Hello!

Hey Groupuscule, could you please clarify why you added the {{Unbalanced}} and {{Advert}} templates to Johns Hopkins University with this edit? According to Wikipedia's policy for tagging articles, "anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag." I saw that a previous editor removed your tags earlier, and I would like to help you avoid the frustration of having future editors removing your tags if you have an important issue to address.

• If you have a general issue that you want to address, then please be helpful by leaving a message on Talk:Johns Hopkins University so that other editors can know how we can fix the article. Per WP:TAGGING, even if the problem is obvious it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how. If you leave a comment on the talk page, then other editors will be welcoming and help you address the article's problems.
• If you have a more specific issue, then feel free to use some of the section-specific templates or inline templates listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Inline templates are particularly helpful because they allow you to place captions within the text itself,(example: ^{[neutrality is disputed]}) thus increasing the chances that the problems with the article will be noticed/fixed.
• Even better, if you spot a particular error in the article and know how to fix it, then be bold and fix the mistake directly by editing Johns Hopkins University.
• If you are unsure which tags to use or how to use them, then Wikipedia:Responsible tagging provides helpful advice about how to maximize the likelihood that other editors will be able to address your concerns and fix the article's mistakes.

In general it is best to provide the fewest number of the most specific possible tags. Placing tags on an article is not a means of improving the encyclopedia: It is only a means of asking other people to improve an article that you cannot or will not improve yourself. Thank you for your edits, and feel free to leave your concerns on Talk:Johns Hopkins University. If you need help doing this, then you may read Help:Using talk pages or Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for assistance. --Apollo1758 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Apollo, but you'll notice we did leave a message on the Talk page. Granted there is more work to be done here, but it will take a little research. We don't use these flags lightly—in fact this is the only page where we've added them. Groupuscule (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my mistake! I forgot to check there and I read the article that you linked to. I agree that the page should detail the university's controversial relationship with the Baltimore community, including its actions in East Baltimore. But just try to be more explicit next time; it looks like maybe you can try flagging the History section for being unbalanced and creating a new Controversies section related to the university's controversial relation to the community. Though feel free to take your time to address the article's issues. --Apollo1758 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try Help:Citation tools --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link: WikiProject:Pollution --Ne0 (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested in this: Aam Aadmi Party --Ne0 (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only made the change for sake of accuracy. In a standard dictionary, "felon" is listed as a noun meaning a person who has committed a felony. "Ex-felon" generally will not be found in a dictionary. Of the two, the word listed in a dictionary is preferable in Wikipedia for obvious reasons. Even if "ex-felon" were a standard English language word, its meaning presumably would be a person who was formerly a felon. In the edited articles, this would be an inaccurate term to use, as the people addressed by that word are, in fact, felons - not people who were once convicted of a felony but then had that status changed so that they are no longer felons, as by an appellate court or a pardon. Using "felon" is not judgmental; it is the simplest and most accurate and specific term for what it means, and in fact is a rather sterile term that avoids connotations that come from terms such as "criminal" or "offender". "Felon" is also the term that is almost universally used by courts and statutes in addressing this class of people, and in most of those articles, the term is used because of its legal relevance: felons deprived of the right to vote by operation of law due to their felon status; difficulty in securing or retaining employment due to being a felon; etc. It is the most appropriate and useful term for what is communicated in those articles.

I would reiterate what the dictionary says as being the strongest authority on this topic, but I also want to share a few thoughts generated by your most recent discussion of this subject on my page. Your citation for negative connotations of the word "felon" ("evil, bad, immoral") cites its infrequent adjective form. In each instance we're discussing, the word was used as a noun, and as a simple, objective noun, signifying that the person or persons in question were convicted of a felony, and nothing more. If you want to differentiate between people who are incarcerated and those who are not, the term to use would generally be "prisoner", or in some instances "inmate". "Ex-felon" is not an accurate term to describe all (or even most) people who were formerly prisoners.

But I would suggest something else to consider. You are right that felons face stigma in society, but using a different but less accurate or precise word to describe them on Wikipedia isn't appropriate, even (or perhaps especially) if motivated by a good faith intention to lessen or combat that stigma, including for reasons I didn't mention earlier. I'd suggest that using the term "ex-felon" in place of the more accurate term "felon" will for some people confuse the issue - especially those who are casual readers or not invested or particularly interested in the issue. Using the term "ex-felon" indicates that felons somehow escape their felon status and the stigma and social disabilities that go with it, but as we know, for the vast majority of felons, that does not happen. Using that inaccurate term "ex-felon" could lead readers to the easy (as written) but inaccurate conclusion that felon status is not usually an inescapable lifelong designation, but instead something that is temporary. Perhaps worse, it could indicate to many readers that felons are prisoners and ex-prisoners are ex-felons, and therefore the stigma and disabilities borne by felons are only borne by prisoners. That, I think, would be at odds with the concerns you've mentioned.

