|Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
- 1 Snack time
- 2 Happy Holidays
- 3 RfC at Robert E. Lee
- 4 Disambiguation link notification for December 21
- 5 User group for Military Historians
- 6 Season's Greetings
- 7 Disambiguation link notification for December 28
- 8 Happy New Year, Neutrality!
- 9 Global Research / Zero Hedge Citations
- 10 Happy New Year, Neutrality!
- 11 Administrators' newsletter – January 2018
- 12 Orphaned non-free image File:Save Freedom of Speech.png
- 13 Disambiguation link notification for January 15
- 14 Konni Burton Edits
Well I had a mind to carry out the merger regarding The Safety of Eating Raw Cookie Dough, but I see you've already incorporated the on-topic content. I was going to suggest the original be deleted rather than redirected per the result of the AfD, but it occurs to me that that may cause attribution issues, given your edit summary attribution. Am I correct in assuming that's what you had in mind? Or just that redirects are cheap maybe? GMGtalk 15:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
|Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)|
RfC at Robert E. Lee
As a recent contributor to Talk:Robert E. Lee, you are receiving this notice for an RfC at of a proposed restatement of a wp:primary source which contains more points than the existing block quote from the letter. The primary source is a 1856 letter of Lee’s to his wife from Texas as found at Alexander Long, Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history (1886), p. 82-83. Opponents have seen wp:original research in the proposal as drawing conclusions not found in the primary source. A rewrite of the first proposal follows an edit break. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
- Angus King (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Leash law
- MalwareTech (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Hacking
User group for Military Historians
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
Happy New Year, Neutrality!
Global Research / Zero Hedge Citations
Did you even read the articles I cited? They have links to legitimate documents, unlike what was on the "Enlargement of NATO" page before. Snooganssnoogans even got rid of the Forbes article explaining how Western-based polls show that Crimeans are happier being back in Russia and the video of Obama admitting on CNN to having an involvement in the Ukrainian coup against their democratically elected president, and all that means nothing to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKDL (talk • contribs) 22:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- PKDL: Please read the policies I linked on your talk page. If you want to have a further discussion on article content, go to Talk:Enlargement of NATO and try to gain consensus. And the Forbes piece wasn't an article, but rather a "contributor blog" piece; these articles aren't written by staff. See WP:RSN and search the archives for more info. Neutralitytalk 22:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
There were citations and sources on that "Forbes" piece, buddy, and yes, it was an article. Does it matter if it was written by official staff or not? If memory serves me right, a year to this day, The Washington Post published an article written by official staff, both with the "reporter" designation, that was about how "Russia" (whatever that means) hacked the Vermont electrical grid with no evidence, not even in the opinion section, they just lied, got everyone up in arms over that lie, and they still haven't changed the misleading headline or removed the article entirely, and of course they did not make an official story correcting their mistake so everyone got informed about the truth of the matter. Here is that masterpiece of an "article" right here if you weren't paying attention a year ago or since: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.29184d2e93f7
Happy New Year, Neutrality!
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).
- The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
- The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.
- Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: , , , , , , , .
Orphaned non-free image File:Save Freedom of Speech.png
Thanks for uploading File:Save Freedom of Speech.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Konni Burton Edits
I've seen that youve undone my edits made to the legislative history of Konni Burton. After looking into it, I see that bill texts would be considered an original source, so you are correct for that. My question is, could I repost this information if the legislative history is sourced by media outlets such as The Texas Tribune, The Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, etc.? TxStateAlum17 (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)