User talk:Carrite

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 21:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy	other	Discussions	Ideas
An RfC to permit trusted non-admins to close TFD discussions with uncontroversial delete outcomes A proposal to forbid IPs from participating in the RfA process. A proposal to elevate WP:BRD to guideline status An RfC on "edit in Wikidata" links, for templates using Wikidata A proposal to add an edit restriction function to Wikipedia. Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive talk edit history watch

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all closing
Templates
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Possibly unfree files (PUF)
today all closing
Categories
today all closing speedy
Redirects
today all closing
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all books BLPs
Policy Process Guide Administrator guidelines

Noticeboard archives

• Editor's Index to Wikipedia

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Carrite, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Morris Hillquit. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Marek.69 ^talk 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

---

---

You Have Mail...

Carrie Prejean

Hi Carrite, I saw that you made some layout changes to the article. Doesn't having a "Biography" section in a biographical article seem kind of redundant? The TOC is now just a chronology instead of an index to information about this person. Just my 2 cents... Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As with many aspects of WP, your mileage may vary. I like the way the TOC organizes itself with the additional Super-Header for "Biography," speaking for myself. Carrite (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, so you just personally like it that way, fair enough. Based on my "mileage", I see it primarily in stub or start class articles where there is not enough content to justify sections. Obviously Prejean has ample content, but if this is what floats your boat, so be it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not religiously obsessed with the style; you see it both ways around WP — although using a "Super-Header" is definitely gaining velocity over time. Make yourself happy, I won't revert back. Carrite (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nor am I with other styles and happy to leave it alone. I was not aware that the Super Header usage was on the increase, from my perspective its on the decrease. But as you said, "mileage varies", and there are far more important things to address on this site... :) Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

bios planned....

thanks, and you know what for I'm sure; but noting your userpage additions about bios, please see Talk:Indo-Canadians in British Columbia and Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia re various rather important bios that are much in need of doing. Had I not been bothering to respond to the witchhunt/seal-clubbing at ANI I might actually have had them done by now.....Jhonder Basran, Naranjan Singh Grewall, Erwin Singh Braich (publication ban lifted recently, or I'd have done it a long time ago), Dave Basi and others you'd find in the sources given about them. My connections here are regularly bad, which is a good thing in terms of keeping me in the real world instead of fighting off wiki-dragons; and survival right now is difficult; but I'd rather struggle here than "there" (it's 90 degrees at night here...). I'm trying to recruit locals in the Lillooet Countrty and Cariboo and Okanagan to start taking an interest in their wiki-content, so it's not controlled/manipulated/misrepresented - "colonized" - from outside; there's very good FB communities for those areas right now; and they have access to the books I know about, but do not have on hand to cite, or page-cite when needed; the notion that anything not page-cited on a talkpage should be removed is poppycock and drivel as I'm sure you realize....Skookum1 (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Albert M. Todd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to TASS

Laurence Todd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to TASS

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

RE: Please don't

Carrite,

I saw your note, I disagree with your assesment, per TPO polemic statments can be removed, which is what I have done. This is an exemption that exists in policy and also for my restrictions. The only one that doesn't have that restriction in it is my T-Ban, that T-BAN is for a particular topic, and I'm permitted to do nothing in that topic at all. Because you disagree with me, I won't touch that statement again if it goes back up. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 12:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Carrite. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 03:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Go Phightins! 03:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice: sanctions apply to Gamergate controversy topics

Please read this notification carefully: A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy. The details of these sanctions are described here. General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It's somewhere between hilarious and hysterical to have been templated on proper Gamergate behavior by one of the infamous "Five Horsemen," a person who is headed for a topic ban and a site-wide 1RR restriction for edit warring and tendentious editing on the topic. As I have never edited Gamergate and have no intention of starting, this transparent attempt at intimidation is gonna fall a little short of the mark, sorry to say. Better luck next time and keep the fuck off my talk page, Ryulong, you are hereby banned from it. If you respond to this message here, the next thing you hear from me will be notice of an AN/I complaint. Carrite (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Lena Morrow Lewis article.

I have drafted an expansion of your article. The draft is at User:Vejlefjord/---Draft. Perhaps you would be willing to critique or edit it before I post it. Please reply. Thanks. Vejlefjord (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As I read it....

