User talk:BullRangifer

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

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

ToolBox, Traffic stats, Watchlists, Source bin, Hamsterpoop, Templates, Interaction, OWL, Yadkard

Double click editing

When this setting is activated, double-clicking anywhere on a page does the same thing as clicking on the edit this page tab. This only works with browsers that support Javascript (but all of the latest versions of all of the major browsers do).

To enable this feature click the my preferences link at the top of the page. Then click the Editing tab. Then check the box next to Edit pages on double click (JavaScript). And finally, click the Save button.

Note: After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Mozilla/Safari: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), IE: press Ctrl-F5, Opera/Konqueror: press F5.

Read more:
To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}


ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tip of the Day for "tomorrow"[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

Bull, Tonight at 00.00 UTC this TOTD is going to pop out of the rolling TOTD queue.

That is the "raw" tip without the pretty wrapper. You can edit the tip to refine it, then click on the Talk tab and declare your edits to the editors that monitor the Talk page. Have fun. When the tip is presented on various editor Talk pages it is displayed in different wrappers for size and style, but the content remains the same. PS: Editor JoeHebda added the WP:CREATELEAD shortcut link to the TOTD today. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, thanks for the tip! I'm wondering if the essay's "rule of thumb" could be added? If so, feel free to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Tomorrow's tip is already live because of UTC offset:
Double click editing

When this setting is activated, double-clicking anywhere on a page does the same thing as clicking on the edit this page tab. This only works with browsers that support Javascript (but all of the latest versions of all of the major browsers do).

To enable this feature click the my preferences link at the top of the page. Then click the Editing tab. Then check the box next to Edit pages on double click (JavaScript). And finally, click the Save button.

Note: After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Mozilla/Safari: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), IE: press Ctrl-F5, Opera/Konqueror: press F5.

Read more:
To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}
Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 03:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks great! Thanks so much. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

COI flowchart[edit]

As suggested at Jimbo's talk, this needs developing for use at WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest. (See also here and here.)

COI editors, like all editors, should be approached in good faith, unless there is very obvious proof to the contrary. They are often subject experts, and often are newbies, so we shouldn't bite them.

Some logical thoughts to consider so we don't look like a kangaroo court or lynch mob:

  1. He did declare his COI. Good.
  2. He did use the talk page. Good.
  3. If his edits were questioned, did he edit war over them? If so, a short block might be in order if he persisted. Did any of that happen?
  4. If his editing was questioned, was he willing to stick to using the talk page and cease editing the article(s) in question? If so, good.
  5. Questions about his editing will naturally tend to call out the worst assumptions made by human nature (such failure to AGF can be a blockable offense): "He has a COI, so hang him immediately, no matter what types of edits he made, and by all means immediately revert all of them, regardless if they improved the article!" We must still AGF. Misunderstandings occur between all good faith editors, and that includes COI editors.
  6. Lynching is the wrong approach because a COI does not absolutely forbid editing, but rather it's an admonishment to be careful. If a COI editor actually violates policies (not referring to COI here), then judge based on those infractions. While it's wise for them to only use the talk page, it's not totally forbidden to carefully edit and seek consensus.
  7. A topic ban might be wise, if such infractions are clearly proven to be more than just differences of opinions.

So go through those steps and don't jump immediately to blocks and topic bans unless necessary. We do need topic experts, and even a topic ban should be limited to the article itself, not the talk page, unless dealing with a really hardcore a##hole. Then just indef them. So carry on and good luck with this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wikipediocracy[edit]

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

Fact factories: Wikipedia and the power to represent[edit]

Title: Fact factories: Wikipedia and the power to represent


Wikipedia is no longer just another source of knowledge about the world. It is fast becoming a central source, used by other powerful knowledge brokers like Google and Bing to offer authoritative answers to search queries about people, places and things and as information infrastructure for a growing number of Web applications and services. Researchers have found that Wikipedia offers a skewed representation of the world that favours some groups at the expense of others so that representations on the platform have repercussions for the subjects of those representations beyond Wikipedia's domain. It becomes critical in this context to understand how exactly Wikipedia's representations come about, what practices give rise to them and what socio-technical arrangements lead to their expression.