I hope you'll give these comments some thought especially as they relate to your concerns about judgmental reading, conclusions drawn and recognition of obstacles faced by felons (often or usually for life). I'm not sure we're really at cross-purposes here, as you might have initially supposed.

I am writing to you as you have signed up to the Education Meetup at Wikimania 2012 and perhaps are interested in how Wikipedia links to education. Wikimedia UK is now running a education related event that may be of interest to you: the EduWiki Conference on 5-6 September in Leicester. This event will be looking at Wikipedia and related charitable projects in terms of educational practice, including good faith collaboration, open review, and global participation. It's a chance to talk about innovative work in your institution or online community, and shape the future of Wikimedia UK's work in this area!

The conference will be of interest to educators, scholarly societies members, contributors to Wikipedia and other open education projects, and students.

For details please visit the UK Chapter Wiki.

Please feel welcome to register or promote within your network.

Thank you, Daria Cybulska (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a lot of time recently working on the Monsanto article. I just saw your comment today in which you wrote "Strange how the article has gone from an anti-Monsanto POV to a conspicuously pro-Monsanto POV. Wikipedians worry about unsophisticated vandals, but need to pay more attention to corporate infiltrators who are savvy enough to use complete sentences and cite their sources". You are obviously talking about my work. 1) For somebody who proudly has the motto "I value fairness, truth, & justice!", you have made me feel like crap - unfairly judged and dismissed. 2) I am not an "infilitrator" - I have tons of edits all over. You can check them out. 3) The changes are not "strange" - I have carefully annotated what I have done and have engaged with people on Talk. 4) For the record, I work at a university, not at Monsanto. I am not a "corporate infiltrator". 5) The article is not pro-Monsanto. It is (becoming) free of vitriol and coming into line with wiki's POV policies. I have been careful to retain discussion of controversial and bad acts of Monsanto. Your comment has really stuck in my craw. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I'm sorry I made you feel bad. That wasn't my goal at all. That comment I made on August 1 was regarding changes in the Monsanto article over the last few years, not the specific changes you've made in the past few weeks. I think most of these changes have decreased redundancy and improved clarity, and I appreciate them! I certainly wasn't trying to direct it at you personally.
It is true that I fear whitewashing of pages about corporations on Wikipedia. For example, I do think it's important that Monsanto is giving lots of money to oppose Proposition 37 in California. But you'll notice I haven't undone Arc de Ciel's total rollback of my edits on the topic, even though they frustrate me.
I appreciate your response to my question about toxicity, and you'll notice I haven't made any reverts there, either. I need a little more time to think about the best way to talk about this information, and there's no reason to reactively protect a specific factoid that was on the page.
I think good faith is a great idea, on- and off-line. Please understand that when I attack whitewashing, I'm trying to think about the system at large and not call out one particular editor. I did look at your contribs, I think you have a neat set of interests. :-) love, groupuscule (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply. :) I hope we can work together to make this a useful page. Yesterday I started looking at the pages of other companies in the space -- Dow Agra, Dupont Pioneer, Syngenta... none of them seem to be the target of ire in the way that Monsanto (and its page) have.. I find this so strange since their business practices are exactly the same, and all of them, being big chemical companies, have terrible environmental legacies. This makes no sense to me, practically speaking. The only explanation I can come up with, is that Monsanto pioneered the biotech business model in agriculture (getting patents and enforcing them) - but unlike companies in, say, the pharma space who sue other companies when they infringe, companies in agbio sue their customers too (farmers). It would be like a pharma company suing a patient! But the structure of the businesses are different, so that is what happens (patients cannot replicate drugs, but farmers can replicate seeds) But it is still upsetting.. a huge adjustment. And maybe patent law should be changed so it can't happen.. but that is a different question. But in any case, they pioneered it, so the ire has stuck to them, while their competitors just waltz by. Do you see what I mean about the focus on Monsanto. and if so, how do you explain it?Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. If you have a problem with one of my edits, please just ask me about it and I'm happy to discuss. I wrote an explanation for that edit on the talk page (diff): my reason for reverting you, as I said (in more detail), was that the source is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist.

