User talk:UncleBubba

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

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
To UncleBubba Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow—that is so nice to hear. Thank you so much! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 18:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You make a stupid edit, restoring a piece of vandalism, presumably not looking at what you are doing, and then lecture me, with a piece of condescending nonsense. What is that about? please allez-vous-en or something like that. Sayerslle (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved reply to original user's Talk page where it belongs, per above notice. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 00:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Cars don't produce smog?[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You deleted a modification I made on the toyota prius page about smog. Your comment was that cars don't produce smog. Technically, they do produce smog forming particals that are activated by sunlight and transformed into smog. For all practical purposes, the produce smog. Would you prefer the wording 'smog forming particals?' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.2.64 (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did revert your edit, for several reasons:
  • You didn't explain what you were doing by including an Edit Summary (the default "section" summary is nice but doesn't help much). In my experience, a majority of vandalism is presented in the form of anonymous edits with no Edit Summary. While it is by no means required, I recommend you create an account and use it when you edit Wikipedia--it may make your life easier.
  • You added information that went beyond the text in the cited reference, which is original research and not allowed in this encyclopedia.
  • You introduced an error of fact: smog (from smoke and fog) is a meteorological phenomenon caused by the combination of emitted gases and liquid particles in the atmosphere. Smog may be made worse by photochemical reactions brought on by sunlight acting on various compounds (mainly hydrocarbons) in the emissions. Ergo, cars may emit smoke, NO, CO, CO2, particulates, etc., but they do not emit smog.
Please don't take it personally; while researching this reply, I found another factual error that someone sneaked into the article (regarding "toxic emissions" in the lede). It, too, is gone. And it will stay gone unless someone can cite a reliable source that meets Wikipedia standards for notability and verifiability.
(There is another error, regarding tax-deductability, that I will correct as soon as I save this page.)
Our purpose here should be to improve the encyclopedia. Anything that does not further that goal does not--in my opinion--belong here.
If I can help you in any way, please let me know. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 15:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't believe I stated anything beyond the sited text. If you click on the link it will take you right to the EPA's green vehicle guide and on that page is my reference to the mention the EPA rating the 2003 model with a 3 out of ten air pollution score. This will be 'improving the encyclopedia.' If someone wants to buy a prius so be green they may want to know the 2003 model is not the year to go with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.2.64 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't agree. If they want that information, there are literally hundreds of sites to which they can go. Wikipedia is not an automobile review site, nor is it Consumer Reports. If you can find justification for your assertion in the WP:MOS or other official guidelines, you might get me to change my mind, though. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 00:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Akhenaten[edit]

Please look at my comments at Talk:Akhenaten. A. Parrot (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This erroneous "China" assertion[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

My point is that by introducing "China" in the first sentence without any context, the intro is actually perpetuating the antipodean misconception to people who are aware of it. Whereas to people who aren't aware of it (i.e. non-Americans), the mention of China is completely bizarre, and likely to lead the reader to ask "What's so special about China that it attracts nuclear reactors?" – Smyth\talk 11:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

IRC-Galleria[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Re: this edit: IRC-Galleria is a valid "see also" link. Please do your research before making such edits in the future. Mythpage88 (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not believe it is. The only thing even remotely IRC-related about the IRC-Galleria site is its name. It is a web site "created as a photo gallery for IRC users". Should we also list all other photo gallery web sites here? Should we list Facebook and G+, too? I think not. If you want to discuss it, please come to the article Talk page and do so. If you continue to use Wikipedia for promotion, I will be the least of your worries. Please don't put unrelated information into technical articles. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 02:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of promotion? If so, I see we just threw good faith out the window! Mythpage88 (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I am accusing you of nothing. The link to the social networking site does not belong in the IRC article because they are unrelated. Only you know the true reason you want the link there, but I don't think it is for the purpose of improving the article. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 03:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
How does "If you continue to use Wikipedia for promotion, I will be the least of your worries. Please don't put unrelated information into technical articles." assume any good faith? It's a thinly veiled threat, at best. Mythpage88 (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I feel—very strongly—that all editors here should be working to improve the encyclopedia. I will assume good faith in dealing with people, but I will not compromise that overarching goal. Since you've not done anything to defend your IRC-Galleria link (other than malign me), I find myself wondering if you have an ulterior motive, either to promote the Galleria page or to improve its link stats. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 04:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have defended myself by responding to your blatant assumption of bad faith. I shouldn't have to defend myself against accusations of blatant promotion, when my edit history clearly shows that I have no such interest in anything of the sort. Please stop biting, it's unbecoming. Mythpage88 (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I did look at your history (all three months of it); I still don't see the justification for this link. What I have seen is you using various Wikipedia "magic buzzwords" to attack me: "Oh dear, he reverted my edit. I'll accuse him of not assuming good faith. That'll fix him." Followed by, "Oh, dear, that didn't work, so I'll try a 'biting' accusation, and I'll make it 'blatant', for good measure."

I didn't see you arguing in favor of your link other than saying "it's valid". And discussion is what it's all about here. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 05:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't "vandalism" a "magic buzzword"? Oh, and looking at your talk page archive, this isn't the first time you've bitten others. Whatever happened to WP:DICK? Mythpage88 (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't bite newcomers, but I do try to help support the quality of the encyclopedia. You're trying to use more ad hominem, which is a fallacious technique. I'm still waiting for you to present a convincing argument in favor of including the link, or have you given up on that in favor of continuing to attack me? — UncleBubba T @ C ) 05:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
"I don't bite newcomers." Do you have a convincing argument behind this statement? Or have you given up on that in favor of continuing to bite me? Mythpage88 (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Similarly, you have yet to justify calling my edit "vandalism". Mythpage88 (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think you could defend your insertion of the link into the IRC article, and these attempts at deflection and distraction seem to prove my conjecture valid. Please grind your axe elsewhere; it's not going to work here. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 05:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Burden of proof lies on you. How was it vandalism? Mythpage88 (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no "burden of proof", as I did not call what you did "vandalism". I called it "apparently promotion", which it is.

But you're still avoiding the argument you apparently feel you cannot win: How do you justify including the social-networking site in the IRC article? — UncleBubba T @ C ) 06:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't lie. You identified the edits as vandalism in multiple edit summaries. Mythpage88 (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It's easy to make baseless accusations, but proving them is another thing entirely. I have not called your edits vandalism, so who is the liar? — UncleBubba T @ C ) 07:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
No response? I didn't think so. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 14:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

StarWind Software Page[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Sir,

I appreciate your feedback about you working in business and never hearing about StarWind. Well, it was a day when nobody heard about Microsoft and IBM. Also storage industry is quite isolated. In case you can do me a favor could you please tell me why DataCore Software page with TWO links and written entirely by their staff is NOT SPAM and what we currently have (please take a look @ our page as I've added TONS of external links) IS? I appreciate your feedback in any case.

Staff had did a lot of mistakes in the past but they had be punished for doing this (content was removed). Do you think you can judge for past all the time?

Thank you very much for cooperation!