This ethnographic study of Wikipedia explores the values, principles and practices that guide what knowledge Wikipedia represents. It follows the foundational principles of Wikipedia in its identity both as an encyclopaedia and a product of the free and open source software and internet freedom rhetoric of the early 2000s. Two case studies are analysed against the backdrop of this ideology, illustrating how different sets of actors battle to extend or reject the boundaries of Wikipedia, and in doing so, affect who are defined as the experts, subjects and revolutionaries of the knowledge that is taken up.

The findings of this thesis indicate that Wikipedia's process of decision-making is neither hierarchical nor is it egalitarian; rather, the power to represent on Wikipedia is rhizoid: it happens at the edges rather than in the centre of the network. Instead of everyone having the same power to represent their views on Wikipedia, those who understand how to perform and speak according to Wikipedia's complex technical, symbolic and policy vocabulary tend to prevail over those who possess disciplinary knowledge about the subject being represented. Wikipedians are no amateurs as many would have us believe; nor are they passive collectors of knowledge held in sources; Wikipedians are, instead, active co-creators of knowledge in the form of facts that they support using specially chosen sources.

The authority of Wikipedia and Wikipedians is garnered through the performative acts of citation, through the ability of individual editors to construct the traces that represent citation, and through the stabilization and destabilization of facts according to the ideological viewpoints of its editors. In venerating and selecting certain sources among others, Wikipedians also serve to reaffirm traditional centres of authority, while at the same time amplifying new centres of knowledge and denying the authority of knowledge that is not codified in practice. As a result, Wikipedia is becoming the site of new centres of expertise and authoritative knowledge creation, and is signalling a move towards the professionalization of the expertise required to produce factual data in the context of digital networks.[1]

Heather Ford, Mark Graham, Eric Meyer

  1. ^ Ford, Heather, "Fact factories: Wikipedia and the power to represent", Kellogg College, Oxford, August 2015, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4068.9361 [dead link]
TY for this introduction to the newly minted Dr Ford, who is now a Fellow at Leeds. Scholarship worth watching. Cheers. Le Prof. (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You're very welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Spike on the 23rd[edit]

Bull, shows a spike on the 23rd, FYI. PS: I saw a dead moose wrapped up in a tarp in the back of a pickup on the highway the other day. Only the antlers were poking out of the tarp it was tightly bundled up in. I suppose it had no legs, and was bled out. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That is quite the spike! I suspect it's thanks to your promotion of the essay. Thanks! -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

AN/I discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an editor for whom you left a talk page caution.[1] The thread is Professor JR on political articles. Thank you. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Strike throughs[edit]

Please don't this [2]. Striking means the original editor is withdrawing the statement, and it doesn't really help the project. NE Ent 01:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Nah, seeing as you added an explanatory note, striking is fine and helpful. --NeilN talk to me 01:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Why can't people just mind their own business? Siding with a troll is serious business. I have replied. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Cooperation table[edit]

Heya BFF - Wanna help me on the Articles listed here User:LeoRomero/scxc? And could you please add yourself to the list of persons involved, and the Articles you'd think I could help you on? - Thanks and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 17:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Séralini affair[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Séralini affair. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC on citations in lead[edit]

Bull, see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Let.27s require citations in the lead section Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Would like to know your thoughts on Falun Gong[edit]

Greetings! I wonder if you have read Falun Gong before. If so, what are your thoughts on its neutrality?

Falun Gong (FLG) is a highly controversial spiritual movement. Falun Gong and its creator Hongzhi Li contains content related to spiritual healing. Whether it is a cult or not, is still up for debate.

See the Britannica [3] entry, which provides a more balanced view. I encourage you to read the comment section as well. And a thesis [4], which reviews the healing and alt medicine teaching in FLG on page#155 (pdf page#163). There are more articles on, but I am not certain about their neutrality.

Unlike most religion pages, Falun Gong somehow has no controversy section, plus very little criticism throughout the entire page. Asides from vandalism, there were multiple attempts of adding contents of critical nature, but all of them were reverted by a few editors guarding the article. IMO, the article fails to withhold NPOV rules. Ironically, the article is nominated for GA.

Both sides, namely Chinese government vs FLG (See Epoch Times), have been conducting agenda push for over a decade. The reporting of FLG is very difficult due to censorship in China. Therefore it is difficult to find non-biased references for this topic. An expanded view of mine can be found on Talk:Falun Gong.