It's not as if the information on California has been removed from the article. In fact, I thought your version was better written than the version that was there at the time, even though I think "filtered through" is POV since it implies that they're trying to hide it. Also, I'm not sure why you used the term "total rollback" for a three-sentence paragraph - it was a regular revert (see WP:BRD), with an invitation to discuss. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, AdC. Partly at that time I was feeling frustration with the whole system, because of the idea that a news source could be on the 'spam blacklist' because its authors make money when people view their sites. Other newspapers make money when people view their sites, too... and (e.g.) 'blogspot' isn't on the blacklist, so this isn't about peer review. In any case I don't think we should be in the business of censoring edits to the encyclopedia at the software level.

"Total rollback" referred to undoing the whole edit rather than (e.g.) replacing with citation needed or something like that. groupuscule (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's called a revert. (FYI rollback is not the same thing.) Anyways, from reading the archives, it seems to be that the website is almost never a reliable source. As I said, you can request for the blacklisting to be lifted (you can also request the specific article to be permitted) and if you can do this I will follow that decision. Blogspot isn't on the blacklist because it can be reliable in certain cases, mainly when citing the personal statements of a public figure or if the author is a known expert on the subject. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't necessarily have an objection to that individual edit, the user behind the IP is a serially blocked user who's been plaguing articles on the assassinations of Lincoln, King and Kennedy with some useful edits, some pointless, and a lot of "alleged assassin" edits for the past year and a half. They're currently on a spree of inserting unsupported commentary on Lincoln's death, and they've been spamming their Kennedy conspiracy theory site. Blocked means they can't edit, period, so they've been reverted when discovered. Sometimes that means reverting useful edits, and you're free to reinstate if you wish, but please review edits from that 92.x.x.x range very carefully. I tried to give them a break last week on the condition that they abide by sourcing, NPOV, etc., and they abused my trust, so I've lost what sympathy I had. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. The edit in question clarified that relevant witnesses saw King's shooting, not his death. A subsequent edit changing 'claim' to 'believe' is less obviously reasonable. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been rewritten.But i feel there is some problem in article.Please help through copy editing .Thank you 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 09:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be my pleasure! I'll give it a go in a few hours. groupuscule (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am back and will be able to reply your queries regularly.Please ask on article's talk page if you have any doubt regarding topics.dont forget to leave a message on my talk page after completing copy editing Thanks --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 14:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2012 Enterprise Zone Map.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the encouragement. I realized that he had a library named for him but little notice. He was so impt. to mid-20th century unionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmccook (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is garbage and needs to be neutral. Otherwise, it's just POV pushing. ViriiK (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that there are a lot of eager Paul supporters on the web and that their ideal page on the RNC would probably not be weighted well. And I'm totally open to the idea of changing or removing that particular quotation. But removing a whole section on rule changes that exclude Paul from the convention? Posting to the talk page without waiting for discussion? Immediately reverting back to your own edit after a compromise has been attempted? I find these edits be pretty inappropriate. Indeed, your general pattern of edits to the page hardly seems to reflect 'neutrality'. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have approved your DYK nomination for the Swift raids article but have suggested that the image is not used. Your comments would be welcome. If you do want the image used you need to include the word (pictured) in the hook somehow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think you're right about the picture. It's just a stock photo of a badge, not a picture of the event itself. groupuscule (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. I am sorry that it has taken this amount of time to attend to your request. Please be advised that we have been unable to close your request based on the information supplied. Please visit the whitelist request page and search for your name or the site you requested where you will see details of what additional information is required. Please