this edit summary made me laugh out loud, because it was exactly like edits I used to make before I installed a spell checker plug in for firefox. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I spell phonetically but I think with a Southern (US) accent, that and I randomly mix British and American spellings. I am used to having the misspelled words underlined but I have been using my iPad recently and iOS does not do that. I turned on autocorrect so now I may get weird words I did not mean to type but at least they will be properly spelled :) Jbh^Talk 15:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see you have reverted my edit on Julie Williams (scientist) changing 'awarded a CBE' to 'appointed a CBE' on grounds that a CBE is awarded not appointed.

CBE stands for 'Commander of the Order of the British Empire'; when one is made a member of an order of knighthood (as the OBE is) one is 'appointed' or 'made' and not 'awarded' - the latter terminology is for medals and decorations which are not awarded in order form. Although it's common enough to say that someone is 'awarded' a CBE - certainly it's intelligible shorthand, it is inaccurate English usage. To illustrate the point further, it would be absurd to say that one is "awarded a Member of the Order of the British Empire", i.e., as it is obvious that you can be made a Member but not awarded a Members (you can of course be awarded a membership, in which case one would write - clumsily - that X has been "awarded membership int the Order of the British Empire"

I have accordingly reverted your revert; I hope this clears things up!

Atchom (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atchom: No problem. The common usage ie this BBC article Falklands veteran Simon Weston awarded CBE by the Queen seems to be "awarded" however I do see "appointed" is several, arguably higher quality, places. The "common usage" can often be both common and wrong :) Jbh^Talk 20:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"that is significant and we not have a secondary source which says that it is significant." [1]. Even assuming you meant "we do not have...", I'm not clear on your meaning. Maybe I didn't drink enough coffee today? --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not expressing myself well and/or am confusing my arguments - I doubt coffee would help with that :) Essentially we now have a secondary source which considered the FBI statements re Ross significant. It also, as a matter of interest only, comments on why the FBI may have worded their section on Ross so oddly. In short part of the original argument was the FBI source was primary and no one considered it significnt enough to remark on in the secondary literature. That is not the case and it is necessary to know the FBI's claims to be able to discuss Ross' roll in Waco.

Really the Waco section just needs to be re-written but if the idea that the academic literature is somehow inherently biased against Ross catches on it is not worth the frustration. If I hear Ross say 'that source is bad they are NRM apologists' about one more critical source I may pull my hair out. It seems that everyone critical of him is an "NRM apologist". It seems that somehow the narrative Ross good - NRM bad is beginning to catch on. (Yeah, cults suck but, based on the sources, Ross is no angel either. He just has the time and energy to "manage" his BLP.) The more I read of the history or the "NRM/Cult wars" the more I see both sides are guilty of propaganda pushing. Personally I will take the views of the recognized experts unless and until I get a PhD in the subject (Not going to happen). Jbh^Talk 18:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you redacted a possible WP:OUTING violation, which is fair enough - but the identification is clear from the user's block log. Perhaps that needs to be redacted as well. StAnselm (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: I redacted based on the linked user page saying "This is a previous account of a current user but that the username isn't here for privacy/harassment issues" placed by an, at the time, admin. Maybe it is no longer applicable since it was placed over a year ago. Jbh^Talk 12:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern Levant. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've just received our answer from AN/I. Based on the closing statement, all articles and pages related to and on economics, so no, I don't think we'll have to worry much about a $ sign on some random article. Good that ought to make the situation sufficiently clear to EllenCT about where she can and cannot contribute, and also, to others on what she can and can not contribute. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is always good to bring up potentials for unintended conciquences and you are correct that it is good to avoid the chance of gaming sanctions to force an editor off. Note though that is is "edits and pages" [2] rather than 'articles and pages'. Typically this wording lets an editor edit articles/pages which contain material they are banned from but are not primarily about such topics so long as they avoid the portions relating to the topic ie allows them to edit Noticeboards, JT, Congressional Budget Office etc so long as they stay away from stuff relating to their topic ban.

If you notice someone trying to game the ban with petty stuff like $ signs etc please notify me. I do not believe it would be canvassing to do so as I a) was involved in the original discussion and b) have expressed an interest in being notified.

Cheers! Jbh^Talk 16:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are correct edits and pages, sorry my mistake. Agreed and wilco, let me know if you see such behaviour as well. I wasn't involved in the earlier discussions but tend to try to keep up with further discussions that spawn of ones I have participated in. Happy editing, Mr rnddude (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed down the RFC's here and here as they are malformed messes which are not going to go anywhere. If you wish to re-open them, please rephrase them into a more appropriate RFC, otherwise standard discussion on the talkpage should suffice. I am also notifying the other likely contributors. Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree they were malformed as well as being unlikely to be productive. I have no desire to reopen them. Jbh^Talk 20:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]