I stumbled upon your page by accident, and noticed that you are a critic of alternative medicine. I hope Falun Gong can be of interest to you. Thanks for your time. Zebrasandrobots (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Glyphosate[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Glyphosate. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Andrea Constand for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrea Constand is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Constand until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kaldari (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Cosby sexual allegations article ... YES, delete the chart[edit]

BullRangifer: yeah, let's delete the chart that lists each of dozens of alleged victims. Their cases are barred by the Statutes of limitation. The text of the article that discusses lawsuits is quite up to date about the most important suits such as Green et al. v. Cosby. OK, after thinking aobut it, please leave the text and delete the chart of all victims ... just list their names (and a bit of info) in one paragraph. That will dramatically condense this article and get the warnings to stop. If you are willing to do the work, I for one will strongly support the deletion! Cheers! Peter Peter K Burian (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

SPINOFF moves it. No deleting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A kudos sent[edit]

…earlier this month appears to have never made it to you. As always, thank you for generous, patient engagement with this cantankerous SME. Cheers, Le Prof (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi. Please review WP:REFB. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jeff. I like to use the basic citation template at the top of this page. Is there any particular reason you left this comment? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sound of Silence[edit]

Why is the link to the Disturbed cover removed from the singles section? It did link to the cover. Daerl (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't realize that content had just been added. I have reverted and agree that content should be there. It's a great cover. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy[edit] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1]

  1. ^ a b c d e f Empty citation (help) 

Thank you for caring!!![edit]

Thank you for Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section. I think it is amazing and my smile today is as wide as my face. Really glad to see this happening for our growing mobile audience!

I wonder if there is anything technologically we can do to help support this initiative e.g. VisualEditor or the standard wikitext editor could alert editors to these kind of guidelines by providing hints when an editor expresses an intention to edit the lead section. I also question whether an ambox could be used on articles where lead sections do not seem to be the right quality? Jdlrobson (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. This search turns up a number of templates for the lead. Maybe some of them will help you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bull, a request that you look in[edit]

…at Elaine May, where I have finished checking and formatting a little more than half of the citations (first 12, and a few more downstream), but where I have noted (1) full sections with no sources, via section tags, and (2) the need yet for formatting, just described, via an article tag, and (3) the over-reliance on Gerald Nachman's book (43 citations to it alone, in a total of 23 sources, so about 2/3 of all inline citations).

I have had those tags reverted by another editor on the argument that the sections have wikilinks, and those suffice. I have pointed out that this is against WP:VERIFY, and returned the tags, also returning the "one source" and "formatting" tags (until the formatting is done, and until some other books begin to balance the over-reliance on Nachman).

I'd appreciate if you might have a look in. I am concerned that between telling him IMDB was not an acceptable source (he used it three times to support award nominations, when there are ample real sources for those sentences), and returning these tags, it may end up contentious. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This is what comes from watching a Mike Nichols retrospective at my wife's invitation, on PBS. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climate change denial[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human sexuality[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human sexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Main article:

Why has an obviously notable website's article been deleted? Hmmmm.....

"Connelly would always gab about the “Loser Wall” with his wife, so eventually she registered the domain for the grand sum of $35 as a joke.
“I am the original registrar of and have owned it since 1995,” he says. “I’ve never really tried to monetize it, per se. I’ve used it for fun and games over the years. It’s a universal term that’s known in every language, not just English.”

While current coverage is mostly about Trump, the website is old and has been described for many years. This is about Brian Connelly's website, not Trump or Kanye West. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Koren Specific Technique[edit]

Can I get your opinion here, both parties admitted there are four reliable sources. I wrote this article because of my science background to protect the public from quackery. The encyclopedia tends to be bias against fringe. Valoem talk contrib 18:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor Alexbrn is removing sources mid AfD again. Valoem talk contrib 21:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Bull, can you look in[edit]

I am sorry to come at you out of the blue on this, but I am in a quandry with an editor pulling rank (length of time here). I came to an article, at the behest of another, to look at the large blocks of unsourced text. Out of compassion, I gave it a half day, while I was waiting on an overseas gig to warmup.

The article—believe it or not, a church—had not been edited in over 6 months before I came. The article had a list of 20+ "references", but essentially no inline citations. And those listed "references" were really, a reading list, not references, because there was no clear evidence, and eventually evidence contrary, that the content was drawn from that list. (The article gave names of wives of principle individuals, talks about their moving from city to city—the sorts of things that are not usually in published sources. Its being unreferenced, and its having this sort of content led me to believe this was WP:OR, a personal record of history, rather than a history based on published information.)