Net 4 OR absolute majority closes it. 8 is absolute majority and should close even though it's a net 3 votes. DHeyward (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see... Carrite (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Adland AfD

I noticed you effectively undid a change that was made by a bot, restoring the header size. Perhaps you should have a talk with the bot author? 76.69.75.41 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No need. Carrite knows what he is doing, well except for his choice of Universities he roots for. :) WMF labs was also having trouble that day as they were rebooting machines to install a security patch. It didn't go well and one side effect was everything appearing as mainspace articles, include wikipedia name space. Thus the bot was going place it never has gone before. <insert joke here> Bgwhite (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Email sent

Hello Carrite. I tried sending you an email using the Wikipedia interface. I hope you received it. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Just email me directly: ShoeHutch@gmail.com. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've done so.--John Cline (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Tell him thanks. And thanks for the message. Carrite (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You're in Oregon too?

Hey, so am I, living down the road from you in Portland. Sheesh, here I was thinking I knew all of the local Wikipedians & by accident discovered another one who's also an old-timer. Maybe one of these days, if we both aren't disgusted with Wikipedia at the same time, we can get together, share a favorite beverage of personal choice together, & swap stories. -- llywrch (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a deal! —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Black History Month

Disappointing, isn't it, how little article creation seems to have happened in response to your piece on Jimbo's page. Perhaps it says something about how few actual content contributors hang around there. (I keep taking it off my watch list but then find there's a certain ghastly fascination about it). One of these days I might create Amanda Elzy, too, rather than her just be a redirect to her namesake school - and the latest former pupil I've found, Tyree Irving, being a state court judge, probably passes criteria of notability too. But I need to get on with a lot of Real Life stuff and mustn't go down that route right now. PamD 14:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's okay, I didn't expect a rush of people leaping into the breach, I just hoped somebody would take on one so that I could make the points I tried to make — there is something really rotten and scandalous going on with education in the American Deep South and that the struggle against racism and for equal opportunity isn't a relic of the past, it is an ongoing problem today. Maybe that discussion keeps going and Jimmy Wales chimes in with his own observations — he graduated from a "white" private high school in Alabama — and that would be fascinating, too. Even if it doesn't, there's one fewer red link for the Mississippi Delta public (state) high schools thanks to you and that's something. It is a goal of mine that ALL of those have really proper, respectful, illustrated histories eventually — and that's going to mean a very unusual road trip one of these days... Thanks for your work on AEHS; it is a hard one to write because there honestly isn't much out there in terms of available source material on the internet. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

position statement re SYNTH/POV at you-know-where

Hi; have to go try and find food and coffee (without money) and get to the station, but please take the time to read all of this and note my subsequent comment on that same page about my knowledge being suggested as not coming from public sources. Where from then? Ouija boards? Galled by some on that page I'm re-seeing again, but refraining from comment as all the thwarts against me were what kept me from workign on the POV issues directly and laying out the context taht selective sourcing /POV SYNTH fortress-building hasn't allowed for. I know what I'm seeing, and I know what else there is. And what I'm seeing is...... nm I have nothing juicy to quip, it's been 24 hours since I ate and yay have money for a pancake. What's in that link is just from a selection of sourcing abuses and bad writing issues, I gave it my best...and threw off the shackles of dancing to the agenda he'd laid down, now stuck at page-cite b.s.; so I went at the POV issue directly...since I'm the only one who knows enough about the place to be able to deconstruct/analyze and lay out the POV and the problems with sources and SYNTH that have built it. Note the caveat in subsection.Skookum1 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Carrite!

Thank you for your message in my talk page. I am new here, but after my "Unity Ride in Latvia" article I am planning to make article about the bicycle history in Latvia - the biggest bicycle factory in Latvia and Baltic States - G. Ērenpreis bicycle factory. I see that there's no article in English about this historical fact, therefore I shall adapt Latvian article. First, I will try to submit my sandbox article to make sure if it goes through Wikipedia rules. Thanks again for message, such messages motivates to continue what I love to do the most - my profession which is bicycle restoration and bicycle history research — Ance Pudane, Riga, Latvia /// Ance P. (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2015

Ah, ha!