note that replies here or on my talk page will not be taken into account. Please also note that if no information is received within two weeks from now, your request may be treated as withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message, "Stifle". I responded over at the request in question. I am really frustrated with the censorship that is being built into the cite. groupuscule (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but "Latin@s" is an extremely awkward and clumsy way of solving something which is not a problem with the English language at all, and which I doubt very much is any kind of prevalent Spanish-language practice (considering that padres is the Spanish word for "parents", and reyes the word for "king and queen"). The German "-Innen" thing is also quite awkward, but it attempts to solve an actual problem in the German language, while "Latin@s" isn't related to any difficulty in the English language itself. Some might call it phoney political correctness run amok; I'll just say that it glaringly calls attention to itself far more than it fulfills any valid or useful function. Furthermore the at-sign is the typewriter or 7-bit ASCII solution, while Wikipedia uses Unicode... AnonMoos (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, I think you are right about some of the disadvantages of "Latin@". It has become a fairly popular term in recent years because it quickly refers to a group of people (from Latin America) without using a male-gendered word as the default for referring to males and females. I would strongly prefer to avoid the use of a male-gendered term to describe a people in general—and I'd even say I don't mind it if the solution to this problem 'calls attention to itself' a little bit, since 'neutral' terminology has the tendency of reinforcing a viewpoint which is not neutral at all (i.e. 'the people' are primarily the men). I do agree that "Latin@" may be confusing, and you're right that the at-sign may be typographically inappropriate on Wikipedia and (on search engines). Can we come up with a better alternative? —Salaam, groupuscule (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The English language simply doesn't have many sex-specific nationality terms, other than obsolescent semi-relics (which now often sound pretentious and/or offensive and/or like they belong more to journalistic jargonese than ordinary spontaneous language), such as "Parisienne", "Jewess", "Frenchwoman" etc. The form "Latino" is definitely not sex-specific in the plural in the Spanish language (consult padres, reyes etc.), so why on earth should it be imported into the English language as a strictly and exclusively male-only term -- something which creates far more problems than it solves?? The whole question of "Latin@s"[sic] simply doesn't arise unless you try to force English to become "more Spanish than Spanish itself" and import a Spanish distinction into English in a way that's rather unnatural and artificial for English, and then enforce this distinction in a way which actually doesn't occur in Spanish... I'll freely admit we have problems with linguistic sexism in English (double meaning of "man" etc.), but trying to force Spanish distinctions into English in a way which does not fit with the spirit of the English language (and is not in fact the way things are done in Spanish itself), and then applying the at-sign "solution" to the problem which has been artifically created, strikes me as being pointless in the extreme... AnonMoos (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many Western languages don't have "sex-specific nationality terms", or, more accurately, legitimately sex-neutral nationality terms, because patriarchy has been in effect for a long time. (Padre - pater - patriarch - patriotism etc. etc. etc.) I don't think this justifies patriarchy or its linguistic relics. I don't want to distort language to unrecognizability, particularly on this encyclopedia, but I do think we should seek out terms that are more legitimately gender-inclusive. How do you feel about Latino/Latina? groupuscule (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign gender distinctions imported into English are somewhat exotic, and usually don't last all that long in common usage (blond/blonde, confidant/confidante, fiancé/fiancée etc). If in Spanish usage "Latinos" can refer to both genders in the plural, but "Latinas" can't, so that "Latino" is the more general term than "Latina", then that's really a problem with the Spanish language, not with the English language -- as seen from the fact that this same Spanish pattern applies to cases like "padres" and "reyes" which have no parallel in English. My guiding principle is that English should not be made to suffer for the sins of Spanish -- English already has its own long-standing problems, but new problems should not be created by trying to inappropriately apply Spanish rules to English... AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking them! Do you want me to give more suggestions for images? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! I like the idea of Wikimedia community across places. So please suggest away. (Prison food might be difficult, though.)groupuscule (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Here is a list:

• Baltimore
  • File:Mitchellcourt.JPG needs to be moved to the Commons
  • Maryland Department of Planning headquarters: 301 West Preston Street, Suite 1101, Baltimore, MD 21201
  • Baltimore City Public Schools headquarters: 200 E. North Avenue Baltimore, Md. 21202 - File:Balto ed building.jpg
  • Baltimore City Fire Department headquarters: 401 E. Fayette Street Baltimore, MD 21202
  • Baltimore Police Department headquarters: 242 W. 29th St. Baltimore, MD 21211-2908
  • Maryland State Department of Education headquarters: 200 West Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21201
  • Maryland State Highway Administration headquarters: 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, MD 21202 File:State Highway Administration Box.jpg
• Baltimore County
  • Rosedale
    • The McDonald's at the 6300 block of Kenwood Avenue - site of the 2011 Rosedale, Maryland beating
  • Towson
    • Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services headquarters: 300 East Joppa Road, Suite 1000 Towson, Maryland 21286
    • Baltimore County Public Schools headquarters: 6901 Charles Street Towson, Maryland 21204
• Anne Arundel County
  • Annapolis
    • Annapolis City Hall - 160 Duke of Gloucester St. File:Annapolis City Hall.JPG File:Annapolis City Hall 2.JPG
    • Annapolis Fire Department - 1790 Forest Drive Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Maryland State Archives - Dr. Edward C. Papenfuse State Archives Building - 350 Rowe Boulevard - Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Headquarters of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources - 580 Taylor Avenue - Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Headquarters of the Maryland Department of Budget and Management, Maryland Department of Information Technology, Maryland State Ethics Commission (located on third floor) - 45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401 File:45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401.JPG File:45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401 - front door.JPG File:45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401 - side view.JPG File:Department of Budget and Management.JPG File:45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401 - fourth floor.JPG File:State Ethics Commission.JPG
    • Headquarters of the Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs - 16 Francis Street, 4th Floor - Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Headquarters of the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund - 1750 Forest Drive Annapolis, Maryland 21401-4294 - See photo on the website
    • Annapolis Police Department - 199 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Anne Arundel County Public Library Annapolis Area Branch - 1410 West Street, Annapolis, MD 21401
    • J. Albert Adams Academy - 245 Clay St Annapolis, MD 21401-1000
    • Wiley H. Bates Middle School - 701 Chase Ave Annapolis, MD 21401-1000
    • Eastport Elementary School - 420 5th St Annapolis, MD 21403-2537
    • Georgetown East Elementary School - 111 Dogwood Rd Annapolis, MD 21403-2701
    • Germantown Elementary School - 1411 Cedar Park Rd Annapolis, MD 21401-3201
    • Walter S. Mills-Parole Elementary School - 103 Chinquapin Round Rd Annapolis, MD 21401-4003
    • Tyler Heights Elementary - 200 Janwal St Annapolis, MD 21403-1919
    • West Annapolis Elementary School - 210 Annapolis St Annapolis, MD 21401-1312
    • St. Mary's High School - 113 Duke Of Gloucester St Annapolis, MD 21401 File:St. Mary's High School.JPG File:St. Mary's High School 2.JPG
    • USPS Annapolis Main post office - 1 CHURCH CIR ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401-9998
    • USPS Legion Avenue post office - 210 LEGION AVE ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401-9996
    • USPS Eastport post office - 821 CHESAPEAKE AVE ANNAPOLIS, MD 21403-9998
  • Annapolis Neck
    • Annapolis Elementary School - 1399 Forest Drive Annapolis, MD
    • Annapolis Middle School - 1399 Forest Drive Annapolis, MD 21403
  • Hanover
    • Headquarters of the Maryland Department of Transportation - 7201 Corporate Center Drive Hanover, Maryland
  • Hillsmere Shores
    • Hillsmere Elementary School - 3052 Arundel On The Bay Rd Annapolis, MD
    • Eastport-Annapolis Neck Branch Library - 269 Hillsmere Drive, Annapolis, MD 21403
  • Parole
    • Headquarters of Anne Arundel County Public Schools - 2644 Riva Road Annapolis, Maryland 21401
    • Annapolis High School - 2700 Riva Road Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Headquarters of Maryland Department of Agriculture - 50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy, Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Headquarters of Anne Arundel County Public Library - 5 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Rolling Knolls Elementary - 1985 Valley Rd Annapolis, MD 21401-6753
    • USPS Naval Academy post office - 1 WILSON RD ANNAPOLIS, MD 21402-1205
  • US Naval Academy area
    • Naval Academy Primary School (NAPS) - 74 Greenbury Point Road Annapolis, MD 21402 - It is NOT affiliated with the US DOD