I set to work on it, fixing the dead links, examining the 4 inlines that did appear, then reading the "Further reading" list of 20+ to see what citations I could place. I put in many hours, and now, all the citations in the article are good, and the article—though still in need of inlines—has 15 good citations, and many of the inline tags have been removed (though many more still to go).

Enter now a fly-by editor, never been interested in the article before. Does two things.

  • Keeps removing my under construction tag. (I have "under construction" when I am away, and "in use" when I am working, as I was taught, I think by you), and
  • Keeps running a script to chance my dates to one he prefers.

He argues only DD MONTH YYYY is acceptable for an article about a U.S. organization (?!), and that it must be done immediately. I have asked, to no avail, that he allow the date format to remain as I have set them—YYYY-MM-DD, for publication dates, at least in the interim, because that facilitates my skimming and using citations in the Further reading list, as I am doing this extensive updating edit.

I mostly want to get done with what I can do on this article, and leave, and if he wants to change all the dates after I am gone, that is fine. I just want this editor, who has (a) done nothing at the article before my coming, (b) only done disruptive things since my coming, to quit reverting things and leave them alone, so I can make the remaining progress I intend. (And next time I am asked to edit outside of my specially, I will likely say no.)

Can you look in?

Article is (believe it or not)… Scum of the Earth Church. Thank you in advance for whatever you decide can be said or done there. Please, feel free to refer to an Admin if you think appropriate.

Once again, in closing—I want uniform dates when I leave. I have no strong opinion what that date format should be after I leave. I simply want the date formats that make the editing easiest to remain in place for the few days I am working. Absilutely uniform date formats are icing on the cake, and not the cake itself (in my opinion).

See Talk a that article for the one sided argument. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The date format should be US style, IOW Month, Day, Year. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) here. Hi, Leprof 7272. Datestyle is set by the original author of the article, or by the first editor to introduce a date into an article. There is no convention for dmy vs mdy, although if the article has a strong international tie an argument can be made for dmy.
All numerical dates are never appropriate for the body of an article or for citations in an article.
All numerical dates may be used in a table where date sorting would be helpful.
Have you researched to see what the original date format was? If you want to change the datestyle you need to reach a local consensus on the talk page.
The American police and American military use dmy datestyle in their communications, so it would not be out of line for somebody writing an article about such to decide right off to use dmy instead of mdy, but again yyyy-mm-dd would never be correct per MOS:DATES.
You can find out more about an articles origins by clicking on the "Page information" link on the left hand set of links on every article page, although talk page consensus discussions in the interim may have trumped the datestyle. In conclusion, do not change datestyles in articles on your own. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) here. Hi, again Leprof 7272. In this permalink the article is using December 18, 2011 as the only date visible in the body, so if I was unifying dates, I would go with mdy vs dmy. Once you go mdy in the body, then you are obligated to be consistent and go mdy everywhere else, except maybe in tables as I explained before. As Walter points out, it is an American article so the logical choice would be mdy anyway, but it is not a policy by any means, as Walter alludes to. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Vaxxed Drama[edit]

Your input would be appreciated Here. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Caitlyn Jenner#List-defined references[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Caitlyn Jenner#List-defined references. Hi, Bull. I thought this might interest you. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Need your attention here[edit]

CFCF intends to merge the discussion with no consensus to do so. He wishes merge despite two AfDs allowing inclusion and the discussion Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard having valid points against merge. They insist on apply WP:MEDRS, which is not necessary, however I gave them unimpeachable MEDRS sources from PubMed here. CFCF stated "I will remerge the reverts by Valoem shortly", if he does so before the discussion is closed in favor of merge please revert, and I will open an ANI for topic sanctions against him. Valoem talk contrib 16:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Valoem - this edit constitutes canvassing, a practice that is frowned upon. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 17:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
How so? Even if I asked him for input it is allow per WP:CANVASSING asking an editor with prior involvement requesting to be remain informed for input in the same discussion is allowed. In fact I could ping the entire group of people who participated in the AfD if I desire, however in this case I only asked him to revert your merge to avoid 3RR. Thanks. Valoem talk contrib 17:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice to know which fring theory thread is being discussed, and which articles are involved? and yes, I agree with CFCF regarding canvassing. This is classic. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

A request for your point of view on an article - your help over a year ago was very appreciated[edit]