AK47

213.238.8.10 (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Network Bridge page[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't think the edit you reverted was vandalism, I think it was lack of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge12 (talkcontribs) 21:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but whenever anyone removes four sections/seven paragraphs of technically coherent text—including its source references—from an article without one word of discussion or explanation (or even a single Edit Summary), a rational person would feel justified labeling it "vandalism", and that's exactly what I did. Were you the editor from IP 111.68.103.26? If so, please go to the article's Talk page and discuss your proposed revisions. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 23:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Christian Science[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am hardly trying to promote Moody's book. As a start, the reference to it has been there for a very long time. Its importance to the topic is that it marks the time(1975) at which the public in general became aware of Near-Death Experiences. The point of the paragraph concerned is to show that Christian Scientists have been aware of them for much, much longer: a fact of encyclopedic interest. You suggest, incorrectly, that the other reference does not support this. The only purpose the other reference has, is to confirm that the publication of Moody's book was indeed the stage at which public interest in NDEs began: a widely accepted fact. I can certainly find any number more references to support that, if you like.

It is highly likely that users who look up Christian Science have heard more about near-death experiences than they have about Christian Science. The sole aim of the entry is to establish the nexus between the two, and so to open up the topic more effectively to the enquirer.

I believe that my response to you is both courteous and correct. I therefore have respectfully yet again reversed your edit. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The point here is pretty simple: To be included in Wikipedia, material must be notable (see WP:N), verifiable (see WP:V), and reliably sourced (see WP:RS). This doesn't mean you have to know it's true so much as you must reference reliable sources that say it's true.
Your assertions that "it marks the time (1975) at which the public in general became aware" and that it is a "a widely accepted fact" must be supported. If you are only interested in mentioning Christian Scientists have known of NDEs for a long time, that's one thing. Claims that Moody coined the term and that NDEs were unknown to the general public prior to that are pretty sweeping and must be supported with hard, reliable sources. And it MUST be discussed if there is any doubt among the interested editors.
Please stop reverted edits. The way Wikipedia works is: Someone changes something. Someone disagrees and reverts it. The original editor goes to the Talk page to discuss it. If consensus is reached, the new material is reinserted into the article; if no consensus is reached, it stays on the Talk page.
I have no special interest in the article or the book, but I do have an interest in making the encyclopedia better. Unsourced material, no matter how "true" or "well known" is not allowed. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 08:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so in Wiki's own article on NDEs where it states: "Popular interest in near-death experiences was initially sparked by Raymond Moody's 1975 book Life After Life[8] and the founding of the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS) in 1981.[9]". Do we say that the NDE article also committs the same fault, or are we satisfied that there the editors got it right? If so, then the same references would indicate the reinstatement of the assertion in question.Michael J. Mullany (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

my question is why is this reference important to the article on Christian Science. It doesn't clarify a major point of Christian Science doctrine. Many other faiths acknowledge NDE's well before Christian Science supposedly does. Do we need to list all of them as well? To me an encyclopaedic article should be to the point with a minimum of ancillary information. Am I wrong? Digitalican (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
No, you are absolutely right. Your opinion also follows WP policy closely, as I understand it. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that the main stream of western religions other than CS did acknowledge NDEs prior to 1975. MB Eddy's reference to them was written the best part of a century earlier. I would have thought that the sentence under dispute relates the CS view to something that many readers will have heard of: NDEs, and so places the CS view in world context.Michael J. Mullany (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Student Editing[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear UncleBubba,

I want to bring to your attention your (merited, but not entirely) deletion of work by my Wikipedia student, Thegannon. One focus of our class is trying to augment female and ethnic diversity among contributors in Wikipedia. Some new contributors are easily discouraged, particularly if they have not grown up in circumstances that support a sense of entitlement and expertise. I'm going to encourage Thegannon to re-word work on women in wrestling and make it workable and useful for Wikipedia. Thank you kindly, and in advance for your patience with newcomers to the process, and any supportive effort you may be willing to lend to a beginner. KSRolph (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

While patrolling recent changes, I ran across Thegannon's edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wrestling&diff=prev&oldid=461544414), which inserted apparently-coherent text into the article.
I was about to move on when I noticed the edit was unexplained (i.e. had no edit summary), so I looked a little deeper and saw many statements of fact and syntheses of factual data. Usually, this indicates original research, which isn't allowed. That pretty much sealed the edit's fate and I reverted it.
I believe my action in this matter was entirely justified.
Having said that, I think what you're doing with the students is absolutely wonderful! I will, of course, help you any way I can.
To prevent problems in the future, I recommend you review the Wikipedia "Help for New Editors" articles. At the very least, point out to them the Edit Summary box on the editing screen and teach them to use it for every edit. It doesn't take much time and it shows other Wikipedians the edit respects them, their time and the encyclopedia as a whole.
Teach them also about Wikipedia's policies regarding notability, verifiability, and reliable sources, and that these—not truth—are the criteria for inclusion in articles here.
If you teach your students to observe these practices, I believe you will encounter far fewer problems.
If you could see the crap I pull out of these pages on a daily basis, you'd understand my firm approach to spam, vandalism and disruptive editing. (And I'm not even a prolific page patroller; there are folks here that do ten times my volume of cleanup per unit of time invested.)
I am quite encouraged by your project, though, and I hope you carry on with it. Once again, if I can help, please let me know. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 01:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Bubba,

Thank you for your detailed response. I do, of course, all I can to help eighteen to 22 year-old students understand what we want, what we refer to, how multivariate Wikipedia culture is to be appreciated and navigated, and so forth. On the other hand, there are more than twenty people's work to monitor, and a couple of my students have suffered from the experience of less than perfect text, followed by deletions. For newcomers, a couple of these, and students can become discouraged. While I understand you are not trying to teach this course, it might be that a few encouraging words to Thegannon could go a long way. One wishes to see all newcomers succeed and move to the next level, independent works and edits. I must also concern myself with less assertive students, those who have not had initial success with their edits.

I appreciate your thoughtful response, and please do tolerate our works. I can imagine your tasks to be difficult, and I too, would be/am on a short fuse with some of the contributions (and deletions) I encounter. In fact, in class, we wonder aloud at the admins in Wikipedia who oversee and modify hundreds of items per day.

There is a place for women in wrestling in this page, especially with events being televised nationally and international events held. My view is Thegannon needs to include citations, and perhaps augment statements. I hope you'll agree. KSRolph (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree. The citations are the key to verifiability, and an Edit Summary is a mark of courtesy and professionalism. Together, I believe they will make a tremendous difference.
After that, all they need to do is write well. ;-)
Do you teach about the really strange way WP works, through things like consensus and cooperation? I imagine that would make a helluva lesson, not only for editing, but for life. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 09:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you revised wrong...[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Do you use Apple? "Personal" is not the accepted term for us Macintosh users. PC refers to Windows machines, Linux refers to Linux, and Macintosh of course refers to Apple computers. MaganT2k13 (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to consult a dictionary. "Personal", as an adjective, is defined, "Of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else." My MacBook Pro is mine, as is my Linux desktop and my Windows laptop, and they are all Personal Computers. They certainly are not mainframes... I think we should try to avoid being pedantic. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 05:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

