civil either. Comments like that often making collegial editing more difficult. I know that not every editor is equally good, and some even seem to be intentionally POV pushing, trolling, or similar offenses. But even then it's best to assume good faith on the article talk pages. If there's a genuine problem with an editor then there are better venues to discuss it, like WP:WQA or WP:ANI. Will Beback talk 04:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He had been edit warring with another user over something amazingly inconsequential for days. He responded with sarcasm to a good faith comment that I made, has called edits by the user he's warring "smartass," and had been editing the article tendentously, preventing any consensus and civil discourse from occurring. My point was that he's not looking for consensus, so why is anyone trying? Maybe you're right -- my comment did express frustration, but I don't feel bad pointing this behavior out, either.

I also don't think it's appropriate for him to remove my comment before asking me to do so first, and his "Welcome to Wikipedia" note on my wall was just passive aggressive. And now he's tattling on me to multiple administrators for pointing out the behavior. His other edits seem normal and good; I don't know why he's unhinged about the Deadwood article. Regardless, I appreciate your intervention. If you need me to remove the comment, I will. However, the situation that this editor has contributed to on the Deadwood article is no shining example of Wikipedia at its best, either.Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Harrington[edit]

Thanks for the note about TheMindsEye removing the proposed for deletion tag from the John Harrington (photographer, author) article. The reason that I proposed it for deletion instead of just improving it is that I didn't find much online beyond self-promotion, and no evidence that Harrington is actually notable. Nothing's been added to the article since the tag was removed, but it's only been a week, and perhaps TheMindsEye is hard at work on this. I'll wait a while and then if nothing happens, maybe list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -- Miketsu (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email me[edit]

Hey, it's Dave Maass from CityBeat. Could you drop me an email? I'd like to ask you something: davem@sdcitybeat.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.70.179.117 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave, if you register an account, you can email me by clicking here. (I also put this message on your talk page.) Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your Issue with DeMaio[edit]

You seem to be unfairly focusing on Carl DeMaio's webpage while not making any corrections to other San Diego Councilmembers especially the Democratic ones. Hopefully your political beliefs are not affecting your decisions to target only certain pages. That would be unfortunate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eno hth (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are also obviously in correspondence with Citybeat reporter Dave Maass who has already admitted that he has a bias towards Carl Demaio which is equally disturbing and questions your motives for editing DeMaio's page religiously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eno hth (talk • contribs) 04:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, on February 2, I did add a banner to Democrat Todd Gloria's page, noting that it needs more sources and may contain original research. Fixing articles takes time and effort, and I plan to work on this later. Sometimes life gets in the way. However, you are obviously very passionate, and if you choose to edit these articles in a meaningful, neutral way, I would welcome your efforts. Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will work on the other pages as I hope you do. You are right, I am very passionate about fairness and possible attacks to pages from people with possible political leanings who are in obvious contact with biased reporters. I hope this can be corrected. Thanks! Eno hth (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:Good faith. Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that link was not helpful. Could not find anything about bias or collaboration regarding excessive use of editing/targeting of individual pages. I will investigate myself. Thanks! Eno hth (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject:San Diego[edit]

I've noticed your edits on pages relating to San Diego. We encourage you to join WikiProject San Diego where we are working to expand, improve, and standardize all articles related to San Diego on Wikipedia.
If you would like more information on what needs to be done, please visit the project page. If you have any questions, please feel free join the discussion on our talk page.

XinJeisan (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never Let Me Go Plot[edit]

Can you check the current plot at Never Let Me Go? You tagged it a while back for cleanup. It has been shortened. What do you think? Time to take off the tag? Roseclearfield (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I made some edits and removed the tag. It's ok by me; my only concern is that previously, it seemed like people were using the plot summary from the movie to describe the plot of the book. Maybe something to watch out for.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011[edit]

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Three Mile Island accident worked, and it has been reverted or removed. However, if you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The article you cited is about Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant, NOT Three Mile Island, so I'm assuming this was a test gone wrong. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 04:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With resepect, you should be more careful about reverting other users' edits. I am neither a new user nor a vandal, so the "test" template you used on my talk page is inappropriate. In addition, justification for removal of the reference is weak at best, since even though the article is about the current crisis, it still supports the statement that TMI was a 5 on the International Nuclear Event Scale. Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you missed the big sign on my Talk page saying that, if I leave you a message on your page, I will look for the answer there. Cross-posting is pointless and I will not chase conversations around in circles.