Hello BullRangifer. I contacted you back in Oct 2014 to provide an unofficial third opinion on a hotly contested article, Rolfing. You gave level-headed advice that helped toss a bucket of water on the situation and everything calmed down for a while. Your status as a quackbuster means that the other editors involved on the page actually listen to your opinion. It seems to me that one of the editors, who has a clear anti-alt-med bias as opposed to simply valuing science and critical thinking, is so bent on his POV that he doesn't thoughtfully read and consider the edits I make before reverting them. Nor does he take the time to understand what I've written in the talk page, before going back to talking about pseudoscience. I do expect a lively back-and-forth with other WP editors, I expect to have to support my edits with quality sources, and I expect that editors will show good faith in dealing with each other.

My proposal: revert the page to the "last stable version" from March 17 - prior to my contested edits and the others that followed - and then we discuss the various changes on the Talk page before making them.

Would you kindly jump in and give your two cents? Thank you!!! --Karinpower (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NUCCA[edit]

As suspected a user is doing a full merge of all article with no consensus. You input is needed for or against. Valoem talk contrib 17:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Bull, could you look in on[edit]

…and perhaps send an editor to the Conditioner (farming) article, where my usual nemesis is warring, and ignoring Talk. Point is, the article has two issues, the two tags are distinct and non-redundant, and and this editor is stalking and disrupting. Cheers, for whatever you might find time to do. Le Prof (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There were widespread complaints (see discussion) concerning user:Leprof 7272 over use of attention banners that very nearly resulted in a block. Now Leprof 7272 is resuming adding redundant attention banners to articles. I suggested an alternative option here which was simply deleted without discussion. Boghog (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
FYI, Boghog is a stalker, and when he argues his case, conveniently only presents very one-sided aspects of his story. In the foregoing, he fails to mention, (a) that I actually accommodated and incorporated the "alternative option" he mentions, despite deleting it from my Talk page, and (b) that the reason for his entries be treated by deletions is for the very reason of his stalking. Bottom line, feel free to ignore anything, ever, from him about me. When I ask you into an article, it is for whatever you bring (whether it agrees with me or not). Cheers. Le Prof (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Second law of thermodynamics[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Second law of thermodynamics. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

With Led Zeppelin[edit] the news, I went to the Robert Plant article, for some insight into the early days. Go there, you will see what I did. The sources there are in really rough shape—in the one section, I fixed one dead llink, and combined two duplicate references (along with noting the usual unsourced, capricious text-dropping). Calling this to your attention, in case you are interested in a high impact referencing mini-project. If so, I will (for the little it is worth) support you in any updating, correcting, etc. that you do. Cheers, Le Prof
P.S. Tags were already in article, I added one expand, one reimprove, the latter which may eventually need to go at top.) (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Second P.S. As a big fan of your work, and one who has looked into your background, I am very sorry to see the above banner, and hear what others have done to you. Would share with you that an earlier login of mine here was retired, for the very reason that someone took it upon themselves to try to trace the place of my academic appointment, and out me. I found no ready, responsive support within WP, so just eliminated and disconnected the old record, with the new never making mention of anything specific enough to allow tracing. Again, I am sorry, and feel deeply for the suffering those who stalked and expressed hatred have brought. Please don't let it lead you to the conclusion that you and your work are not deeply valued. Share this with family, if you wish. You are respected, valued, and all the more, needed at this often sad place. Cheers. Le Prof (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

With heist of USD 50M[edit]

…in virtual currency from a DAO, see here, there will be increased attention to various tech articles, one being Block chain (database). I went there, and it is a nearly outstanding article, except for the quality of presentation of its citations. I am running reFill, in a first pass, to fill bare URLs. If you have time, take a look, and see if there is anything further you can do? I will then return and give some further work as well. Cheers, and, in re: above, hope you are well. Delete anything I've written if you wish. Cheers mate. Le Prof (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Lea Salonga[edit]

I see that you deleted an image from this article, indicating that you think it's a copyvio. Why do you think so? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It's the same image she uses on her official website and YouTube profile. We have no indication that the image has been released from its copyright for use here. I have contacted User talk:Nicworks here and at Commons, but no response yet. Until then we can't risk it. Do you have any information I'm not privy to? -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Take a look here. Nicworks claims it's his "own work". Well, that's not good enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The image has been deleted from Commons. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Good work on the Salonga article. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! If I make any mistakes, don't hesitate to let me know. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Essay about editorial neutrality[edit]

