Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! SarahStierch (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Please stop adding these talkback boxes, if you had read the notes at the top of my talk page you would have realised that I am watching your talk page at the moment. - Nick Thornetalk 02:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback on the Rfc. Sorry if I am confused still - could you give an example of where WP:OR is occurring - or WP:Synth? I keep locating sources which are explicit, WP:V which make explicit claims or make specific points. I have been over the policies repeatedly. Guidance may be of use. If you have time to provide and example of how to rewrite one section of the Rfc in an acceptable format It may be of help. I am presently working on content which addresses Rape Culture in India Sandbox oversight and advice would be appreciated. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
As a matter of Wikiquette, it is best practice to keep discussions in one place (please see the notice at the top of my talk page). I will copy your post to the RFC and consider what answer I may have, if any, there. - Nick Thornetalk 07:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Compare and Contrast the CONTENT of the two articles. One shows the HMS history in far greater detail, for example. It is precisely BECAUSE they were BOTH in the SAME Class on build, that the inconsistent CONTENT is odd ... Happy to hear you consider "There is no mismatch" Cheerio ! 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Nick, please do not get me wrong, but I request that you delete your post to me from the ID page, and in that case please feel free to delete my response. Maybe we can move them to my talk page for example? There is no debating that the talk page is a busy one, but it has been like that for a while. I arrived at a moment when there were calls for detailed sourcing discussions and that has been my focus - but it requires discussion. So if we are to practice what we preach we should keep "ad hominem" stuff of it as much as possible and stick to things like policy, sources and reasoning, which I believe I am doing. If you think I'm not, please tell me by all means, but effectively your post is everything it complains about (wordy, ad hominem, not AGF etc).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I stand by my post, your inability or unwillingness to understand the points I have made is not my problem. - Nick Thornetalk 23:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
With this edit, you have basically accused me of vandalism. That is clearly not the case. The edit was made in part of a effort to clarify aircraft carrier pages while also making them more consistent. This is currently being discussed on the aircraft carrier talk page - which you are well aware of as you have left a comment there yourself. The edit should stand until the issue of aircraft carrier definition has been resolved. Your edit summary was not only disingenuous, but insulting, and your revert was an abuse of your roll-back rights. - thewolfchild 22:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Your edits were only the last of a series of edits by different, mostly anonymous, editors that had corrupted the page. Your edit left the USN with the following numbers: Total 28, In Service 19, In Reserve 2, Decommissioned 56, Under Construction 4, Never Completed 12. The USN has only 10 carriers in service and in any case the total should be the sum of decommissioned, in reserve and in service - using your figures 56+2+19=28, if that is not nonsense I don't know what is. You had Canada with a total of 5 carriers, which is rubbish, Canada has only ever had 3 carriers - by long standing convention within Wikipedia and within naval circles generally WWII escort carriers are not included in carrier totals. So, although your edits were not responsible for all the nonsense, they were responsible for some of it. If you want to make complete changes in the focus of Wikipedia articles (by expanding thier scope beyond what the consensus currently holds) you should first go to the talk page and seek consensus. Finally, the reason I reverted all those edits (which included a number before you edited the page) was to restore it to a point where the numbers added up correctly and extraneous information was removed. You were not the only editor that had their edits reverted, but your edits did contribute to the nonsense. I did not insult you, I did not call the edits vandalism, I assumed that they were inserted in good faith, but they were nonsense nevertheless. Nonsense inserted in good faith is still nonsense. BTW, I did not use my roll-back rights, I used Twinkle. - Nick Thornetalk 23:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
"My edit left...", again, that is misleading. I did not put those values in. All I did was A) change the number of USN active and under construction carriers and B) change the number of RCN carriers from 45(!) to 5. Your assertion that my edits were "nonsense" is absurd and insulting. Consensus could easily establish that amphib. assault ships and escort carrier are aircraft carriers, thereby making edits correct (and your edits "nonsense"). In the meantime, my edits are not incorrect, as the issue is currently being debated. Regardless of what tool you used, it was wrong and insulting. I'm just trying to improve these pages, if you don't agree with me, fine... you just don't have to be rude about it. I already asked if you would consider helping, but it seems you're not interested. - thewolfchild 03:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it was not misleading, your edit did indeed leave the numbers I quoted, consequently when you had finished the arithmetic was as I stated. That is part of the nonsense I was talking about. I reverted back before the ridiculous figures for Canada were posted (not by you) so that the article would be in a sensible state. If you want to argue the point about inclusion of LHAs, LHDs, escort carriers CAM ships or whatever, please feel free, but in the normal BRD cycle, you don't get to make the changes and have them stay during the discussion, the bold changes get reverted first, then we discuss. You complain about rudeness, but I think you should re-read your posts on the Aircraft Carrier talk page. The utterly dismissive and frankly offensive tone of your comments about the Thai carrier is just a start. You accuse me and others of being elitist and you stray onto [[WP:NPA}} territory in your comments. I have let it slide so far, but I now draw the line. Stick to commenting on the edits, not the editors. I am sure you have been involved in Wikipedia long enough to understand the implications of failing to do this.
