User talk:NickCT

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

Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

I'm glad that you have weighed in there. Unfortunately, GregKaye and I have been at loggerheads on some other issues, and I seem to have gotten on his bad side. In any case, if you do some work on this proposed move, please feel free to borrow liberally from the Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Move rationale page that I set up for the last discussion. Also, one issue that was raised in opposition to the proposed move in the last discussion was usage in "high level sources", which opposers contended favored the current title. I did a little research on this issue, looking at the highest-level sources available, peer-reviewed academic journal publications. My findings are at User:BD2412/High level sources, but they are now about a year out of date. Still, the trend is pretty clear for the usual sources of these kinds of publications. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: - Awesome mate. As you may have already seen, I'm going to try to prevail on GregKaye to not be at loggerheads.
I will take look at your "Move rationale" and "High level sources". You may have to give me 24hr to get really involved. I have limited time to devote today.
Let's hope this effort isn't stymied by the BLP fanatics again........ NickCT (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no deadline. The news reports suggest Hillary will announce on Sunday, and I would actually wait a couple days beyond that to allow the news to be carried around and reactions to be reported. Don't worry about my dispute with GregKaye. I don't need to work with him directly, and don't want side issues to get in the way of encyclopedia issues. Also, I note that in the last RM, the admins considered the number of editors who seemed to support each proposed rationale. I would phrase the move request itself to say whatever the complete set of rationales is (common name, recognizability, conciseness, etc.) and to clearly request that supporting participants to specify if there are any of those with which they do not agree. That will indicate that supporters are supporting for all reasons stated, unless they specify that some of those reasons are not a basis for their support, and will avoid that sort of confusion. bd2412 T 14:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: - re "that will indicate that supporters are supporting for all reasons stated" - Ok. That seems reasonable. My only concern might be that we make the mechanics of the RM so complex that people have a tough time offering a simple Support position.
I wonder whether we should just simply ask the question again, and show again that a super majority is for the move. Maybe a 3-admin can overturn a pretty firm consensus once, but twice.................?
re " Don't worry about my dispute with GregKaye. I don't need to work with him directly" - Sure. But trying to smooth over frayed feelings rarely hurts, no? NickCT (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I think supporters generally "support" without too extensive an explanation, and generally do not object to specific arguments provided as a basis for making a move. I would also structure the RM with separate sections for ===Support===, ===Oppose===, and ===Discussion===, with an admonition that discussion should be kept to the section designated for it. I have closed many lengthy RM's and such a structure makes it much easier for admins to see all the arguments put forth by each side in one place, and to keep lengthy diatribes from obscuring the consensus of the community. I would actually have the entire discussion on a separate subpage, as we did with the second Chelsea Manning move request. bd2412 T 14:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: - re "I would also structure the RM with separate sections for...." - Yes. Agree. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I have a fairly complete list of participants in the previous discussion at User:BD2412/sandbox#Hillary Rodham Clinton requested move tally. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: - So noted. Thank you. NickCT (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you both know that, now that I know the level of involvement from nationals, I won't personally be submitting an RM but will be happy to chip in contribution such as I have done recently. As mentioned I am more than happy for you to use any portion of my text or not. I do not see why we should publicly soapbox a name that she does not soapbox publicly herself. GregKaye 16:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: - re "why we should publicly soapbox a name that she does not soapbox publicly herself" - Tad confused by that statement. Does that mean you no longer support rename? It think the problem is that the article does currently soapbox a name the subject is soapboxing. NickCT (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Hillary (I guess for purposes here we are on first name terms) has the perfect opportunity to soapbox the name HRC on her webpages but doesn't. There is no moral issue regarding the presentation of a maiden name if she does not use it herself. GregKaye 17:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Ok. My recollection from the last debate was that there was some reason to believe that HRC was the subject's preference. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Jimbo's people contacted her people about it. I don't think that should have much bearing - we have ignored subject preference in Cat Stevens for a very long time, and the community declined to move Pink (singer) to P!nk despite the artist's consistent use, so there really is not much weight to that. By the way, in light of "gaming the system" comments in the talk page discussion, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should another move request at Hillary Rodham Clinton be permitted? to determine whether this move request should be allowed at all. That should settle any potential objections to initiating such a move, but a move discussion should not be initiated until that boils down to some degree. bd2412 T 19:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: - I agree re Jimbo. As much a I revere and respect the Jimbo, I felt his involvement in the HRC debate was completely unhelpful. Show me the policy that says subjects of BLPs get to choose their articles' title. If there is none, why go to the trouble of asking the subject? Jimbo didn't seem to be acknowledging policy at all.
Honestly, I would have just ignore Tarc's objections. Guy objects to everything. NickCT (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't want an RM disrupted by arguments about whether the process itself is appropriate. The Village Pump discussion that I have opened should settle that the community favors allowing another request. bd2412 T 20:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have created a subpage at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request using the format from Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request. bd2412 T 17:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that the Chelsea manning sequencing format has systemic bias towards "support". GregKaye 21:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
We almost always sequence discussions this way, if they are expected to be lengthy and complicated - Support, then Oppose, then Discussion (or Abstain, then Discussion). If there is a bias, I have not seen it play out in discussions. bd2412 T 16:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Think I concur with bd2412. I've seen this format in a number of places. If there's bias in it, then a whole bunch of discussions have been flawed. NickCT (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I have moved the list of past discussion participants to User:BD2412/sandbox2 (this should be everyone from all the discussions, except that IPs and currently indefbanned users are stripped out). Cheers! bd2412 T 16:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: - Includes folks from recent village pump discussion? I can send out a notification that looks something like this. I know there's some software out there that allows for mass notification, but I'm not sure what it is. Can I do that in Huggle? NickCT (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I would go with AWB. That's a perfect draft for the circumstances, by the way. bd2412 T 17:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The move request has launched. Do you want to do the notifications? I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: Yes check.svg Done - Is there a reason you notified some people already? I accidentally double notified a couple folks. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I notified some people of the discussion last year! I presume that's the notification still lingering there. bd2412 T 20:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: - Lol. You're right. I saw some of those notifications and assumed they were new cause they were the most recent ones on the talk page. Woops. Need to look at time stamps. NickCT (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming attractions in DC[edit]