I think this essay is a very good idea. I don't have time to read this long essay carefully, but I have a couple of quick thoughts:

  • 1. Go through it again and see if you can trim and streamline any of the text. From my quick look at it, there seems to be a lot of repetition. Write each thing once, as clearly as possible. And delete anything that does not immediately advance your argument. The shorter the essay is, the more likely that people will read it.
  • 2. In the box at the top, you write: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. The very expression "neutral point of view" is misleading, because NPOV refers to an editorial attitude and mindset; it is not a true "point of view".
I would eliminate repetition and recast this more like this: NPOV refers to neutral editors, not neutral content; that is, an editorial attitude, not to a perspective with respect to the content being edited.
  • 3. Also in the box at the top, you write: ... Since Wikipedia does not take sides, and because it documents all types of biased points of view, often using very biased sources, article content cannot be neutral. ... We document all forms of reality, whether we like it or not.
I would change these two sentences to say something like this: Wikipedia articles document all significant points of view presented in third-party published sources about the topic; the sources will necessarily present the biases of their authors. ... We document the points of view evident in the sources published about a topic and present them neutrally, even if the points of view presented are politically or historically unpopular.

Try to avoid words like "very". Your essay will be more persuasive if it does not seem to be pushing too hard. Maybe in the autumn, I will have time to read it carefully for you. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Your changing of a tag[edit]

I tagged a statement in the Phone sex article with a "fact" tag, which displayed as "Citation needed." Fifteen minutes later, you changed my tag to a "CN" tag, which also displays as "Citation needed." Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes lists both ways of tagging and does not say one is to be preferred to the other. So what was the point of your change? If you see a statement tagged as "citation needed," perhaps your time could be spent in some more productive way than changing one tag to the other. It also wastes the time of other editors who then see the change and spend time searching for articles about templates to find out if there has been a change in the preferred way of getting "citation needed" to display. Then you used the inaccurate edit summary "rmv active external link" which did not appear to have been done in your edit. What gives? Regards, Edison (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about creating confusion. If you look at my edit summary ("rmv active external links"), you'll see that my reason for the edit was different than what you have described. I wouldn't do that. Somehow I got caught in an edit conflict (having left my PC without saving an edit), and then it appeared that the "fact" tag was somehow activating the links, something I had never seen before. By changing the tag, the active URLs disappeared and I left my PC. Now I can see that they had been removed by another editor before I saved my edit. It was weird, and now what was weird makes sense. I didn't realize that someone else had just removed them. Your "fact" tag hadn't somehow gotten new and magical powers to activate a live URL! Fortunately everything seems fine now. Again, sorry about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monosodium glutamate[edit]

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

Need help to fix a ref error - resolved[edit]

Hi, BullRangifer, remember your request Need help to fix a ref error in Alternative medicine. It's been a while and that error was still there. I looked at the problem and discovered that one of the Harvard-style templates had a parameter ps= in it. Removing that fixed things; it seems that an empty ps= still causes the reference to have a distinct name than if there is no ps= present. I know that there's WP:NODEADLINE, but that it took more than 6 months for this one seems sad.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Evolutionary theory of sex (ETS)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Evolutionary theory of sex (ETS). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jaguar (microarchitecture)[edit]

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

Could you have a look[edit]

Bull, was directed to this page by a nephew who asked. "Why is it that some WP pages don't have to have any sources at all." Could you take a look here, and see if the page cannot be protected, so that any further edits must be approved (i.e., to ensure that writing to provide sourced material begins). I do not know how to do this, so I ask it of you. (I will then take the teenagers back to the page, and show how the process works.) Cheers, thanks. Le Prof (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You have done the right thing by tagging it. Anything questionable or dubious can also be tagged specifically using {{cn}}. Now give it time and see what other editors do. The tag will alert them and some may start to improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neonicotinoid[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neonicotinoid. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If time permits[edit]

I have done as much as I can afford, today, with Colleen Cavanaugh. Have a look if you can. Cheers, Le Prof (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Impact of the privatisation of British Rail[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Impact of the privatisation of British Rail. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox observatory[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox observatory. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

New newsletter for Notifications[edit]


You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia.

That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements.

Please subscribe!

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Twin paradox[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Twin paradox. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]

Please comment on Talk:James Watson[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Watson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)