BTW, I formally decline your invitation to assist you in your efforts to "improve" the articles because I do not agree that your "improvements" do, in fact, improve the articles concerned. Being collegiate does not mean just doing things your way. There is an established consensus in the carrier articles and you have so far failed to produce any convincing arguments why that consensus should be changed. Until and unless that consensus changes do not expect assistance from me to implement your changes which I oppose. - Nick Thornetalk 04:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I'm also disengaging from further interactions with User:Thewolfchild. I'm content just avoiding him for the time being, but his clueless behavior has been occurring elsewhere, such as here. I'm considering filing at ANI, but I've been sick with a sinus infection, so it may take a while. He'll be back at ANI in the future soon enough,one way or another. - BilCat (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I note that you have reverted my edit as: "Reverted good faith edits by Arrivisto (talk): Rv original research. (TW))" . I accept your grounds (adn the reversion was not entirely unexpected); but would it not be better to leave it there for a while and put "citation needed". Most people know of the Severn mudflats crash, but is it known that this Sahara fire incident occured? And were there other fires that have escaped general attention? I'm not quite sure how to proceed, as it may take a while to find verifiable evidence, and I think others may be able to help if the post is left ion the page. All I can say is that, as a 13-year-old schoolboy, I was on the plane, I heard and saw it happen, and we all thought we were going to die. It was bloody scary! Arrivisto (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you take it to the article's talk page. If anyone can help out with finding a reliable source, that is the place to ask, not on the article page itself. - Nick Thornetalk 11:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. Feel free to ping me at my talk if you feel that other editors are behaving disruptively. I am committed to calming down this area. It'd be great if you could work with me. --John (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Well I have only a passing interest in the area of soccer, but I do have several of the pages on my watchlist because I have seen the argy bargy about HiLo48 at AN/I. I'll be happy to let you know if this subject raises it's head again, however. - Nick Thornetalk 21:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that. Let me know if I can ever do anything for you. --John (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Nick, thank you for posting your thoughts. The thing about different names in different states; could that be easily sourced? Other than your experience, is there a fact-checked website or a book I could get from my library that makes these claims? --John (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi John, I fully realise that finding a source for this may prove to be the crux of the matter and that my experience is OR. However I made my statement in the knowledge that much of what already passes for debate in this area has been OR and I felt that it might be useful for someone who has not been involved to any real extent to express an opinion. The thing that always sets off my BS alert is when I see multiple walls of text from one side of a dispute. I suspect that this is usually an attempt to bludgeon the opposition into submission and give a false sense of what the community tyhinks by sheer weight of words. I am sure you are awake to this possibility and I commend you for the way you are conducting the current debate. I'll chip in more as it seems appropriate and I'll have a bit of a look around to see if I can find any sources. Wish me luck, I think I'll need it, not least because this is common knowledge in Australia and so probably not considered as something that needs to be commented on in a way that we need to source an article. - Nick Thornetalk 04:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
John, here is what I have found so far after just half an hour with Uncle Google (obviously picking the eyes out the results):
I hope that his helps clarify things a bit. If we get down to brass tacks, I can most probably find some more, but I suspect this is OK for now. - Nick Thornetalk 07:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
we've been through link tossing, once again your late to the party and there is just as many articles that state football, this is obviously nothing new and a large majority of these have been thrown about by both sides of the argument already. If we're talking about sheer bludgeoning of the debate you may actually want to look at what HiLo48 has been doing with things like "incompetence" and "I don't like it" in particular in recent months... Not to mention the rest and the direct statement "soccer is the only unambiguous name" rather than actually replying to what is going on. I'm pretty sure you mean well but this kind of effort isn't going to help the cause. Yes I am a talk page stalker, particularly when other editors seek to decentralise discussion --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I used your RfC question, so thank you for that. Many hands make light work. --John (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Nick Thorne, I'd like to inform you that your recent editing of the page "Cavour (550)" is not correct in fact I've removed the phrase "and the newest flagship of the Italian Navy (Marina Militare)" because the newest ships of the Italian Navy are the Bergamini Class ships. The Bergamini (F 590) ship was launched 16 July 2011, the Fasan (F 591) ship was launched 31 march 2012, the Margottini (F 593) ship was launched 29 June 2013 and the last ship, the Carabiniere (F 594) ship, was launched 29 mach 2014.