Well, Carrite, this is interesting: [1]. I always assumed you were a lefty, not a righty, based on your userboxen; if you are a lefty, kudos to you for maintaining a non-partisan NPOV in AfDs. The linked AfD is a perfect example of why I avoid political discussions on Wikipedia like the plague, and why I will never openly state my own political orientation. It's often disappointing to see how otherwise well-respected editors will behave in an overtly partisan manner at XfDs, etc., that involve political topics. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm a lefty, let there be no mistake. But I take the rule of law and NPOV very seriously and absolutely despise gang warfare for political ends on WP. Encyclopedias need to have ultra-comprehensive and truly neutral coverage of political parties and major political organizations and political leaders and I'm willing to go to the mats even for right wingers with whom I disagree 100% of the time on everything... See also: Gamergate. With respect to Sarek, I don't know if his motivation was political, but it struck me as over-the-top in its rabidity. Sometimes AfD nominators get that way, it's a corollary of the "page ownership" phenomenon. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Rolling back to that deletion debate of April 2011... Here's the phrasing I used on the other side of Sarek's nomination, which is certainly much more aggressive that what I would use in a similar circumstance today:

Keep - I favor a low notability standard for political parties and their youth sections regardless of ideology. That this is not a universally-held opinion is a pity because it has already lead to the elimination of useful encyclopedic information for no good reason. This is not a political party, of course, but it's close enough for rock and roll — an organization of political co-thinkers that has been in existence for over three decades. This is a de facto youth section of the Republican Party in Texas, with campus chapters around the state, including BAYLOR, TEXAS A&M, and TEXAS TECH, among others. Basically: the state-level Republican youth organization. No, I'm not a conservative, or a Republican, and I don't play one on TV — but this sort of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT exercise needs to stop. Leave valid content about political organizations alone. It belongs in an encyclopedia. Period. Carrite (talk) 9:48 am, 9 April 2011, Saturday (3 years, 10 months, 7 days ago) (UTC−7)

I sort of threw gasoline on it by playing the IDONTLIKEIT card, in retrospect. Carrite (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I play a lot of the AfD game, and I suspect I could have blown the whole thing out of the water with five links and a GNG/NORG rationale. Frankly, the arguments on both side were surprisingly weak and devoid of research. I would be surprised if an organization like that (in Texas, no less!) has not generated significant coverage in the Dallas and Houston newspapers, Texas Monthly, etc. My recent experience, however, is that many AfD participants do not understand the difference between trivial mentions, routine coverage, and significant coverage. And then it just becomes one giant opinionfest; we sometime delete articles on obscure topics we should keep, and we keep articles on NFL draftees who never played a down professionally. At some point, I'd like to conduct an online course on the elements of notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

My biggest pet peeve are biographies of journalists, which are really hard to suss out since other newspapers don't write about their competitors and newspapers writing on their own staff is "self-sourcing." Somehow a short-lived TV show host has it easier than a venerable, career journalist. Really weird. Agreed that the pro sports bar is the lowest, closely followed by garage bands, for which there is basically an unwritten cease fire on running masses of them through AfD. I'm okay with that, I'm an inclusionist, if the info is accurate and verifiable there shouldn't be an obsession with the so-called "reliability" of the sources used. Too often AfD is used as a cudgel to crush IDONTLIKEIT pieces though... Carrite (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

One thing I didn't mention above is that I'm consciously trying to change the way people think about political parties, to get them into the same class as high schools, cities, pro athletes, etc. So I usually make my Keep arguments from the starting point of basic principle rather than trying to "show sources," which is the way I usually go after things — as generally should be done. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

bullet in the head of?

really? "bullet in the head of" an idea? is that necessary? ... jane avriette:talk 18:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the context of this seemingly non-rhetorical question about rhetoric... I'm tempted to offer alternative metaphors involving tractors, pickup trucks, samurai swords, hand grenades, and splitting mauls but it's hard to know what to pull out of the verbal golf bag without context... Carrite (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarek's RfA

Hello Carrite. I don't think our paths have crossed in any meaningful way, so you have no reason either to know me or to care about mine opinion; i just wanted to drop by, however, and say that as one of the early participants i dropped back by and read your series of comments and eventual change of position, and i thought it represented a strength of character often not seen at RfA. Your ability and willingness to consider and reconsider your position rather than digging your heels in and holding a grudge is admirable. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 18:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words. What we do at Wikipedia is sometimes adversarial in nature, nothing moreso than at Articles for Deletion which is akin to a trial with two "sides" arguing pro and con based upon a body of law and established precedent in front of the "judge" who closes the debate. Things can get heated and worked up in such a venue and it's best to not get too bitter about anything that happens there as mean words and excessive behavior sometimes happens. I try not to hold grudges about anything — today's opponent is tomorrow's ally and "politics makes strange bedfellows," for one thing; we're all supposed to be Wikipedians trying to work in common to build an encyclopedia for the world for another and our basic agenda is thus probably more alike than dissimilar if one takes a close look. In any event, I really do appreciate your taking the time to stop by to pass that along. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