External Links in Articles[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've noted your comments on the Starwind Software AfD page and as you seem to have an aversion to people exploiting Wikipedia for promotion and advertising I was wondering if you could take a look at Microsoft SQL Server Compare Tools. This article is nothing but a list of external links for people trying to promote their products. If these links were put on most articles they would be immediately reverted as spam. I have suggested changing the links to references and removing anything with no reference at all. I've put in a request for comment but the only response I've had is from an IP user who has a link for his product on it. There are a lot of these articles, I've started cleaning up Comparison of database tools which I think looks better. I would really appreciate any comments you may have on this - I'm so tempted to AfD it.Vrenator talk 11:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow--what a mess o' links! Thanks for the heads-up. I need to look at it some more, but I'm wondering if you're right in that an AfD is the best solution. I posted some opinion on the article's Talk page. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 12:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for comments on the article's talkpage. I was beginning to think I was on my own and had some kind of phobia against red links and spam links. This article, unfortunately is just one of a hole bunch of these but once this one has been tackled I may just target some others. Vrenator talk 13:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The article has now been redirected to Microsoft SQL Server. Vrenator talk 13:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
And I say "Yaaaaa!" Thanks for letting me know about it. Are you familiar with the Spam Project board? Check it out sometime--you might find it useful.
Regardless, if you run across any more, and want some help, please let me know. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 13:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Cheers! I will check it out. Vrenator talk 13:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris website[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Regarding the external link section in the Brahma Kumaris article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University#External_links

The contribution I made was reverted back. "The Brahma Kumaris Info" site has an "ad" right beside it: "An independent resource accurately documenting the beliefs and lifestyle of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, including many of its channeled messages." Is that ok to place such things after a link?

Thanks

Riveros11 (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the link on the WP page (and the abstract text beside it) and don't really see the problem. There are two External Links to official BK sites, followed by the one in question. While I'd bet BK leadership would rather not hear some of the things the http://www.brahmakumaris.info/ site has to say, it does not appear to be commercial (I saw no ads), and it doesn't seem overtly shrill. In fact, it seems to be a reasonable, well-sourced skeptic site (I didn't read much of it.) Am I missing something? — UncleBubba T @ C ) 13:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Well, I just want to play by the rules. It appears interesting to me that a link in the "external links" part of the article has an opinion such as to consider that link " accurately documenting the beliefs and life style of the BKs." Encyclopedias usually will add something like " According to that site..." to avoid bias.

In that light, It appears to me that I could add the following link: http://brahmakumarisforum.net and also will add a little text right beside it and some text to the other links as well, if there are no objections.

Riveros11 (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you do not do that. The link you mentioned is a forum, and has no business here. The former link is--as I mentioned--a link to a non-forum site, similar in structure to the official BK sites.
I have, though, had a chance to look at some of your edits. Are you connected to the BKs in any way? I may be mistaken, but it really appears that some of your edits are written with the intent of promoting a particular point of view. Are you familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:SPS, and WP:NOT? please remember this is an encyclopedia. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 15:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure that brahmakumaris.info is not a forum?

Please check out: http://www.brahmakumaris.info/forum/index.php

If in fact, this is an encyclopedia, then the brahmakumaris.info link should go away for it is a forum. The participants are not bona fide researchers, but ex-members of the BK movement. Please re-consider your thought.

Yes, I am a member of the BK movement. I don't see why I cannot contribute as much as an Ex-Brahma Kumaris member can. But I will be happy to go by the rules as long as it works both ways. Have you checked on "January 18" user? His history talks lots about him.

Riveros11 (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

C'mon, just because a site has a forum doesn't make it one. I went to the link you provided and wound up on a forum index page. I went to the other site and found a home page. Please don't split hairs with me.
Why can't an ex-BK be a bona fide researcher? Seems like they might have useful knowledge. You can contribute; I never said otherwise, but you should not remove or suppress others' views just because you do not agree with them.
My wife's mother is an active BK and, while I don't subscribe to her worldview, it is interesting. Regardless, I don't have an agenda one way or the other regarding the BKs. They're just like Catholics or Buddhists in one important way: some folk love 'em and some folks hate 'em. As far as I'm concerned, either group is welcome here only as long as they don't allow their biases to leak onto the pages.
The page should not read like a recruiting brochure. If you work to be informative, neutral, and balanced, we'll get along fine.
By the way, did you read those WP articles I cited? I think they would help you better understand what should be here and what should not.
I will be checking out the January 18 user. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 16:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
What would you consider that site? A research on the Brahma Kumaris? Have you notice that the contributors are the same members of the forum?

FYI. I have been in this article from the very beginning.I have not been banned even once. On the other hand, the main contributor of the Ex-BK side has been. He has been "blocked permanently" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:195.82.106.244) but he has continued editing under different IDs, now one of them is "january 18." That user is the owner of the brahmakumaris.info site.

I think I am being reasonable in asking why his website link is mentioned in the BK wiki article? That individual is not a researcher, neither the group in that website.

So, when I see a link which is a forum (by dictionary definition) with articles containing "original research" without an article signed by a "bona fide" researcher but just biased opinions and the "ad" which mentions that they "accurately document" the BK beliefs and life style...then, you wonder, what gives them that authority? According to wiki policies the brahmakumaris.info link violates the "No original research" policy in wikipedia.

If you look at the "Scientology" site, under external links, they have an "official site" heading with a "scholarly web pages on Scientology" sub-heading. The brahmakumaris.info link do not qualify as a scholarly site as you know.

Please give me a good reason.

Ps: A "bona fide researcher" for an encyclopedia; is someone with a terminal degree in that subject. Riveros11 (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for StarWind Software[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of StarWind Software. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hu12 (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

APL[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have nothing against ISO dates, but they only apply to gregorian dates. Also, I am sure you have noticed that the absence of spelt-out month names often give gives rise to ambiguities – common "alternatives" seem to be "01-23-2008" or "23-01-2008". But the real crux is that there was a mixture of different formats in that article that I want to harmonise. I don't know where to take it from here; I won't be reverting you. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

ATOMIC49ER[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Amelia Earhart from the FBI FOIF(freedom of imformation files)

FBI FOIA FILES

The files at the link below clearly show and state that many radio operators intercepted Earhart's radio transmissions. These files on pages 49 thru to 54 establish that Earhart landed in the Marshall Islands and was taken prisoner by the Japanese. After reading the files it is obvious that Earhart and Noonan were both alive and had landed safely, however into or near a secret Japanese base. Due to the planes altitude the radio transmissions misled those waiting to intercept Earhart as planned. Off course far north of Howland Island, Earhart is said to have actually landed on Knox Island nearer to the Marshall Islands. This is outlined by the FBI files. The files document often repeated and frantic requests by radio operators to get FBI assistance in finding Earhart, even many years after her disappearance.
Here is the FBI link: http://vault.fbi.gov/amelia-mary-earhart/amelia-mary-earhart-part-01-of-01/view