A flagship is the ship that flies the flag of the fleet commander. It is generally considered to bed the most important shop of a fleet. These other ships may be newer but they are not flagships. If you don't understand naval terminology perhaps you should be more careful when editing articles about naval subjects or at least use a dictionary rather than aiming you know what terms mean. - Nick Thornetalk 14:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
Your talk page contributions on the Intelligent Design article
Nick I want to make it clear that I believe with a high degree of confidence that any neutral editor will agree with me that on that article you show a consistent pattern whenever I post anything. It constitutes off topic personal attacks, deliberate harassment, and to the extent it sometimes seems to have anything to do with the subject of that article, it is consistently and obviously deliberately misleading. If you think I am wrong, please give a good reason on my talk page. In any case the article talk page is not a place to be writing about editors, and I have removed your latest effort as I probably should have done with all previous cases. Not really my style at all, but it seems to be the way things are done on that article. My latest post is a quick summary of two sources, adding to summaries I did of other sources. I have never posted them before. If you see any error in my readings, that would be on topic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Andrew disagreeing with you or pointing out the errors of you arguments is not harassment. However your edit summary removing my comment from the article talk page and your edit here are clear personal attacks. Cease and desist. - Nick Thornetalk 12:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Nick I am not a person who has a big issue with people who disagree with me. Indeed that is apparently something about me you hate. Would be good to see you post an explanation of a disagreement, but I have never even seen you write anything on topic on that article, even though I notice it is one of the main article talk pages you contribute to. (You never seem to edit on any related subjects.) Your posts are all about me, never about the topic, and specifically all about trying to stop me being able to post there. They show signs of weird obsession. Here is a handy link to your edits on the talk page of that article. As I said above, I am very confident about what neutral third parties would say. I wanted to let you know that this is my understanding. There are obvious and easy "win win" ways you could address my concerns which would not hurt you one bit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
First off, suggesting you drop the stick after yet another iteration of your tediously long and endless attempts to remove the word pseudoscience from the ID article is not any sort of presonal attack. However, accusing me of harassment (deliberate or otherwise), making deliberately misleading comments, accusing me of effectively being an SPA with a "weird obsession" who hates you most certainly is a personal attack. People who live in glass houses and all that. Oh, and whilst I have the ID page on my watchlist, ID is by no means my main area of interest in Wikipedia. I mainly work in the area of naval aviation and Australian freshwater fish, but I have a passing interest in many other topics, even a cursory glance at my contributions list will show that your claim that the ID talk page is one of the main talk pages I post to is arrant nonsense, I hardly ever post there. Finally, if you persist in making these scurrilous claims there are more formal ways of dealing with it, as I am sure you are aware. I am no particular fan of AN/I, but it does have its place in the scheme of things. Keep up your personal attacks and you might find out what that place is. - Nick Thornetalk 21:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Like I said Nick, I am very confident that your posts would be seen by any neutral observer as showing striking bad patterns. I think it is clear that they show hate and aggression towards me personally, and that they studiously aim at avoiding any comment about sources and rationales connected to editing the article in question. The aim clearly seems to be disruption. My own posts clearly annoy you terribly, but no one could ever say they are not about the source and the article, so no, the glass houses thing does not work. Like I said above, that in itself seems to make you furious. You should take a step back and consider what this looks like. We are talking about a post I made which summarizes a reading of two sources. We are talking about a post you placed after that which seems to make no point at all about those sources or anything relevant. (Saying that posting about dead horses is sometimes is acceptable is one thing, but I have never seen someone edit war over the right to have such a post kept on a talk page after two other editors objected!) And we are talking about a pattern of posting which it would (both now and in the past) be easy for you to simply adjust, resolving all issues. (Again: why do you "need" to post about dead horses?) You have to keep in mind that anyone, including me, trying to judge what you are doing will be asking "if Nick was trying to achieve good faith intention X, why did he not just do normal good faith action Y?"--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Shirt58. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Emu#Reverting_NPOV_isn.27t_.22original_research.22. that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not use words that stereotype a particular country: "I get it that Americans dislike having their errors pointed out". Human beings dislike having their errors pointed out. I'm as Australian as you are, and I dislike having my errors pointed out.Shirt58 (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Supercarrier#Dispute on Proposed Supercarriers". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 14:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
please answer me as to why you changed it.I put evidence and put it to Vulnerable just look you wanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedCarbonAlchemist (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Take it to the article talk page. - Nick Thornetalk 04:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Supercarrier". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! JAaron95 (Talk) 09:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Nick, (I hope you don't mind me calling you Nick?) I wanted a quick word with you regarding R08 and R09, my most recent reading on the class suggests that the current displacement is over 74k tonnes. Do you think there is reason enough to change the existing displacement or should the existing 70k short tonnes stand? My problem is I cannot source a citation whether the extra weight is as a result of the previously described 'manufacturing allowance' (supposedly up to 77k) or equipment, even though my sources assume it to be design allowance. :-/ Best wishes. Twobellst@lk 13:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Twobells. Please feel free to call me Nick. As for the QEs, if you have sources that say the higher displacement then go for it. We don't need to say why the displacement has increased if we can't find sources for that. Just my 2c. - Nick Thornetalk 21:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)