List of members of the Oregon Territorial Legislature

Howdy. Re: the redlinks. Thanks. Are you going to figure out the full names of some of those folks? I have time to help if you need it. Valfontis (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm just warming up for the day with this page (I'm actually working on a couple Black History Month pieces). I have in mind ultimately doing session-by-session index pages of Oregon legislators, having determined that such basic information is damned near impossible to find on the internet and feeling that eventually every state legislator from every state will have a stub article at least. I bumped into the List of members of the Oregon Territorial Legislature and immediately saw the problem of it not automatically updating completed work. Unfortunately, just turning everything to redlinks is creating a certain number of false blue links that have to be disambiguated. But hey, yeah, if you wanna go after a few of these to figure the names out better, that would be a huge improvement! —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As I play with it, I'm finding the information hard to use. Names should be alphabetical in two columns under each year, one for the "House" and one for the "Council." The three columns alphabetical by county is more than a bit of a mess. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I need to take a little break for Kitzhaber-->Brown updates, and then I'll take a look. If it helps, I own Oregon Voter Digest "Who's Who" editions for 1959-1967, and 1971-1981. If you're unfamiliar with it, it's a pro-industry publication. Not sure it's still a going concern. There was a conversation about it somewhere... Anyway they are full of legislator bios. I don't know if I can help with the mess but thanks for caring about Oregon's Old Dead Guys™. They haven't been getting much love the past few years. Valfontis (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna play with the basic restructuring of the first couple years to see how that works. Carrite (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Carrite!

Thank you for your answer in my talk page. I tried to follow your helpful suggestions in creating article about G. Ērenpreis bicycle factory, so here it is - draft in my sandbox. If you have time, I would be grateful if could check it and let me know what should I correct and if it is ready for publishing. Thanks again. — Ance Pudane, Riga, Latvia /// Ance P. (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2015

TR and La Follette

The book "the 103rd Ballot" states that La Follette was nominated at the convention stated. As to the TR digital Library thing, you can move it yourself if you wish.15:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

articles for creation

Why do you write "Articles For Creation should be shut down immediately as absolutely detrimental to The Project"? Is there some other process we should use instead? I've put a few articles through it and I'd say it's gotten unpleasant and bureaucratic compared to the old days, to the point where I'll probably quit using it for new articles unless it's fixed, but I'd need some persuasion (maybe doable) to get behind shutting it down completely. Thanks. 173.254.228.130 (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

With a backlog of weeks or month, it puts off new people who just want to fly in, drop off an article, and fly off — which is a huge percentage of contributors. Of course many of these articles are unsuitable, but that's apt to be a problem within a few days of launch if people just put articles up in to mainspace or six weeks down the road if and when the same article gets a review at AFC. It seems to me that the AFC process is just as arbitrary and potentially off-putting as having a random reviewer in the new articles queue handle it. If the problems are brought up within a few days of creation, there's a chance than the creator will fix the problems if they are identified fast. Four or six weeks later via AFC? Not so much. Basically all AFC does is piss people off. Carrite (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

New article - thank you, Carrite!

Thank you very much for your answer, corrections and suggestions about my new article in my sandbox page. I followed your helpful suggestions in creating article about G. Ērenpreis Bicycle Factory, so here it is - G. Ērenpreis Bicycle Factory, as well as I linked it to Latvian article, and did some small corrections, I hope it will not be banned from Wikipedia. Thanks again. — Ance Pudane, Riga, Latvia /// Ance P. (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2015

Pictures on G. Ērenpreis factory article

Thank you for suggestion on my new article about pictures: uploaded 2 pictures, made by myself as you suggested G. Ērenpreis Bicycle Factory, that's for now, hopefully I will upload better pictures later, taken by myself. Thanks again. — Ance Pudane, Riga, Latvia /// Ance P. (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2015

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1860 Republican National Convention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hickman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Portland Oregon (March 7, 2015)

You are invited!

• Saturday, March 7: Art+Feminism – noon to 5pm

  Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library (Mark Building, 2nd Floor; 1219 SW Park Avenue). Art+Feminism is a campaign to improve coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia. No Wikipedia editing experience necessary; as needed throughout the event, tutoring will be provided for Wikipedia newcomers. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

further to previous

[2] [3]. keyboard wifi key missing, will inbox you.Skookum1 (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Note

If you need Highbeam or Newspaper.com sources to help improve the page - please let me know. Only Boston CyberArts is covered on Highbeam though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

J.J. Mikkola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Slavic

Maila Talvio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Temperance

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Carrite. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Two questions for you...