This material seems noteworthy

(sorry your """don't be a dick""" is suggestive and pornographic as posted)
(the image of the penis in addition to "dick" as referenced are obscene images and speech)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomic49er (talkcontribs) 18:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The material may well be noteworthy, but it doesn't seem to meet the criteria of the Wikipedia policies on verifiability and notability.
You didn't discuss it on the article Talk page; not discussing what you're doing is not a good thing.
You also don't seem to have bothered to read the Wikipedia documentation on editing--I had to re-format the text you inserted here because it was messing up my Talk page. In short: Please explain your edits with an Edit Summary; please sign your posts; and please take a look at the Help pages to learn more about editing the encyclopedia.
Lastly, don't worry about my Don't Be a Dick picture--I like it and it's going to stay. Wikipedia is NOT censored so, if line drawings of human anatomical features bother you, perhaps you should read elsewhere. Frankly, I couldn't care less that you think the images on my User or Talk pages are "pornographic" or "obscene"; I don't think they are and, as long as I don't violate WP policy, my opinion is all that matters on this page.
— UncleBubba T @ C ) 20:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

do not talk down to me in stupid riddles? ok? uncle buddy...

ato49er — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomic49er (talkcontribs) 05:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, your general comportment, including the way you spell and write, make it pretty difficult to do anything but talk down to you, ya know? What I wrote is in no way a riddle; it's not my problem you can't comprehend simple English prose. And how hard can it be to indent your replies and sign your posts? — UncleBubba T @ C ) 06:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Harassment and annoyance[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You posted multiple times on my talk page. I ask you to stop. One time is enough. You are warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.103.192 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You are tenditiously attempting to restore spammy links and unsourced, potentially dangerous medical information to an article, which is not allowed. You are trying to use Wikipedia for promotion and advertising, which is not allowed. If you are editing as an IP (not signed-in) user to hide your identity, you are evading, which is not allowed.
In short, you are abusing the encyclopedia to further your own ends, which is reprehensible. Now, YOU have been warned. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 02:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You are not better than any other wikipedia user. Quit harassing me. I asked you already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.103.192 (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, sit down and shut up, spammer. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 03:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

See contentious submission. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

This person is, shall we say, "interesting". If you want to see something really crazy, take a look at the rev history of his Talk page. I'm not quite sure if he's attacking/threatening me or if he just needs to take his medication, nor am I sure if I should do anything (ANI?) about it. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 17:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
DFT is often the best advice. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC).
...and especially so, I'd bet, in this situation. Thanks. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 16:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't know why you bothered posting your "rebuke". I am not a boy scout collecting badges and I don't count edits or display the count or collect awards, I just edit articles often in passing whilst I go on my merry way in what is a busy life. If I overlook checking the "minor edit" who gives a toss? Would you prefer that I didn't bother making the correction?

Your pedantic ignorant attitude is what has driven away many editors who think they "own" articles or are the final arbiters of what is right or wrong.. my understanding is that the powers that be are very worried about this wastage of editors

The problem is exemplified by your reversion of my edit to the HG Wells article. It came about because one of my kids was reading the article (after the death of Ray Bradbury) and asked me what "sums" meant. It is is not a term used widely outside the UK and Ireland and it is probably uncommon there in this century. I thought that it was worth explicating the term. In any event it wasn't silly, or a "joke" the edit made the point Wells was making clear and it wasn't exactly cluttering up the place.

Please do not bother posting a response on my talk page. I will delete it and not read it. As George W Bush allegedly said one time, "Who cares what you think?" Silent Billy (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, you care enough to reply (in the wrong place, no less).
The Wells article is written in British English, about a British author. In that language variant, "sums" is a pretty common word. Instead of inserting poorly constructed changes into the article text (and snarfing at me for cleaning it up), you might have availed yourself of the opportunity to teach your children something new.
And, just so we're clear: you didn't fail to check the "Minor" box; you checked it when you knew--or should have known--not to do so.
It's pretty funny you're calling me "ignorant" here; evidence indicates you have it backwards.
Wikipedia is a community of people who work together to improve "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". As such, there are a lot of people editing it and there are rules and conventions and best practices, much like there is everywhere else.
If you are unwilling to take the time to properly use the Minor check box--or to supply a proper Edit Summary--when you change something, so be it. You may save yourself a second or two but will cost others in the editing community much more time while they patrol recent changes. Your actions don't rise to level of a sanctionable offense but, just like rudeness and discourtesy, they tell others what you're made of. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 18:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Need help with a user[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Fifelfoo is launching personal attacks and deleting my comments on the talk page. Can you go to the Talk page for the Vietnam War and help me out. I don't mind changing things if I need to, but I could do without the personal attacks. -- Korentop (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Parkinson's science learning project in Wikiversity[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Hi. I'd like to bring your attention to a new learning project in Wikiversity. As you have been involved with the discussion on the wikipedia Parkinson's disease page I felt you might be interested in looking at the project and perhaps even contributing material to it. Please see my Talk page, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet#The_Science_Behind_Parkinson.27s_learning_project , the subpage, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet/ProjectDescription or the project itself , http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:The_Science_Behind_Parkinson%27s . It would be great if you could bring the project to the attention of others who might be interested in helping us develop it. Thanks.

Jtelford (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your current edit war[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. You may have thought that this was okay under the 3RR, however, my records show that you have still come close to violating this rule yourself. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time, counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly, which I have determined it has. This is your notice that if I see another revert by you on this page, I will report yourself to AIN and begin a discussion about your edit war, if the other involved editor doesn't do so first.

Don't take this the wrong way. I'm being as nice as possible here. But this is a serious offense. Please consider another course of action before reverting again. I am also going to be requesting full protection of the page to prevent this from going any further.

gwickwire | Leave a message 02:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, really? On what page, may I ask? How was I edit-warring?
My edit history shows, frankly, that I spend a lot a time cleaning up messes and contributing to the encyclopedia. If you feel I've violated WP policies, please do make a submission to the appropriate AN/I page. But be aware: Your behavior will be scrutinized, too, and baseless accusations are not well received around here. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 02:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I just looked at the one page you reported the other editor for. Your edit summaries looked like you were intent on reverting his material until he stopped. It was just a little friendly reminder. Like I said, don't take it the wrong way. And I'm well aware of the AN/I regulations. If you'd like me to remove this, as the other user was blocked, and there's no way for you to go over 3RR, feel free to remove this. Thanks for understanding. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Look, I'm very understanding and pride myself on maintaining civility, but one thing I will not abide is being falsely accused of wrongdoing. Did you actually bother to count the reverts I made? There was ONE. Hello71, Ianmacm, and Freshacconci made the others.
If you're not sure of your target, you have no business pulling the trigger. If you are careless with your Rollback rights, you could lose them. If you truly want to become an administrator (as you say on your User page), you must train yourself to pay attention to details.
What you left here is not a "friendly warning", it's a mistake. Making matters worse, you "templated" a long-time editor. Frankly, I think you owe me an apology. If you ever do this again, I will have to seriously consider reporting your behavior to AN/I.
And yes, I'm gonna revert the change now that the guy's blocked. Perhaps this time, it will stick. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 02:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I've already admitted I was not fully informed. I purposefully did not use the standard template in this, to make it personalized. My rollback rights don't even come into effect here, I didnt use them at all in this. I admitted I was wrong. Sorry. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I recently was sent a message by you regarding my correction to Star Trek: The Next Generation, changing the episode listing from 176 to 178 episodes. In fact this is my second time doing so, and the previous time I did cite my source. I will cite it again here for you: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation

As this webpage--and many others who document the episodes of this show--will attest, TNG consisted of 176 episodes in its 7-year run. Two of the episodes were feature-length and in reruns have sometimes been split into separate episodes but that does not change the episode total. I hope this clears up any confusion that may have been caused. Please feel free to message me if you have any questions or comments for me.

Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonite75 (talkcontribs) 02:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. This is a classic example of why it's a good idea to always include an Edit Summary when you change something. You would probably be surprised by the number of vandals that edit an article, change something like "26" to "29", save it, and run off to make other messes. If you have a fact to present, cite it (in the article, not here). If you do that, you won't have any trouble from me--or the majority of recent-change patrollers in the community.
Please be careful with your sources, though—MemoryAlpha, while a great site, is a wiki; wikis (and other user-contributed sites) are not usually considered to be reliable sources (see WP:RS). — UncleBubba T @ C ) 02:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Werewolf-response[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Loup-garou addition was due to the fact that the loup-garou name (different from the other pages named that) redirects to Werewolf where it was mentioned that loup-garou is a French Werewolf. The redirect heads-up had to be mentioned somewhere. Rtkat3 (talk) 6:45, October 21 2012 (UTC)

(This reply moved to your Talk page, where it should have been placed, and I've responded there. Can't you read the notice on this page?) — UncleBubba T @ C ) 23:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC Feedback[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Looking for more feedback from uninvolved parties for an RFC I posted at the page ALCAT test. The discussion is here: Talk:ALCAT test#RFC:Neutrality and reliable sources. Many thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Conquest of Lombardy[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(Heading added during Talk page cleanup because the original author didn't do so, which makes their comments much harder to notice.)

Hello The amendment I made was to simply correct an error i.e. The Conquest of Lombardy (the current sub-heading) is not/was not the same as the Conquest of the Lombard kingdom. The Lombard kingdom in 774 extended to a number of other regions (Tusica, Piemonte etc etc.) Sources are not necessary simply because this is evident from any casual glance at a map! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.83.84 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Simple Mail Tranport Protocol page edits[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi ---

I noticed that you removed the link to CheckTLS. I'd like a chance to convince you it should stay.

The site does tens of thousands of free tests a month. There is no limit to how many free tests one person can do. We receive a lot of positive feedback, and we've never received a negative feedback. Our privacy policy is very strict and very good.

Yes, the site has advertising -- it's unobtrusive. Yes, the site promotes fee services. We both know there is no such thing as a free lunch -- we pay hosting fees for the two sites that host CheckTLS and make the free tests available.

I proposed the addition of the site three years ago for discussion. At that time I received a little feedback that it was OK; I guess most people who watched the page didn't care one way or another. I received no negative feedback there either. CheckTLS has been on the SMTP page for three years without a complaint.

Bottom line, the site is free, many people find it very useful, and no one has ever complained about anything about the site. I can't see how there is a better site the SMTP page could point to to help people test and understand the protocol.

--- Steve (sshoe at checktls.com) Sshoe (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

ps: I hope I can figure out how to see your answer.

Steve, the site to which you linked may do free tests, and it may do a zillion of them. The problem is that it really doesn't matter, as CheckTLS.com appears to meet all the criteria of a commercial web site. In fact, on the linked page, there are many solicitations for services from your company. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine, nor is it a place to promote goods and services. There are some good essays that cover the subject far better than can I. Take a look at WP:EL (especially the sections at WP:ELNO and WP:ADV). Also, because of your apparent association with the linked site, the guidelines in WP:COI seem applicable. Finally, I recommend you look at WP:ADVERT, which pretty much sums up Wikipedia's stance on the subject. Afterwards, if you have any questions, please let me know—I'll be happy to answer them.
Thanks! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 09:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there UncleBubba[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


This is going to sound awfully random... but, if you would like your topicons on your userpage aligned a bit better, as opposed to on top of one another, I tweaked them and saved them to my userpage fixing subpage, User:Dainomite/userpage fixing1. If you do like it you can just edit the page and copy the entire bit and paste it into your userpage. Feel free to cut and paste and save my subpage "blank" if you will. If you want to make sure I only changed the topicons you can hit "show changes" to verify I didn't touch anything else. Anywho, I hope you don't mind and find this helpful. Face-smile.svg Cheers, — -dainomite   08:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind a bit, but I don't have time to chase it right this second. I'll take a look at it as soon as I can, though. Thanks! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 20:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Scratch that. I was premature in saying it. I do have time, so I just replaced the page with the version you edited. Nice job! You did exactly what you said you did, and the new version looks better. Thanks again! I'll clear your edit-sandbox page as requested. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 20:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem good sir, if you need/want anything else tweaked just give me a shout. Face-smile.svg -dainomite   21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Hello UncleBubba! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MusikBot II talk 20:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ronald McDonald[edit]

I just took the issue to the talk page, I apologize for the whole editing back and fourth issue I've been doing to it. I wasn't trying to cause harm, I was only trying to fix it back to normal. Because I'm the one that originally added in 1975 by mistake in the past edits. 2600:1000:B039:E407:D14A:4E62:E42D:9EB9 (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I just restored the text you deleted off my Talk page. Don't do that! You should never remove text from someone else's Talk page without their knowledge. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 01:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

Hey Bubba, I owe you an apology. I'm really sorry about my edits in the Ronald McDonald article, I know it's against the Wiki policey to edit war against users and I know I shouldn't have done that in the first place. I'm just letting you know I'm sorry and I will not do it again. I really hope you forgive me. 2600:1000:B07C:3A4F:E564:7D48:54B:FD08 (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a problem. Really. The subject is pretty confusing, and complicated by the fact that McDonalds Corp apparently isn't very open to discussing the actors they've employed to play the part. Thanks for reaching out! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 16:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ted Kaczynski[edit]

I have raised a dispute on the talk page as you suggested. I also asked the last person who added the disputed link to comment. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Naya Rivera[edit]

Hi. You mentioned not changing an article unless discussing it. Last I checked, anyone can edit a wiki page. And yes, it does matter. No one can actually prove she died on July 8th. Anything before her body was found is merely presumed. Even the coroners are speculating that she died within minutes. Her death certificate lists the date of death as July 13th.

@Parksandrecfan2013: You obviously didn't read the edit notice above (or don't care enough to follow its simple instructions)—you should have replied on your own Talk page. Nevertheless, I strongly suggest you spend a little time familiarizing yourself with the way the encyclopedia works. There are plenty of reference articles you can read to get you started on a path to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. However, winning arguments isn't one of them. Consider this: the article you're edit-warring on is protected against spurious changes, and the edits you keep re-adding are not visible to the general population of Wikipedia users until someone with a little seniority accepts them. Sorry. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 03:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@UncleBubba: chill. I sent this before I saw yours. I thought I deleted it. You win, though. I refuse to be belittled by someone who’s hobby is “patrolling recent changes to high-volume Wikipedia pages.” I have a life. Have me banned if you want, I don’t care.

