# User talk:ImperfectlyInformed

## Tech News: 2015-24

15:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-25

15:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-26

15:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Debate on the monarchy in Canada. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-27

15:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-28

15:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-29

15:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi II, your comment was added on the 17th, which is after the relisting-action taken by User:DaveWild on the 16th. I've taken the liberty of moving your comment down to the bottom of the page, so that it doesn't get lost in the long discussion above the line. I also moved a similarly-misplaced comment made by 104.200.151.38 which was hidden inside one of the collapse-boxes. If for some reason you object to your comment being relocated, please feel free to revert me. Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That's a good idea. That discussion was such TL;DR that I put it above it, but I think you're quite correct that below is more visible. II | (t - c) 16:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Gasp! Someone has hidden away some of your AfD comments! Okay, no need to panic. It was me, who dunnit, after talking the move over with User:Czar. If you believe I've collapsed something that should have remained visible, or if you want to add a new summarizing-comment that states your position succinctly, please feel free to do so. Here is the tidying-up-for-excess-verbosity version of the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dunnet_(video_game). Thanks for your good work, talk to you later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-30

03:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-31

15:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Association for Progressive Communications

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Association for Progressive Communications. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-32

15:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-33

14:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-34

16:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-35

13:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Google. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

## Fine, then YOU fix it

See Talk:Trust law. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-36

21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-37

17:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-38

16:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-39

18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:C/1980 E1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:C/1980 E1. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-40

15:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-41

18:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-42

16:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-43

16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-44

18:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Leschi (fireboat)

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

## Tech News: 2015-45

16:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-46

17:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-47

19:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-48

20:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

## Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-49

16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-50

17:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-51

17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-52

18:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

## Yo Ho Ho

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Gilles-Éric Séralini

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gilles-Éric Séralini. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-02

16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

## Nomination of Barrie R. Cassileth for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barrie R. Cassileth 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/Barrie R. Cassileth 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. Delta13C (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-03

17:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

## Commercial general liability insurance

Hi ImperfectlyInformed. I see the new article on Commercial General Liability insurance. How is this different than the current Liability insurance article? I realize CGL is a subset of liability insurance, and liability insurance as strictly defined also means personal liability, and can cover automobiles and professional liability. Do you think that perhaps the "liability" article should be made more general, and much of the information moved to your article? I know a bit about insurance, if you'd like me to help out. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Good question! CGL corresponds to Liability_insurance#General_liability on that page, and could be summarized a bit better. I think the liability insurance article could perhaps be a bit more broad, but it is still fairly broad as it is. The employers liability, public, private, and product stuff on that page is not exactly CGL, although CGL can end up covering product liability. CGL will never cover employers liability. Also, the liability insurance article doesn't cover professional liability really at all. Basically the liability insurance is a very incomplete article.
I'd love your help! :) If you look at my recent contributions I've been doing a lot of insurance stuff in the past few days, and it would be good to have someone check it over if you've got the time. Unfortunately, my energy on insurance is somewhat spent. I used to work in the industry, but I transitioned out some time ago into writing software. I'm trying to get my knowledge into Wikipedia before it fades away completely, but I doubt I'll be able to continue spending energy on the topic. II | (t - c) 04:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-04

16:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:2015 Chinese stock market crash

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

## Please comment at this RfC

RfC on the 'Veganism' article

## Tech News: 2016-05

21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

## February 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Selenium (software), did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The sentence is unclear. Do not remove templates. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs), I've been editing Wikipedia for about as long as you. Have you never heard of WP:DTTR? If the sentence is unclear, fix it. There's no need to leave a template there forever. If you can't think of a way to fix it, the template should be removed. I can't see how it can possibly be unclear: Selenium RC is deprecated. II | (t - c) 01:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I have but you're the second editor to remove the template without fixing the clearly identified sentence structure issue. I don't care what your problem with the English language is but if you don't want to read what an experienced editor says is wrong with the sentence (in order to get the original editor to fix it) then stay away from templates in general.
It is compatible with Selenium RC, which was deprecated, and is little-maintained.
and the template reason was
the wording here is confusing. Is the sentence about IDE or RC at this point?
So while both you and I know that RC was put out to pasture half a decade ago, it's still not clear if RC or IDE was little maintained. Did you miss the reason or do you think that other editors don't know how to use Wikipedia? assume clue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) If two people have removed it, maybe it's not so confusing. But hey, there's no reason to get upset on either end here, and we should try to be civil - after all, we're both volunteering to the sum of human knowledge. :) With that said, I did read the template - but I didn't see it as unclear, due to how I understand English. I suppose it could be confusing, but "which" is a relative pronoun which modifies the object next to it. So if I say "I was on the hill, which was muddy", it's basically the same thing. In no case should "which was muddy" be thought to refer to me ("I" in that sentence), even if it was changed to "which was handsome". Do you see what I mean? See here The Syntactic Functions of Relative Pronouns in English for more information. II | (t - c) 02:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Clearly, it's me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
What does that mean? And "never contact me again"?? I can see why your block log is so long. II | (t - c) 02:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-06