I didn't say you were a new user, nor did I say you were a vandal. I tried to AGF and fairly evaluate an odd addition to a heavily abused article in the face of a less-than-helpful Edit Summary.

I'm quite careful, actually. Careful enough, in fact, to realize when something doesn't improve an article. You may find, too, that a good Edit Summary will help prevent this sort of thing. How is someone to know from "latimes ref" what you intended? Heck, "latimes" isn't even a word and, without use of the spacebar and shift key might make little sense to a non-American. If you'd said something like "Included LA Times ref that discusses TMI in light of Fukushima", then things might have been different. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 05:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from UncleBubba's Talk page:

Not sure why you decided to strike through my comment above, as I'm trying to be helpful. I understand that your edit was made in good faith. However, removing a properly formatted reference without looking at its contents, and applying a "Welcome, your test worked" template to the talk page of longtime Wikipedia user indicates to me that you could be more careful when reverting edits that aren't obvious vandalism or spam. Since you mentioned that you are not a native English speaker, I will try to be clearer in my edit summaries going forward. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I struck it because it ain't supposed to be here. Not trying to be rude but what part of "If I left you a message on your Talk page, please respond there." don't you understand? Yes, I am a native speaker of English, and--unlike some--I'm not too busy or hurried to use the Space bar and the Shift key to make myself understood. See your Talk page for my response — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I adequately answered your question above but I did not--and will not--chase a single conversation across multiple pages. Start a new conversation on my Talk page if you wish but discuss this topic here, please.

Contrary to your assertion, I did read the reference you added. Frankly, it's of lesser authority than the IAEA reference already on the page, and adds nothing. Vacuous information should not be added to these pages. Unless you're trying to up your edit count or push a POV, you should be able to see and discuss this.

Perhaps I was mistaken in using that template; I was trying to avoid the assumption your edit was malicious or that you were clueless. I regularly patrol frequently-abused articles and can tell you that vandalism and spam are only part of the problem; POV-pushing and useless or trivial posts take their toll on readability and utility every day here in Wikipedia.

It's nice--but irrelevant--that you (and I) have been here a long time. If your primary goal here is to improve Wikipedia, everything will be fine. If you have other objectives, you will butt heads with people--if not me, then someone else. Making a good encyclopedia is hard work and we can use all the help we can get. What we don't need, though, are folks making the work harder. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Rifle Association history section[edit]

After reviewing the main goals presented on your user page, and your preceding NRA Discussion Page comments about why NRA was started and who were the original members, I'm a bit curious why your "minor cleanup" of my edit functionally deleted the reason for creating the organization: A significant majority of American civilians were unfamiliar with rifles, and that unfamiliarity was perceived by civil war combat veterans of New York as a threat to national security. As an NRA life member, I am aware these circumstances may not fit well with NRA's present image of a long national history of civilian proficiency with firearms. However, as a combat veteran citizen soldier tracing my family history of civilian gun ownership back to Miles Standish, I believe the problem was with evolving military technology rather than firearms ownership. Rifles were capable of accuracy unknown to civilians accustomed to the close range pointing techniques applicable to smooth-bore muskets and shotguns. General Burnside's appraisal of civil war soldiers seems particularly relevant since he was the first NRA president. (and the quote comes from a strongly pro-NRA source.) Director of Civilian Marksmanship sales of military rifles similarly attempted to encourage familiarization with military bolt action rifles when most civilians were purchasing lever actions. I welcome constructive criticism; but, in the absence of objections, I propose a revised edit including the background for establishment of the NRA by a group of civil war veteran citizen soldiers.Thewellman (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I have shortened the history section accordingly. The transition from competitive shooting to hunting emphasis is still missing. I believe this transition occurred as the organization recognized the large number of riflemen in rural areas with neither access nor interest in competitive shooting, and accelerated as shooting ranges disappeared from urban areas and competitive college shooting teams were abandoned. Sport hunting enjoyed a surge in popularity among returning World War II veterans with increased availability of motor vehicle transportation during the postwar prosperity, and publication of American Hunter was a significant milestone; but I have not yet found appropriate references.Thewellman (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a pilot study[edit]