Template:Marriage[edit]

I have a question about your comment regarding an edit in Dallas McKennon. You wrote, "As marriage ended by death of McKennon, not by death of his spouse, the year 2009 is omitted here. See instructions on Template:Marriage for more info." I am missing something as I read the documentation for that template. Under "Description" for "<end date>", I see "Year or full date when the marriage ended..." with no mention of an exception for the death of the article's subject.

Where is the statement about omitting the end year? Eddie Blick (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi! All I did on that page was revert a Pending Changes edit that removed the comment about the date of the end of his marriage. The IP editor had removed the comment without any explanation of why, and that's not really good cooperative behavior. I was not the original author of that comment, so I don't have any more information to give you. Sorry... — UncleBubba T @ C ) 02:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
My apologies! I misinterpreted what I saw in the differences. I have seen similar changes made on other biographies but have yet to find documentation to support them. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Art_of_Odessa ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That was a great catch! I am glad you made the connection, they have both been blocked as socks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: I'm glad I noticed it, too; I almost missed it. I'm far more grateful, though, that you took the time to ferret out his misbehavior on Commons and document it. Thanks! I've been hanging around Wikipedia for a while (with some long activity gaps for real-life stuff), and one thing I really feel passionate about is keeping various miscreants from hijacking the free encyclopedia for personal gain. It's nice to see other people feel strongly about it, too. I'm glad I had a chance to work with you (albeit indirectly), because I learned something new (that "interaction timeline" tool). Maybe we'll run into each other again sometime. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 20:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes[edit]

I think you may have misread the section you removed here. It did not say that Watterson "portrayed himself", as you state in your edit summary, but that "Watterson himself portrayed a grown-up Calvin...", which in this context (i.e. the adult Calvin) means that Watterson drew ("portrayed") Calvin as an adult during a few strips. This is true, although I agree that it is poorly written and needs a source (at the least the strip dates). Vyselink (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vyselink: Ha! You're absolutely right (about both the meaning and the shoddy composition). Re-reading it, the sentence's murky meaning is fairly clear: "portrayed" tends to connote acting. Thanks for letting me know! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 09:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Law Degree[edit]

"Assertion, in a BLP page, of type of law degree unsupported by the cited ref. (Was it really a J.D., or did he earn an LL.D., a D.L., or an S.J.D.?)"

No United States university, college, or law school awards the LL.D. or D.L. as an earned degree.

As the Wikipedia Juris Doctor article states, beginning with 1971, every United States law school has awarded the Juris Doctor (J.D.) as the first degree in law. As the article also states, the University of Chicago Law School is an exception: It has always awarded the Juris Doctor (J.D.) as its first degree in law.

And so, anyone whose first earned degree from a United States law school was awarded in 1971 or later (or from the University of Chicago Law School) has earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.)2601:205:3:DEE2:F4CF:6882:4884:29B2 (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I wrote and, since you don't have an account (other than various IPv6 addresses or 73.192.242.220) it's really hard to talk to you. Why don't you create an account? The point is not that the sky is blue. Wikipedia doesn't contain original research, so we may include the statement "the sky is blue" only when we can cite a reliable source (preferably a secondary one) that says so. That's the way it works.
The other issue is understandability. I can report that "so-and-so ingested acetylsalicylic acid to relieve acute cranial neuralgia", or I can say that "so-and-so took some aspirin for a headache". Unless the increased level of accuracy imbued in the technical text is necessary for the article, you should use common terms. If you really want to include "J.D." in every article that mentions a "law degree", you must A) cite a reliable source that says the article's subject received a J.D., and B) explain what "J.D." means (parenthetically if necessary). Anything less than that works contrary to the purpose of the encyclopedia, and isn't allowed. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 05:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
You are raising two different issues. I am only addressing one of them at present: If a biography already cites a source which makes clear that an American graduated from an American law school during or after 1971 (or from the University of Chicago Law School at any time), then the subject must have been awarded a Juris Doctor/J.D. and there is no need for any additional source beyond the Juris Doctor Wikipedia article itself. Furthermore, many of the accompanying short descriptions on the right side of the page themselves reference the J.D., establishing that that is the degree that was received2601:205:3:DEE2:403B:D1A3:5632:1770 (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Of course I'm discussing two issues; your changes raised them, and they are inextricably linked:
  • You are asserting that the people who are subjects of the articles received JDs when the cited sources say "law degree". Your reasoning seems to be valid (I've not researched it, but I have no reason to believe you're not telling the truth), but it constitutes ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and that's not allowed here. Do note that, in the few places where the cited source says "JD" (e.g. Fritz Knaak), I left your edit intact (although I may have parenthetically explained "JD", per below).
  • You seem to be running through articles en masse, changing a commonly understood term ("law degree") to a less common one, and you're doing it seemingly without regard to the majority of Wikipedia readers, who may not know what a J.D. is. Granted, they can click on the link when they hit an arcane term in an article, but that's disruptive to the reading process, and inconsiderate to the readers of biography pages who may not, themselves, be academics. We should not make readers do that without a really good reason.
You bring up some excellent points about the degrees. I, too, want the encyclopedia to be as accurate as possible, but there are rules for including information here, and they have been developed over time to encourage accuracy and deter abuse. They are especially important in biographies of living persons (BLP) articles, and are enforced much more rigidly there because Wikipedia is considered a trusted source by search engines, with material added here being quickly slurped up by Google, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, etc. and shown to the world.
I don't want to fight with you, but I am going to do my best to convince you not to sacrifice clarity on the altar of accuracy.
By the way, are you trying to increase your anonymity by editing my Talk page using an IPv6 address (and editing the articles using an IPv4 address)? If so, I recommend you get an account here. When you edit WP without logging on, your IP address(es) is(are) recorded and visible to everyone to see; if you sign on using an account, all that info is hidden. It's your choice, but I recommend you consider it. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 16:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive responses.
You are asserting that the ... subjects of the articles received JDs when the cited sources say "law degree". Your reasoning seems to be valid ..., but it constitutes ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and that's not allowed here.
It is not original research. It is akin to encountering a biography which states that its subject was born in the City of New York and changing it to state that its subject was born in New York, New York. (All those born in the City of New York were also born in the State of New York.) This constitutes applying an inevitable conclusion, not engaging in original research.
You seem to be ... changing a commonly understood term ("law degree") to a less common one, and you're doing it seemingly without regard to the majority of Wikipedia readers, who may not know what a J.D. is. Granted, they can click on the link when they hit an arcane term in an article, but that's disruptive to the reading process, and inconsiderate to the readers of biography pages who may not, themselves, be academics.
But the vast majority of Wikipedia articles already use the term Juris Doctor or J.D. for those who graduated from law school during or after 1971. For these individuals, Juris Doctor or J.D. is by far the more commonly used term. The horse has already left the barn.
By the way, are you trying to increase your anonymity by editing my Talk page using an IPv6 address (and editing the articles using an IPv4 address)?
No, I am unaware of that distinction. 2601:205:3:DEE2:6051:47E6:9B06:C824 (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Original research is drawing a conclusion from a source and writing about it here. Please read this article: WP:OR. You should also understand that Wikipedia does not allow contributions made from synthesis, or the combination of material from multiple places (see WP:SYNTH). You seem to think it's OK to run through WP articles and change every occurrence of "law degree" (or "JD") to "J.D.". In some cases (i.e. where supported by the cited source), that's fine, but, as I've told you before, where the source material says "law degree", you must leave it alone.
Thinking "the source says law degree, but all Law Degrees issued in the US during that time are really J.D. degrees, so I'll change it" is original research because you're inferring something from the source that is not written there. Do not do this.
Secondly, if you went out on the street and asked passersby "What is a law degree?" and "What is a J.D.?", you would find more people are familiar with the former term than with the latter. WP is meant to be understandable by average readers, and there is a real art to explaining complex topics in simple terms. You are not improving the encyclopedia by inserting a less-common term in place of one that is more widely understood; absolute accuracy and arcane precision are not always the best choices. Should I tell you "I have circumscribed dermal edema consistent with urticaria", or should I say "I have an itchy rash"? The former is far more accurate, but many more people will understand the latter statement. The same rationale applies to abbreviations. I would never tell someone I'd just met "I hold an ASEL/AMEL/IA, and LTA/B-AH certificate." Rather, I'll just say "I'm a pilot". If they wanted more detail, I might say "I'm a private pilot with an instrument rating, and fly hot-air balloons." I would never hit anyone (other than another pilot or an FAA guy) with the alphabet soup, because they probably wouldn't understand (and they'd probably think I was an arrogant ass for talking that way).
That said, you should not run a massive search/replace in these articles. If you want to say J.D., fine. Find a reliable source and cite it. (NOTE: Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles.) THEN, make sure the resulting sentence is as clear to the majority of readers as was the former one. If the article said "Joe Blow received a law degree from Catatonic State University", your new sentence should probably read "Joe Blow received a [[Juris Doctor|J.D.]] (law) degree from Catatonic State University". — UncleBubba T @ C ) 15:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