1. What do you think of William_F._Buckley,_Jr.? Do you think it is ready for a GA nomination or can it go right to an FA nomination? It is quite informative, well written and looks to be stable. It is not a BLP which I believe you prefer, so do you have time to help with the review process?

I neither endorse nor participate in the GA/FA process. Once an article is well developed, it is time to move on to a new topic and work on that, not for three people to spend a week homogenizing a piece to fit every requirement of the Holy Manual of Style, Blessed Be Its Name. Time spent that way is time wasted and probably means two or three other articles that are never written or improved.

2. I was contemplating writing an article about the Wilson Block [4] which is located in the historic district of Dallas, TX. It originated from the era La_Réunion_(Dallas), which brought a significant number of settlers to the area seeking a socialist utopian community. I see that you are interested in that part of history, and wondered if you might be interested in collaborating there as well? Atsme☯^Consult 12:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the offer, it's interesting to learn of the district, but I've sadly got neither sources nor time for that particular piece. Good luck with it though! —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Atsme: Tim would have been a good choice for an objective GA reviewer because of his critical objectivity and opposite political orientation, but his current interests apparently lie elsewhere. I've been through the GA review process 10 times (11 if you include one I finished for another editor), and all articles I have nominated have passed the GA criteria on the first attempt. I would be happy to take a break from my usual sports and academic topics, and review this for you. The article is already well sourced (which make content improvements much easier), and I think it could achieve GA status with a couple of weeks of work. A good starting point would be to source every statement in the article and update the footnotes with current links and retrieval dates, and adopt a uniform format for all footnotes; that should be done before you nominate the article. Given the ideological nature of the subject's work, every attempt should also be made to carefully conform every sentence to NPOV before the review. Feel free to continue this discussion on my talk page, and I can share some additional thoughts with you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Transparency and accountability

Moved here from Jimbo's page to prevent distracting that discussion

We need more transparency and accountability in editing, not less. Cloaking IP addresses would be a big step backwards. Carrite (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised people are still making that argument after Eggers destroyed it in The Circle, a fictional work that shows how in the very name of transparency and accountability, a society transforms itself into a totalitarian state. Cloaking IP addresses is a huge step forward. You don't need to see an IP or a real name to know who is shilling what and pushing a POV. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The practical argument I make about the real world of Wikipedia hasn't been "destroyed" by an obscure piece of antiutopian fiction. It seems goofy for me to even have to say as much. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it obscure? I don't think so, but in any case, as I've said many times before, fiction can be used to simulate ideas and arguments, to see how thought experiments develop and to explore possible outcomes. This particular work shows how "more transparency and accountability" could lead to less individual privacy and less freedom. I think we have a solid consensus to prevent that situation from arising. The real problem with editing is that we don't have a system in place to critically examine claims and sources, to verify that they are being used accurately and appropriately. To date, nobody has been willing to address this problem. Some have suggested bringing in outside panels of experts, while others have proposed training active editors in critical thinking. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who our editors are, what matters is that they are making good edits. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the noble goal of content review is served by making it easier for those engaging in COI editing, POV pushing, and vandalism by hashing IP addresses so that the editing history of each is untraceable and their geolocation undeterminable. If you are worried about geolocation information being show, shut down IP editing altogether and require registration... Carrite (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand your objection. However, in my experience, it doesn't matter who the shill or POV pusher is, what matters is that others can identify the problem with their edits and act accordingly. And to date, there's a huge disconnect between one editor saying "excuse me, but your edits have unbalanced this topic in favor of the POV of company X", and another editor saying, "there's nothing we can do about it". The problem is that for the most part, unless someone is willing to step up during dispute resolution, the content review suddenly transforms into a behavioral review, which has nothing to do with the problem. So the most polite POV pusher wins, rather than the editor who can best critically analyze the content dispute. So at the end of the day, IMO, (and I know you disagree) the identity of the editors really doesn't matter. Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

IPs could simply jump from being bad actors on one page to being bad actors on another without detection. Examination of editing histories is essential in weeding out POV pushers, vandals, and other bad actors. Carrite (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

