User talk:Polmandc

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

Just leave your message.

US Census[edit]

How is notable alumni not relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Edward Glaeser[edit]

Why did you remove my section on general spatial equilibrium? Was it not source enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsholmes21 (talkcontribs) 05:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No original research.--Polmandc (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Cory Booker[edit]

please read the discussion from PrairieKid and Grammarxxx. If something appears uncited in the lede, but has a cite in the main article, regardless of how self serving, the lede must remain unchanged. Please stop vandalizing Cory Booker's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced.--Polmandc (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Aspen Institute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wye River (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) 10:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kansas City (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) 11:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sylvia Earle cite[edit]

Hi there, Polmandc. I just saw your question about sourcing a quotation at Talk:Sylvia Earle and happen to have the citation handy. However, since the organization which published the interview (Academy of Achievement) is a client, I'd rather not add it myself. Would you do so? WWB Too (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw you made the add, and thanks for the note! Hope you had an excellent vacation. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Brookings Institution intro[edit]

My edit removing "liberal" is based on the citation; if there is no citation for the organization being "liberal" then it does not belong in that sentence. The talk page of Brookings Institution has no recent consensus on the partisan leanings of the organization other than proving it is a POV debate and belongs in another section of the page, not the introductory sentence. The introductory sentence should be a factual description. I noticed you edited the page of AEI to say "nonpartisan." If your argument is that Brookings is left leaning, then surely you would equally make the case that AEI is right leaning -- they publicly label themselves as promoting liberty, indivdual opportunity, free-enterprise -- going far beyond what Brookings says about itself in terms of a partisan agenda. Based on this evidence, your edit came accross to me as biased.

Feel free to remove this message -- just wanted to explain my actions. Awooda (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My concerns are sources and consensus. So, if you rmv/add something, provide a source or a consensus for your change. With none of them: leave it as it is. Btw, this was also the reason for my revert at AEI.--Polmandc (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Istook Live! request for The Heritage Foundation article[edit]

Hi Polmandc, I see you were active a few days ago on The Heritage Foundation article, so I wanted to approach you about a request I left on the talk page there a week or so ago. I'd like to update the article to include material about Ernest Istook's radio show Istook Live! The show broadcasts from the Heritage Foundation headquarters and is supported by Heritage Action for America, so I'm hesitant to add this information myself as I work for Heritage. I was wondering if you would be able to look over my request on the talk page here and add the new material if it's ok. I've also got similar requests on the Ernest Istook talk page and the Heritage Action for America talk page. Is this something you could help me with? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Will have a look.--Polmandc (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Polmandc, thanks for adding the material to the Heritage article. If you have a moment, would you mind also looking at my requests to make similar changes in the Ernest Istook and the Heritage Action for America articles? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Nixon and Harold Nixon articles[edit]

Just out of curiosity, do you genuinely believe that these articles pass WP:BIO and WP:INHERIT, and if so, what criteria do you claim they meet? The subjects' non-notability, and the inclusion of every notable fact about them in Richard Nixon's article, would suggest this is a slamdunk. If, in fact, you're operating under the premise that no redirect can be made without a half-dozen people signing off on it, kindly direct me to the policy or guideline stating so.

You had, by the bye, noted the previous AfDs, which in the case of every single editor save the article creator advocated either deletion or redirecting, yes? Ravenswing 08:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

An AfD leads to a consensus-based decision-making.--Polmandc (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Which is completely unnecessary, and mere bureaucratic BS. (I note, for instance, that however much you demanded AfDs, you've not troubled yourself to participate in them.) I ask again: do you genuinely believe that these articles pass WP:BIO and WP:INHERIT, and if so, what criteria do you claim they meet? Ravenswing 23:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
As both articles had been created in 2006, they've obviously met some consensus for more than six years. If this consensus changed, it's ok. My concern is transparency, not bothering you with "mere bureaucratic BS". So: thanks for your extra mile here!--Polmandc (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I see you're relatively inexperienced on Wikipedia, so you might not have realized that there are many articles for which consensus is far less a matter of anyone weighing in than that no one has noticed or bothered. In any event, the articles are gone now, the redirects having passed unanimously, and so the point is moot. Since you still duck my question, and you didn't take the trouble to chime in on the AfDs you insisted on having created, well ... let's just leave things at that, lest I venture upon incivility. Ravenswing 06:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard Nixon[edit]

Polmandc, I'm not clear what this may signify "(Undid revision 542318290 by Evangelos Giakoumatos, single sourced POV rmv)" Is the problem my source? Please clarify so we don't fight (wink, wink) I'm new at this, so please be patient.