Here are some upcoming DC meetups in April and May:

  • Tuesday, April 14: National Archives Hackathon on Wikipedia Space with American University – 2:30-5pm
    See the latest work on the Wikipedia Space exhibit in the new NARA Innovation Hub and brainstorm on new ideas for a public exhibit about Wikipedia
  • Friday, April 17: Women in Tech Edit-a-thon with Tech LadyMafia – 5-9pm
    Team up with Tech LadyMafia to improve Wikipedia content on women in the history of technology.
  • Saturday, April 25: April Dinner Meetup – 6 PM
    Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!
  • Friday, May 1: International Labour Day Edit-a-Thon – 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
    An edit-a-thon at the University of Maryland

Hope to see you at these events! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.


James Hare

To remove yourself from this mailing list, remove your name from this list. 22:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Corona del Mar High School[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corona del Mar High School. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


You should probably indicate somewhere on the request page that you notified past participants. Calidum T|C 19:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Calidum: - Yes check.svg Done NickCT (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brown rice[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brown rice. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request[edit]

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: - Sorry I didn't see this in time to comment. That seemed like a rather crumby attempt to poison the conversation at the last moment. NickCT (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that was also my impression. I think that the unanimous response from those supporters who were able to respond before the discussion was closed makes the point that this was a nonfactor. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Check what this whole issue is about before even consider getting involved[edit]

i can see that by giving "oh poor malik ..." you immediately throwh yourself on his side, as if wikipedia is a place where friends support each other. you might know each other or be friends. but your friendship should not influence the work in wikipedia and its neutrality and corectness in any way. if malik edits or deletes something with the argument that it does not fit into the list ALTHOUGH it qualifies for BOTH criterias the listM wants, then it is a sort of vandalism, especially if he does not let himself engage in any form of exchange or talk. that is the end of story. this arrogant guy does not even "discuss", argues or does anything towards the site, but merely deletes without logic or reason. if this is the wikipedia you like and you just support this mischief fine, then you better should consider to quit. wikipedia IS NO FACEBOOK2.0 yet many of its editors behave like it, putting more effort in making their own site "nice" or use discussion pages as chats or forums. so before putting some dumb on my site and just hook up with your buddy without even discussing with me or actually checking what is this whole thing about, you should not even consider getting involved into this. have a good day, and may the day come you will work on wikipedia correctly. without crap as "poor malik...".it is no instagram,Joobo (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