And yet, User:Wifione, a registered account with admin rights, was a bad actor, who acted without detection, regardless of his editing history. He succeeded for so many years for precisely the reason I gave above: he was a polite bad actor. The lack of critical thinking skills by many editors and admins who protected Wifione in the face of evidence to the contrary are in the archives. Yet, we should be more worried about IP bad actors? Hmmm... Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yes, we should. Wifione was ultimately caught, don't forget. How much harder would that have been if instead of a sockpuppet army he or she was able to hide behind a maze of hashed IP addresses, geolocatable to nowhere. This is a really nonsensical argument that you're making. One person — one account. Sign in to edit. Vandalism problems would be cut by about 3/4 overnight and for once we would have the ability to really, honestly ban bad actors. The very last thing we need to be doing is making it easier for IP vandals and those dodging accountability to edit WP. Carrite (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I see those as separate issues. For example, you could easily prevent one IP from creating multiple accounts without an extra layer of permission. We already have such a limit in place. And we already have many solutions to vandalism, one of them, pending changes, has limited rollout on EN. I really don't see how protecting the identity of IPs is connected to these issues. I'm far more concerned (and the evidence bears this out) with registered editors obtaining advanced permissions to manipulate content and processes. The real reason we allow vandalism (there's no other way to say it) is because it gives editors who don't write articles "busy work" with recent changes and a purpose (patrolling) to stick around. The users on this site would vanish overnight if we said, "Hey guyze, we're an encyclopedia, so let's start writing articles and reviewing content". Crickets... Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are making an argument close to my fundamental belief, expressed cynically on my user page, that the only reason IP editing is allowed at all is because it makes the vandalism easier to spot. You are one upping me in the cynicism department by indicating that this is essential for Wikipedia's health by insuring us a supply of volunteer MMORPG gamers to have fun slaying the never-ending waves of IP vandals invading Wikipedia. No IP editing, no vandals, and wouldn't that be boring for them? Well, how about this: make finding copyright violations into a game for them? Or, better yet, those attracted by the "fun" of templating hapless newcomers and vandals can just move on to playing Call of Duty if their services here are no longer required due to the massive reduction in vandalism that would follow an end to IP editing??? Carrite (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The scariest thing of all, I mean this is truly frightening, is that we prefer appointing admins who demonstrate their aptitude for busy work rather than finding problems with our content. Wikipedia truly does reflect the real world... :) Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There really is no adequate "content review" agency. One interesting idea that has been perking around on Wikipediocracy is that the name of ArbCom should be changed to "Discipline Committee" and that there should be an elected or expert-appointed body called the "Content Review Committee," or some such, with the power to dive into dysfunctional editing situations and impose a basic NPOV take on a controversial matter by fiat. There needs to be broad content review as WP matures. To some extent Articles for Deletion and Proposed Deletion touches the edges of this, smiting the most egregiously bad topics or treatments, but there is absolutely no systematic review process after the New Articles queue is cleared at the front gate. There is certainly an argument to be made for this. Carrite (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement

• Hello Carrite:

Please consider participating in this week's vote for TAFI's upcoming Week 17 collaboration. Last week's voting did not receive many participants. Thanks for your consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Utoy, Georgia

I closed as keep; you offered to do the rewriting. Nice research job at the afd. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed

I have been meaning to thank you for nominating me for autoconfirmed status. I have just been really busy lately with school and have not been able to work on discussion on the e-mail list or work on any wikiprojects here to an extent that I want because Grad school takes up so much of my time. Thank you again.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Benton County, Oregon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Thomas Hart Benton

Utoy, Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Georgia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Bias charges

Tim, I'm not being contrary, nor do I think you are being so. I genuinely think that allegations of misconduct belong at WP:ANI, not the articles themselves. Additionally, it may be that elements WP:BLP doesn't even apply, as the articles in question are about a business and a website, not a person. Not professing to be an expert on BLPs (or anything, really), I defer to your judgement on that. Best wishes, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Your second barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your work creating articles of pioneer professional golfers. The creation of stubs is not a romantic part of Wikipedia, but those are the seeds from which more expansive articles will eventually sprout. You are obviously putting some craftsmanship into editing those, which is more than can be said about most stub creators. Your work is appreciated. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Carrite, for the barnstar award and also for noticing my work. :-)--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, just a quick note to say thanks for the Barnstar and the kind words! Antepenultimate (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Good Morning Carrite

It has been a long time, but I need your assistance. I have not been involved with Wikipedia for several months, after the difficulty I had with other editors (where you assisted in replacing my deleted user page). I was content to stay in "wiki-retirement' and keep out of the fray. However, this morning, an editor with whom I have had no previous contact, and do not know, suddenly marked every Wikipedia article I have contributed to with maintenance and other templates. This person has proceeded to make ongoing entries on my user talk page and is threatening to shut me down as an editor. I asked who he was and what he wanted, with no response. My only guess is that he has a problem with me, possibly associated with the income inequality article I worked on quite a bit ... or when my user page was vandalized.