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE drive newsletter[edit]

The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive

The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive.

Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Balboa Park GLAM project[edit]

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I recently left a message at WP:SANDIEGO's talk page about a new GLAM collaboration with Balboa Park. I'm contacting you to determine if you'd be interested in participating in the project. The staff there would like to meet with a group of Wikipedians to eventually lead to tours of the museums, image donations, editing collaborations, contests, and other events. If you have any interest at all in helping in any capacity, please list your name at WP:GLAM/BP so we can determine what size group we're looking at. As this collaboration has just started, if you have any questions, comments, ideas, etc., please leave them on the project's talk page. Thank you! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mb-soft.com is not a reliable source[edit]

mb-soft.com is a private website of dubious reliability and it does not appear that it is a well-respected publisher. Please explain why you think it to be an appropriate source. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry dude[edit]

it was late and i was pissed about something else, no excuse.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I have been too scared to mention the Pachyderm in the Parlour with regard to Doug O'Neill/I'll Have Another. Thanks for doing so. If you look at my user page, I listed some sources under the title "Elephant". Tigerboy1966 17:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's absurd that the page listed nothing about his violations, alleged or confirmed. But it helps when a 3-time Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist and unprecedented security at Belmont brings the issue to national attention.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on hooting and screeching, little owl, if O'Neill had been based in Britain he would have been banned for life a long time ago. I have already transferred some of your material to the I'll Have Another article. Tigerboy1966 19:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even have an interest in O'Neill, I'll Have Another, or horse racing. I just find it absurd that the article had no information about the abundant controversies this trainer. Thanks for your support! Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advert-tag on Collings Guitars[edit]

Hi,

Noticed you added {{advert}} on Collings Guitars. I rewrote parts of the article in October, so I was just wondering if you could let me know a bit more about how to improve it further so the tag can be removed again? Perhaps there's also other aspects of the article that needs attention? In my opinion the "Models" section should be cleaned up, but I'm also curious about the rest of the article, would very much learn how to improve my article writing further. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD/Acts 29 Network[edit]

This has been relisted. Does the article still fail WP:CORP? ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice and Help Request[edit]

Very respectfully, I think your talents are being wasted editing the Wayne Lapierre article. I recommend you let more passionate people go at it, they're going to trash ole Wayne, violate WP:Criticism, WP:BLP and a bunch of other policies and there might even be an edit war. Rise above that, it can get very emotional. Give it a month, let's see what substance get's added that might survive and then we'll probably really need your services and energy to clean that up in a dispasionate way. My 2 cents.

If you're interested in a fun project, I've been working to bring up Politics of global warming, there was an edit war (a big one) there a few years ago and the page was trashed. I've been working to bring it up to quality in a balanced fashion representing the true breadth of the issue. It's not yet ready for formal review yet but if you have some time, I would really appreciate a dispassionate edit for prose, readability, flow etc. I like the organizational structure at the moment, it's a very complex topic so definitely let's coordinate if you want to severely change it. It's pretty stable at the moment - most of the people who fought there got some serious sanctions. The topic does deserve a solid article here. Help would be much appreciated in getting that up to speed if you think you can be dispassionate on one of the most hotly contested topics out there.