"L.I"[edit]

The cited ref isn't retrievable, but the text was pretty specific, so we need to assume it was quoted accurately ("LI.B./J.D." and "LI.M."). If you want to make this change, you need to cite a reliable source and explain it.

There are no such degrees as the LI.B. or LI.M. They do not exist. They cannot be found anywere else on Wikipedia. Because the J.D. replaced the LL.B., "we need to assume" that LI.B. reprsents confusion between a capital i (I) and a small l, and a capital l (l). Similar logic applies to the LL.M., which is the degree that follows the LL.B./J.D.2601:205:3:DEE2:BC1C:15F:C86B:19A8 (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

His CV proves what I have been saying. It is LL.B. and LL.M: https://specialedu.ku.edu/sites/specialedu.ku.edu/files/docs/people/vita/R_Turnbull-02-22-17.pdf 73.192.242.220 (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
(The following is almost exactly what I posted on the Talk:H._Rutherford_Turnbull page. It's really a waste of time to say the same thing in multiple places, and it scatters the discussion. Please don't do that.)
Great! That's good information! Now, here's what you need to do: correct the uppercase/lowercase error in the article (i.e. change "LI.B" and "LI.M" to "LL.B" and "LL.M", respectively), and at the same time cite this information (the CV, along with the page number) as the authoritative source for your edit, PROOFREAD IT, and post it to the article. If you want to be considerate of other Wikipedia editors, you should also state, clearly and concisely in your Edit Summary, what you've done, and why. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 14:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not "fix" redirects[edit]

Please do not "fix" redirects as you did here. Please read WP:NOTBROKEN. I would add that the IP in question is a long-term abuse editor, whio has been blocked many times under many IP addresses. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Point taken. Thanks for letting me know. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 16:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-37[edit]

15:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Internetting[edit]

Hey, you're probably right. In my mind I wasn't being uncivil when I challenged people on their arguments, and I don't think I've used uncivil language. However, an RfC is probably not the place for the actual debate, and my responses are probably disruptive and clutter up the chat. Based on that, I'd outright remove my response to Wwwhatsup, but things would look even weirder with your response to my response still hanging there. I'll keep quiet in the RfC from now on.

Regarding my suggestion for you read the guidelines again - forgive me, but I feel the need to just clarify this point, as you seem to have been a bit put out by it. I didn't mean it like "you need to get your head checked out, you're talking nuts", if that's how it came across. I meant it literally, in that your statement suggested you'd maybe misread the guideline. Specifically, there is no requirement for "a majority" of reliable sources in the guideline, and no one has suggested that. That's what I was trying to straighten out. But perhaps I've misunderstood something myself. Popcornfud (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have continued editing[edit]

If you have problems with my editing kindly report it to the admins, but do not undo the good faith edits that I made, starting today. I won't take a 1-week break as per your advise. Thank you! Angus1986 TALK 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I never advised you to "take a 1-week break" (and the noun, "advice", is spelled with a "c", by the way). I will treat any edits you make exactly as I would any others. If they are beneficial, I won't touch them. If you edit carelessly, I'll remove or correct the problems I see. Edit competently (see WP:CIR) and you won't hear a word from me, except for an occasional "thank you". — UncleBubba T @ C ) 14:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I looked it up on Google and Merriam-Webster and "advise" appears to be the British spelling.(I was curious if you had said anything about me on your talk page and found you didn't, but...) 99.137.85.166 (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@WinnerWolf99: Actually, that's incorrect. Please see [6], which defines the "-ise" spelling as a verb and the "-ice" spelling as a noun (on both sides of the pond). It even includes the admonishment: Note: Do not confuse with the noun, advice.
While we're at it, please DO NOT EVER edit historical information on other users' Talk pages, especially without their permission/knowledge. It's great that you created an account, but the message posted above came from an IP address. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 21:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh lol
Ok, I will let them know before doing so — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 21:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-38[edit]

16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

No Spam Barnstar Hires.png The No Spam Barnstar
For fighting spam on User Datagram Protocol ^_^ AngusMEOW (chatterpaw trail) 16:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2020.

                 Current and upcoming events

September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today!

Election reminder: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 December. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

Drive and Blitz reports

June Blitz: An uncorrected typo (even copy editors make copy editing mistakes!) led to an eight-day "leap blitz" from 14 to 21 June, focusing on requests and articles tagged in May. 19 participating editors claimed 54 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

July Drive: Over 750,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event, keeping pace with the previous three self-isolated drives. Of the 38 people who signed up, 30 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here.

August Blitz: From 16 to 22 August, we copy edited articles tagged in June and July 2020 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 37 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Other news

June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Baffle gab1978, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and first-time coordinator Puddleglum2.0. Reidgreg took a break after serving for a couple years. Thanks to everyone who participated!