The articles with which I have been involved are fairly random. This editor has obviously has gone through my edit history and decided to damage or scar everything I have ever done on Wikipedia. No idea why. He seems to consider himself some sort of senior editor with authority over me. Is there any way you could talk to him or find out what is going on? Here is his info: The Banner talk

Thanks. Tolinjr (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block opened

You were recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Carrite. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 21:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

George Meany

Hello Tim,

You may remember a major expansion a few years ago. I did most of the work and am proud of it. KW added a bit, and you chipped in too. I am planning to nominate it for GA, and am checking things. I do not want to irritate anyone. Please look at his role in founding the American Labor Party in 1936. I want that to be solidly sourced and a good summary of his role. Also, the section about the 1963 March on Washington needs to be checked over. I want to be sure that his attitude toward the civil rights movement in the early 60's is conveyed properly. Was he really an important figure in the founding of the A. Philip Randolph Institute?

The lead is very weak and I intend to rewrite it in days to come. He was an important figure in U.S. labor history, and I want to convey him properly, especially because I find him distasteful in many ways. That's NPOV. Thanks, pal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi jIm— The first thing that caught my eye was the portrait, which clearly started as a color image but was converted at some point to b/w without them bothering to jam the brightness and contrast levels. I hammered it pretty hard and warmed it up a little, creating a new image on En-WP since it is a firm violation of my principles to give those shits at Commons one molecule of my time and effort. Revert if you wish. I concur that the lead is weak and needs to be rewritten.

I have huge problems with this line: "In 1936, he co-founded the American Labor Party along with David Dubinsky and Sidney Hillman, as a vehicle to organize support for the re-election that year of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and mayor Fiorello La Guardia among Socialists in the union movement.[7]" — While it is not my primary area or time of emphasis, I have read a bit about the formation of the ALP in the Socialist press and I have never bumped into George Meany's name in that regard — ever. Nor do I think it accurate that the ALP was nothing more than a mechanism to enable the reelection of FDR and LaGuardia among socialists, as this states. ALP was a legitimate third party effort in its first incarnation, in my view, although one that did not share the historic SPA obsession against "political fusion" with candidates of other parties (which used to be an expellable offense in the early days of the party!) I encourage you to research this whole question at a minimum, or to drop all reference to the ALP as tangential if you don't have time to do that. I am frankly calling bullshit on the line cited, although I'm not myself 100% sure of being right. Still, I'd bet you a quarter on each of the two objections I make here and think I'd win money.

Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

As for the March on Washington, that is outside of my time period. As for the A. Philip Randolph Institute, that sounds right but that is KW's world rather than mine, so you should ask him. He's back in good graces at Wikipediocracy, you could set up an account there and ask him by PM if you don't have his email address, or I can have him get in touch with you. Best, —Tim

Thanks for the feedback, Tim. Great work on the portrait, thanks. I verified that the cited book (about Reuther) does say that Meany was involved in founding the ALP, and the article accurately paraphrases the source. I will look for other sources about his role with the ALP but will leave that alone for now. As for the APRI, I haven't yet found a good source, but since it was an AFL-CIO venture, Meany certainly must have approved. I added a New York Times quote from A. Philip Randolph to the effect that Meany was not a bigot. I have rewritten the lead, but appreciate any input from others.

I have nominated the article for GA. As for approaching KW, I am not interested in communicating with banned editors about Wikipedia content though I wish him well as he was always cordial with me until the end. And I am not really interested in a Wikipediocracy account. Way too much bitterness and assumption of bad faith there, in my opinion, starting at the top. Sorry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bushrod Washington Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Placer and Oregon Pacific Railroad

Willamette Valley and Coast Railroad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Marys River

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You lost me at . . .