Provide additional sources.--Polmandc (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Trade Union[edit]

Hi, I think "peer-reviewed secondary source reporting US Census Bureau data" suffices, don't you? Attleboro (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional sources (WP:3PARTY!) needed.--Polmandc (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation discussion[edit]

Hi Polmandc! Thanks for your reply on The Heritage Foundation article. So far you're the only editor to weigh in. I've left you a reply on the talk page to see if you'd be ok with making the suggested edit. Let me know, thanks! Thurmant (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries and WP:CITELEAD[edit]

Hi, you seem to be editing without reading edit summaries. Recently you added a {{cn}} template to War on Drugs. What is strange, is that you neglected to read the edit summary indicating that this was already cited in the article per WP:CITELEAD. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


Dear Polmandc, I introduce some relevant information, concern with Global Education Magazine, which is supported and promoted by UHNCR, as you can see in the following link:

I think the comment is interesting for all readers which visit UNHCR wiki, then I hope you can approve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chacelí (talkcontribs) 20:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No need to list every project here, which is supported by UNHCR.--Polmandc (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Help updating The Heritage Foundation's logo in the infobox[edit]

Hi Polmandc. The Heritage Foundation recently released a new logo and I'm reaching out to editors for help updating it in the article's infobox. I posted about this on the Talk page but haven't received a response. The new logo can be found here. Not sure if you recall, but I don't directly edit the article, so I'm hoping you might you be able to replace the old logo in the infobox with this new logo. Can you assist? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The logo was already added.--Polmandc (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

NSC page[edit]

Not sure why you deleted a reference to a free book on NSC history. It's non commercial and relevant to the subject at hand. - Wmabon Wmabon (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No need for promoting self-published books.--Polmandc (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Fee tail[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Fee tail, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dorchester, Boston may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * The [ [[La Alianza Hispana] records,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Theodor zu Guttenberg Reverts[edit]

Hi Polmandc, I noticed you've reverted two of my edits to the article Theodor zu Guttenberg. Before reverting again, could you please look at Talk:Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg#Coverage_of_Plagiarism_Belongs_in_Article. I've done a search of newspaper articles to assess notability of the plagiarism accusations against Guttenberg, and they turn out to be reported in a large percentage of all English-language newspaper articles that mention him. That makes the plagiarism scandal probably the second most-reported aspect of Guttenberg's career, behind his time as Defense Minister. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations regarding the Jeb Bush page[edit]

Dear Polmandc — Congratulations on bringing brevity and clarity to the Jeb Bush page with your recent edit there. With all respect for your workmanship, I took the small liberty of replacing the semicolon with a fully formatted dash in the first sentence of the section (2012 presidential election). Sparing you the details here, the dash is the more appropriate punctuation. If you agree, super. If not, please feel free to revert my edit.

Also, I think the second sentence could be improved a bit. Please read the sentence to yourself, and see if it doesn't sound a little awkward(quotes mine):

"In February 2011, after renewed calls were made for him to run for president,[84][85] In July 2011, he reiterated his position that he was not running, although he was heavily critical of the Obama administration.[86]"

The following might be an improvement (again, quotes mine):

"In February 2011, renewed calls were made for him to run for president,[84][85], however, in July 2011, he restated that he would not seek the 2012 Republican nomination, although he remained heavily critical of the Obama administration and its policies.[86]"

Dave Peters (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Functional illiteracy[edit]

Howdy, I am the user who removed the section on functional illiteracy. That article is in really poor shape, and I think the best way to clean it up is to simply blank out entire offending sections. It has point of view, tone, and citation issues. Format is screwed as well. Throwing it out and starting from scratch is probably the best course of action. The entire article could (and should) probably be trashed and made into a section on the illiteracy main page, but I want to approach it with a little optimism. I don't think restoring text just because its text already written helps anything, but I don't think blanking helps much either. It's not a subject I am terribly interested in, but if you want to collaborate to clean it up a bit I may be willing.

The section in question I removed really had no redeeming value, which is why it was the only section I removed, despite the poor condition of the rest of the article. If you disagree, so be it, otherwise, I say throw garbage where garbage belongs. P.S. I don't maintain a user account, and my IP changes often, if you respond here on your talk page, I will read it and respond, and we can work out a plan of action. (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No need to discuss on my Talk. Present arguments at article.--Polmandc (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If nothing changes in how a reader reads the article, don't change the article[edit]

Please don't make edits like this or this which make no changes to the visible display of the article. Removing spaces after an equal sign and inserting blanks in a list of links changes nothing in how a reader sees the article. If you're changing nothing, there's no need to make a change. Alansohn (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)