Without saying, please feel free to delete this message after you read it -Justanonymous (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't think I've edited Wayne's article for a little while. Some [not very] fun personalities at work on these pages, though, for sure. I'll take a look at the Global Warming article that you mentioned. Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much. Definitely read through that article and think about it for a while. It's a very complex topic and we're in no hurry. Wikipedia just needs a high quality article on this. And yes, boy they're going at it in the gun pages. it'll stabilize and we can clean that up too once the passionate people grow tired or get banned by the admins. -Justanonymous (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NRA, Finances, etc.[edit]

Hi Athene, I think I get the gist of your last edit, but can we have a quick chat on the Talk page. I was to make sure that everyone has the same understanding of the NTA's business model. It affects how we talk about money, where it comes from, and where it goes.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the note. I am not sure what you want me to comment on due to the chaotic nature of the Talk page. I am OK with your characterization of the NRA's finances. I agree, splitting it into two easy to understand entities works for me. Details could be described in a later section. As for the lede, we should keep it as brief as possible, with only the most relevant details. I'd suggest moving the third paragraph up, and the second paragraph down. I also don't think we need to get too far into the weeds about the NRA's membership. Let's just call it 4.5 million. We don't need to say "as verified by third party agencies," explain why it fluctuates (even though we don't), or get into detail on magazine subscriptions. That stuff can go into the article later if we want. Also, since the membership count is in the info box, we don't really need it in the lede, do we? Just my .02, though. Athene cunicularia (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a section called "Organizational structure" that's near the top could house the details of the various NRA entities? Athene cunicularia (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to appease the "masses" and contribute in a way that isn't likely to be challenged (or messed with) on what it says or doesn't say. Everyone is right, its too wordy, but I can't see it ticking off either side of the factions that seem to be duking it out lately.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was adding just that to the Finances section.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The membership/member demographics idea is brilliant, I love it! Credible references will be tough, but it sounds like a very interesting section.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NRA edit warring[edit]

The 513 bytes that keep being reverted and re added have been discussed in talk and consensus was to leave in under a very inclusive editing philosophy. I would prefer a shorter article but the consensus is against. The rationale is that he called for armed guards in schools after sandy hook, the media called him nuts for asking, but sandy hook agreed with him. If we remove the vindication, we have to remove the attacks no? In any case, come to the talk, don't edit war. A lot of admins are watching and will block edit warring editors and they are tired of the back and froths. I'll watch your talk, feel free to delete. -Justanonymous (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I didn't realize there was a discussion and it seemed obviously irrelevant to LaPierre as an individual. Funny how relevance is relative, though, isn't it? On the NRA article, it's irrelevant to say that NRA members as a whole support background checks. But on Wayne LaPierre's page, it's relevant to give him personal credit for an NRA policy victory. Hypothetically, does this mean that if he's advocated an NRA policy idea that failed, he gets credit for that too? Not a battle I wish to wage, though. There are bigger fish to fry, and there is no logic present in these discussions -- just attempts at brand damage control by interested parties. (I'll keep watching, though.) Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thx Athene, I agree with your points - it's all very subjective. I have people arguing that there shouldn't be a conspiracy page for Agenda 21 because the conspiracies have only been around for 3 years but Sandy Hook merits a conspiracy page after 15 days. It's very subjective and a bit frustratating at the lack of standards for our articles. Basically if another person shows up and disagrees, the only deal that matters is the one you can strike with that other person. Yields a very unbalanced encyclopedia. I'm for removing a lot of the POV pushing on all sides from the NRA article but the consensus from the participating editors was to be a bit looser with the edits and allow WP:RS content so long as it was factual, well sourced, and relevant - it's imperect and I think it yields a cluttered article but that might be the best we can hope for until the media firestorm passes and then we can come and reorganize and clean it up. Let's just not get sucked into an edit war that hurts our reputations. I'm sticking around close enough to see where things go so I know how much work we're going to have later but not so close that I get too singed. Cheers and thx for all the help. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Travis Alexander article[edit]

I started a discussion on the talk page about the tags you added.[2] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up the NRA article!!!![edit]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I don't think I'm qualified to give you this but THANK YOU for cleaning up the NRA article page, let's hope it stays clean for a while Justanonymous (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]