18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-07

16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-08

18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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

## Tech News: 2016-09

20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-10

20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-11

18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-12

16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Amway. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-13

19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-14

22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

## The helping hand barnstar!

 The Helping Hand Barnstar This barnstar is awarded to user ImperfectlyInformed for thinking about the concerns of editors, new and old, and fostering the development of editors. Thank you for your efforts in building the project. You are an awesome Wikipedian. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-15

20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-16

20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-17

21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-18

20:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-19

23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-20

16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-21

18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Hilton Worldwide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hilton Worldwide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Special Barnstar ...just an appreciation for all your wonderful work here at Wikipedia, and, importantly, for the spirit of kindness, as appears to be your nature warm regards (I'm French, we're warm; hope it's not embarrassing), Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 22:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I wonder what might have prompted this? It doesn't seem like we've edited the same areas. Anyway, it is much appreciated. Cheers! :) II | (t - c) 17:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-22

16:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

## Formal mediation has been requested

 The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Paul Singer (businessman)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 June 2016. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-23

20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

## Request for mediation rejected

 The request for formal mediation concerning Paul Singer (businessman), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 09:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC) (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

## Tech News: 2016-24

18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

## Proper citation of sources

Imperfectlyinformed, thank you for the words of encouragement and kind welcome!!

I've been an editor over at Dmoz for a few years now and thought I'd try something more challenging by moving on to Wiki pages. However, I am concerned with the integrity of certain editors on Wikipedia. I modified my last edit on the home insurance page because another editor decided that the source I used was not the original source of the information I provided in the table. I can assure you the source I provided is the only place on the internet that I could find with not only the complete set of data but also presented it in a way that met the criteria of not being "too technical for most readers to understand". Now I understand not wanting to use commercial websites as a source but I believe in proper attribution. If this website compiled the information and made it easier to understand than any .gov or .org I researched, I feel they should get credit for their work.

To prove my point I changed the information to match that of the new source the other editor provided. I'm sure we can both agree it was not as comprehensive nor was it as informative. I urge you to allow me to do my job properly and revisit my contributions with the proper citation prior to the edits made by KH-1. Raph3988 (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Raph3988 (talk · contribs), I actually side with KH-1 in that case. I looked at that Shift Insurance article and it didn't seem any better than the government article; it seemed pretty typical of what you'd see in a small agency. These types of websites often break and they're not typically as reliable. I think one of the things that we can accomplish is to make the Wikipedia content itself more readable, while using complex sources ourselves for citations. Also, there's the Simple English Wikipedia (with no simple:home insurance article over there) for really easy to understand information. I'm open to being convinced of otherwise if you think there's really something special about Shift Insurance, but I'm not seeing it. But again, don't be discouraged. And please try not to think in terms of questioning people's integrity - we try not to assume bad faith. I think some people would perhaps assume that you have a financial relationship with Shift Insurance given how strongly you want to cite them, but I'd rather not jump to that conclusion myself. II | (t - c) 05:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs), I'm not trying to convince you there is anything special about their site. I'm trying to defend MY WORK. I spent a lot of time and effort trying to understand the subject and figure out the best way to meet the wiki criteria of "making it understandable to non-experts". After doing my research, I found their use of tables to be the most relevant to my goal of "simplifying the concept without removing any technical details". Not even the III, NAIC, various .gov websites, nor .edu based research had a complete account of all the HO policy forms and their individual coverages in one place, so I gave them credit.
But look, I'm not here to argue. If you guys want me to ignore useful resources just because they are "small", I'll do it. Just don't expect me to use information from one place and cite another. I stand by my citation choice and am disappointed that I had to recreate the table with a less comprehensive account of the information. If you disagree, I understand. Raph3988 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-25

19:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Searle

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

## Tech News: 2016-26

15:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-27

19:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-28

15:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-29

12:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-30

19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-31

21:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-32

15:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-33

19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

## Nomination of Barrie R. Cassileth for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Delta13C (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

## Category:Heterodox economists has been nominated for discussion

Category:Heterodox economists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2016-34

21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

## Please comment on Template talk:Infobox organization

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

## Tech News: 2016-35

16:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion nomination of Organic Monitor

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Organic Monitor 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 an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. shoy (reactions) 16:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)