. . . SanFranBans. What does it mean? In puzzlement, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Lingo I came up with at Wikipediocracy to quickly and smirkily describe the "WMF Office Site Bans" that have recently been meted out to about half a dozen or so highly problematic editors. The WMF Office is in San Francisco, California, thus "SanFranBan." —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What? They have "problem" editors showing up at the WMF office? Seriously, for what purpose? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The Banners go to work in San Francisco, the Bannees live in Australia and England and places like that... Carrite (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of a ban of minimal impact, since the "Bannees" probably weren't regular visitors to the San Francisco office, right? Why were the "Bannees" banned? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the official term is "office actions." I'm surprised you haven't heard of these. I'm leery about going on at length on wiki but expect you could suss out a discussion or two at Wikipediocracy.com that would prove illuminating. I'm sure there's a polite phrasing I could use if I thought about it, but it is a slippery and problematic topic. Suffice it to say that WMF was concerned enough about certain editors with respect to various behaviors that they were locked out of the site without further comment. It was a very big issue at Commons with one of their contributors in particular. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't frequent Wikipediocracy, but I am curious what this is all about, and why you're being unusually cryptic. How does one even know about these bans? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Google is your friend. Search "WMF Office Action Site Ban"... Carrite (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon: Tuesday, May 12 at OHSU

You are invited!

• Tuesday, May 12, 2015: Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon – 1 to 4pm
• Wikipedia Edit-a-thon hosted by OHSU's Center for Women's Health in honor of National Women's Health Week
• Location: Biomedical Information Communications Center (3280 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239)
• This edit-a-thon is intended to address some of these important differences and to generally improve women’s health information in key articles and topics. Areas for improvement have been identified in cooperation with WikiProject Medicine. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please post to the event page.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list.

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

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 May

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

• On the Georgy Gapon page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Signpost inquiry

Hi, I've emailed you. Thanks. Tony (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements

Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page. 2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans. 3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages. 4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I changed the picture

[5] Peter Damian (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

White Legion (Zaire)

Hi Carrite. I saw you changed the name of the article Mercenaries in the First Congo War to White Legion (Zaire). I had some doubts about the original name myself. But I think the term White Legion only covered the Eastern-European mercenaries, I therefore wished to keep the name broad as to cover the other mercenaries as well. Any thoughts on that? Crispulop (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Crispulop - It's far outside of my area of expertise, but if it's correct that the big majority of mercenaries in that conflict were East Europeans known as the White Legion, it makes sense to me to run that as the basic search term with a redirect in to that from the former title. Of course the article is and could be broader than just that one subset. You know better than I but that seemed like the logical play when I came across the piece in the new articles queue. If you think I'm off base, feel free to switch it back. Excellent piece, by the way!!! best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Things to know . . .

Oh, that's catchy: "Nupedia's wiki". LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Mail call

Dropped you a line Worm^TT(talk) 11:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Trustees

Hi Tim. With only 3 places to fill it is obvious that not every one can get one. Nevertheless, congratulations on still getting a very respectable score. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

With a little luck maybe there will be 5 places to fill next time. I'm as pleased as I could be with the result, the incumbents all lost and the three who won were pretty much the list of "Best Possibles With An Actual Chance of Winning." I knew I was going to finish in the 7-12 range and was very heartened that the Favors outnumbered the Opposes by 2-to-1. It leads me to believe that another try next year is worth my time. Thank you and anyone lurking for your support, I do appreciate it. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If you try again next time, whatever side of the fence we are on at various discussions, you can count on my continued support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. You had my support. When was this announced? I had to go looking for the results. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry you didn't get a seat on the Board. I think it might help actually help matters to elect a trouble-maker to the board who simply wants to do nothing beyond asking embarrassing questions. (And FWIW, I've met Phoebe, she's a good person, but it is time for the old guard to leave the Foundation Board.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Llywrch- Ah, you misinterpret my motives. I want far more than to "ask embarrassing questions." I want to fix what is broken and ultimately to save the bureaucracy from themselves because I am a Wikipedian. Thanks for chirping in. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. I 100% agree that it is time for the Old Guard to leave the board, starting with Jan-Bart.

Heh. That's what happens when I leave a comment immediately after having read the comments to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-06-03/News and notes. Nevertheless I am glad you intend to much more than that. -- llywrch (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• A very respectable showing indeed, you should be proud. When more than 2 out of 3 people trust you, that is saying something. And for the record, I never though Tim would be a "troublemaker" on the board. Quite the opposite. I felt he would ask the tough questions, dig a little deeper and not take things at face value. In other words, he would add a little skepticism and accountability without fear of reprisal, which is exactly what a good Trustee does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Dennis. I don't consider my vote to have been wasted. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

LB workshop

Re: this - I think the Workshop is closed. I think there are some new-ish clerks involved, so that is probably the reason the page has not been locked. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, my bad, but the page should be locked. Carrite (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. It probably will be now that you have given them a nudge! Silver linings etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

LB Workshop phase closed a few days ago

So would you please revert [6]? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)