and yes i offered him to use the discussion page several times but he never engaged in any form in discussion. so you dont have to show me the bold revert discussion cycle... if there is only one person who wants to dicuss and the other simply ignores it.Joobo (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I see you have not made a single edit to the article's Talk page concerning your addition to the article. Please see WP:BURDEN. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Joobo: - Malik Shabazz and I rarely interact. We've probably more often found ourselves on the opposite side of issues than on the same side.
Where we are "on the same side", is in our attitudes towards tendentious and fractious editors like you.
Take a look at WP:BRD. Malik does not need to discuss or argue anything with you. If you want to make a change, YOU need to convince him that the change is OK.
Now quit yelling. It looks like some of the edits you are making are probably OK. You just need to sit down and discuss them first. If you do that quietly and respectfully, you are more likely to succeed. I will listen to and give careful consideration to quiet and respectful discussion, and I'm sure Malik will too. NickCT (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.[edit]

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charleston church shooting[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charleston church shooting. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Guy Fawkes_Night#Survey[edit]

While I understand you sentiments, stating option 3 is not helpful in resolving this divisive issue, and to help the project, I suggest that you reconsider and opt for options one or two. -- PBS (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: - Ok. Done. I think the RfC is a little misleading though in that it didn't allow for the opinion that "Guy Fawkes Night" is a celebration or commemeration of the "Gun Powder Plot" which was the event. I'm surprised others didn't pick up on that. As I'd stated, this seems self-evident to me. The RfC ought to be redone. NickCT (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand your point of view, but the article is about the celebration, it just that most of it at the moment is a about the history of the celebrations not the present celebrations. If you look back at how it was back end of September 2010 you will see a far from perfect article but one that contains a lot of information about the state of celebrations in the 21st century. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@PBS: - Yes. I see what you mean. The article should be about the present celebration. If there's a lot to say about the history of the celebration, that should be a subsection or a different article. Maybe there should be a simple RfC to just establish the primary topic of the article.
Hmmmmmm.... Scanning over the old version, my initial impression is that this article has rotted a bit. The older version seems more consistently and logically laid out. Sorta sad to see the decline really.
This looks like a classic example of what I personally refer to as "article rot" (i.e. a situation where an article which is sorta "good" gets picked to pieces by a series of well meaning but unfocused editors). Frankly, I wonder whether we should just consider a blanket revert to an old version of this article. NickCT (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Interstellar probe[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Interstellar probe. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vantix Diagnostics[edit]

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 Vantix Diagnostics 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 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 "Click here to 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. Peppy Paneer (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mizrahi Jews[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mizrahi Jews. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Volkswagen emissions violations#Dieselgate?[edit]

Majority unanimously opposes the proposal. Withdraw? --George Ho (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of corporate collapses and scandals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II[edit]

I think there's no doubt of one thing. There's definitly a consensus against "Queen of 16...". PS - Thank goodness for that :) GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Well, I'm not counting my chickens until the "Queen of 16"er's relent. This page and the debate about the lead really tops my list for contentious debates about nothing on WP. I think a lot of the shenanigans is caused by a minority of very committed POV pushers. NickCT (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the "Queen of 16"er's will fall in line. They've got Canada in the intro, afterall :) GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I served a one-year ban from Wikipedia (April 2013-May 2014) & so I always have to walk carefully around potential mindfields. As result, I have to stay away from the revert button as much as possible & curb my temper in such discussions, like that Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@GoodDay: - Hahaha! You "served time" huh? Don't worry. You ain't "down" on the WP street unless you've served time. NickCT (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ford Pinto lead[edit]

I get what you mean about highlighting one paper in the lead section, but could you participate in the talk page for that article a bit? Right now it's just going back and forth and not really getting anywhere -- we need to establish at least some basic compromises that everyone can stand. --Aquillion (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)