Progress report: As of 01:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 532 requests since 1 January and there were 38 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-39[edit]

21:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kamala Harris on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

New talk page template for misuse of grammar tools?[edit]

Hi, I'm still seeing issues with the use of tools like Grammarly, so I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace asking if there could be a new single-level or multi-level talk page notice to address this. Cheers, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Esowteric: I like it!! And, yeah, I'm still seeing Grammarly-looking edits, too, so I'd definitely use it, if one were available. Thanks! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 20:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think they're going to go for this one. Perhaps an essay with a convenient "WP:xxx" shortcut might be another way forward? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Antifa (United States) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-40[edit]

21:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added AjpolinoLuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad OrientemHarejLidLomnMentoz86Oliver PereiraXJaM
renamed There'sNoTimeTheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"vandalism"[edit]

"need confirmation", provide confirmation from other sources (assuming original text isn't enough), "KNOCK IT OFF"

👍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.173.20 (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-41[edit]

16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of vegetarians on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-42[edit]

15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Merging on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Andy Ngo on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-43[edit]

16:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Expert needed on a "Wikipedia technical issues and templates" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-44[edit]

17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Women on the Verge on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-45[edit]

16:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-46[edit]

15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-47[edit]

15:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-48[edit]

17:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-49[edit]

17:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

removed AndrwscAnetodeGoldenRingJzGLinguistAtLargeNehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 18[edit]

Tech News: 2020-50[edit]

16:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2020 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2020.

                 Current and upcoming events

Election time: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before Auld Lang Syne. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

December Blitz: This will run from 13 to 19 December, and will target all Requests. Sign up now.

Drive and Blitz reports

September Drive: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive.

October Blitz: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz.

November Drive: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests.

Other news

Progress report: As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above).

Annual Report for 2020: this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Seasonal tidings and cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-51[edit]

21:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 19[edit]

Tech News: 2020-52[edit]

20:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

/* History */ Corrected the origination of IMAP at Stanford University[edit]

Hello, This is WilliamJYeager. Sorry I didn't understand exactly how to add a little more reality to my changes. Since this happened 35 or so years ago, there are not too many sources. But, RFC1064 for IMAP2 validates part of what I wrote. Strangely, it leaves out the developers. It also does not note that IMAP was supported by an NIH grant as part of the Stanford Knowledge System Labs SUMEX-AIM portion. This portion was for my proposal to develop what became IMAP. Mark was not the unique inventor by a long shot. I don't see where it is documented that he was. He did write the IMAP2 RFC which I edited. The director of SUMEX-AIM at this time was Thomas Rindfleish. Happy, he's still alive an well. Will an email message from him verifying those claims I made be a sufficient addition. If not, I can most likely can create a webpage on the Knowledge Systems Lab website. It will be validated by Tom. It's really sad that such an inaccurate representation of the true history of IMAP is on wikipedia. Oh, I can hopefully find the Stanford Computer Science documentation for V/VGTS. Prof. David Cheriton is still there, and is a close friend. V's quite old and what I seek may be archived. No matter. I'll give it a shot. Thanks so much for cluing me in on how to properly substantiate what I write on a wikipedia webpage. William (Bill) Yeager — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamjyeager (talkcontribs) 01:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Williamjyeager: I recommend you proceed very carefully, and only after you have reviewed the applicable policy pages on contributing material about yourself or your accomplishments. In short, you can't just "create a Web page" and cite it, because that's not a reliable source (see WP:RS and WP:COI). Ideally, Wikipedia cites secondary sources published by reliable organizations; blogs, self-published works, etc. are generally unacceptable.
While there is nothing wrong with editing articles you have no interest in or connection to, the smartest way deal with a COI situation (after disclosing it) is to use the {{request edit}} template to ask someone else to make the desired changes to the article.
I'm sorry that these rules have to be enforced, but you would probably not believe the BS that some people want to put into Wikipedia pages. One of my favorite examples is Pedro Paulet, a Peruvian (and, in my opinion, demonstrated fraudster) who claimed to have invented liquid-fueled rockets before Goddard. That article is sort of a pet project of mine, and I regularly have to remove misleading information posted by some apparently well-meaning people who, usually for reasons of national pride, want Paulet's claims to be true. Alas, wishing doesn't make it so.
Also, please read the templated text I posted to your Talk page—it outlines the steps you must take in the event of a conflict of interest. Cheers! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 03:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

internet as an proper adjective[edit]

when "internet" is capitalized, is there some consensus in wikip style world that it then functions as a proper adjective? or maybe it doesn't need to be? (diff) skakEL 17:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-02[edit]

15:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:New York City Police Department on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment, and at Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment, and at Talk:Brexit Party and Talk:Luke Letlow on "Politics, government, and law" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-03[edit]

16:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies on a "WikiProjects and collaborations" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-04[edit]

18:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverted changes to ENEA AB page 2021-01-26[edit]

While I left what I thought was an adequate and easily verifiable summary:

"Removed factually incorrect statement that read as if OSE was released in 2009"

Maybe it was not enough for people not acquainted with the product or company.

The restored statement makes it appear that the OSE realtime operating system was released initially in 2009, this is patently false as I have first hand knowledge of its existence since the '90s.

Hence my decision to move reference [3] to its right place, as it only announces the release of OSE for multicore systems and to remove the misleading statement.

Unfortunately, I'm no longer in contact with Bengt Eliasson (I had the honour of sitting beside him at work for some time) so I cannot provide a firm date for the relase of OSE.

I have second-hand knowledge that OSE for 68k systems was already released in 1992, but no linkable source; as evidence that 2009 is far off from the birth of OSE, this comparison between OSE and RUFUS (please go to page 8 for English abstract) dates to 2000.


BTW: The instructions you left in the message (answer in your talk page) contradict the banner (answer on my talk page). I hope I'm not being rude, just following one of the alternatives.

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Joe Biden on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

hello[edit]

Please don't reply on my Talk page to messages left on your Talk page
The following discussion has been closed by UncleBubba. Please do not modify it.

I am sorry I didnt know about the iloveyou virus thing, I just joined 2 months ago and not used to editing, Ilikememes128 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

hello[edit]

As I asked before, please don't reply on my Talk page to messages left on your Talk page
The following discussion has been closed by UncleBubba. Please do not modify it.

I am sorry I didn't know about the talk page thing --Ilikememes128 (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-05[edit]

22:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 20[edit]

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 20[edit]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shusha on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-06[edit]

17:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Beetlejuice[edit]

I was the anonymous user who edited the page; what was wrong with them? DrakeyC (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@DrakeyC: I thought I made my reasoning pretty clear in my Edit Summary (which you should include with every edit, BTW). It's been a while, but what comes to mind is a change you made to a sentence in the first Plot paragraph, "At their home the two return but find they have no recollection of what happened after the crash or how they got back home ...", which I noticed because the word "home" appears twice in it. More important, though, the phrase "at their home the two return but find" just doesn't make a lot of sense; the original ("When the two return home they find") was much better.
You're right, though: the copy in that section does need some work—perhaps quite a bit. Thanks for the reminder; I'm going to take a look at it as soon as I get my "real" work finished. — UncleBubba T @ C ) 23:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Okay. No complaints on the new revision, just going to make one formatting edit for consistency in referring to the Handbook. DrakeyC (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I did make a couple grammar corrections and wording changes. The biggest major change; mentioning the name of Maxie's wife in the middle of the sentence and specifying how they were dispatched, then saying "and Otho" at the end made it a bit awkward to read, and giving these two details is not really necessary to the overall summary. DrakeyC (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Greetings, I have noticed that you have left a message on my talk page yesterday. My response to you is: bite me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoobServer625 (talkcontribs) 03:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-07[edit]

17:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-08[edit]


00:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-09[edit]


19:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said ZebedeeHiberniantearsLear's FoolOnlyWGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)