If you take photos in the Washington DC area, I could list those too. The University System of Maryland has its HQ in Adelphi which is in Maryland but in the Washington DC MSA. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, keep 'em coming. Baltimore proper is much easier for me than the county, and I don't get to DC that often, but it will be cool to have a mission when I do go to these places.

Thanks! I'll take a look at the category WhisperToMe (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else in Annapolis? I may visit soon. groupuscule (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I posted a large number - See which ones you want to do, or try them all if you'd like :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your contributions! Now, about the St. Mary's images, did you photograph the main high school? It can be seen at this view - I'm determining to see if St. Mary's Hall belongs to the high school or the church WhisperToMe (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want another one, the Howard County Public School System headquarters, is at 10910 Clarksville Pike (Route 108), Ellicott City, MD 21042 - Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello G,

I messed up the format on anticommuincation page -- I need a lesson -- ondixonhill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondixonhill (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Groupuscule,

Please feel free to edit the following entry as you please. I am losing my patience here. I am trying to chalk it up to lack of knowledge about the history of Black Casred music but am starting to get the feelinmg that it is something darker. In any event. I would appreciate if you would help format this enry so it conforms to Wiki "standards" Thank you.

TRUE AUTHOR OF WE SHALL OVERCOME FINALLY REVEALED

In August of 2012, the book "We Shall Overcome: Sacred Song on the Devil's Tongue" (ISBN: 978-0615475288), was published. Written by author and 30-year music-industry veteran, Isaias Gamboa, the book proves in extraordinary detail that We Shall Overcome was actually derived from a popular copyrighted Baptist hymn entitled "If My Jesus Wills"; written by a Cincinnati, Ohio woman named Louise Shropshire. The evidence in the book clearly demonstrates that Shropshire's song was in fact COPYRIGHTED in 1954, proving her song to be the original source of We Shall Overcome -not Charles Albert Tindley's "I'll Overcome" as has been erroneously alleged for over 52 years. The book also reveals that Louise Shropshire was a close, influential friend of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth and Rev, Thomas A. Dorsey and features never-before-seen photographs of Shropshire with these historical figures. After thorough analysis, prominent musicologists, historians, copyright and legal experts have unanimously affirmed these extraordinary discoveries. In addition to the striking musical similarities, Louise Shropshire's lyrics expose and bare witness to this fifty two year old historical innacuracy. Shropshire's lyrics:

                      I'll Overcome, I'll Overcome, I'll Overcome Someday
                      If My Jesus Wills, I Do Believe, I'll Overcome Someday".

After numerous attempts, in August of 2012, Isaias Gamboa made contact with Pete Seeger and in a video-taped meeting at Seeger's home in upstate New York, Seeger was shown the overwhelming evidence of Shropshire's Music and Lyrics. Without hesitation, Seeger stated "This is Wonderful" and stated that Louise Shropshire "should be part of We Shall Overcome's history" ^[1]

Possible 'wikified' version of the above:

Authorship of "We Shall Overcome"

A 2012 book by Isais Gamboa (We Shall Overcome: Sacred Song on the Devil's Tongue) argues that "We Shall Overcome" should be originated primarily to a popular Baptist hymn entitled "If My Jesus Wills". "If My Jesus Wills" was written and copyrighted in 1954 by a Cincinnati, Ohio, woman named Louise Shropshire. The book includes statements from musicologists, historians, copyright and legal experts. Gamboa also presents evidence that Shropshire was a close, influential friend of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth and Rev, Thomas A. Dorsey.

Shropshire's lyrics:

I'll Overcome, I'll Overcome, I'll Overcome Someday
If My Jesus Wills, I Do Believe, I'll Overcome Someday

Gamboa made contact with Pete Seeger in August of 2012. In a video-taped meeting at Seeger's home in upstate New York, Gamboa showed Seeger the evidence that Shropshire originated the hymn. Without hesitation, Seeger stated "This is wonderful" and stated that Louise Shropshire "should be part of We Shall Overcome's history".^[2]

Response(s)

OK, working on the text here is fine. We can also do on the talk page. The main issue is finding sources. I can't cite from a book I don't have. To cite from the book, the best thing to do is cite page numbers, and maybe even use quotations. If you are Isaias Gamboa (be honest!) it might not be the best thing for you to cite, either. Is the book available in any libraries that you know of, where maybe we could convince another Wikipedian to check them out? Are there relevant passages you could post or send? Or, better still, are there online resources that make the case? I am interested in helping with this and I want to do it right. I'll make a little effort at transforming the above into more encyclopedic language, and maybe you can help me with sourcing. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes above to get the language closer to encyclopedic tone. More references would still be good. I know this may seem watered down. Believe me, I understand what may be borne in those lyrics over 52 years. But this is a type of editorializing that will work better almost anywhere else on the internet than on Wikipedia. groupuscule (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITIONAL PRESS FOR GAMBOA BOOK / Hope this helps. P.s. I am Isaias Gamboa and would absolutely prefer for someone else to cite this very important entry. http://www.vibe.com/article/isaias-gamboa-explains-who-wrote-we-shall-overcome http://www.wsbradio.com/Player/101498721/ http://wchbnewsdetroit.com/2426934/book-review-we-shall-overcome-sacred-song-on-the-devils-tongue-by-isaias-gamboa/ http://sundaymorningliveblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/sml-88-99-no-show-labor-day-weekend/ http://www.eurweb.com/2012/10/new-book-reveals-the-untold-history-of-iconic-civil-rights-anthem-we-shall-overcome/ http://www.caribpress.com/2012/10/13/costa-rican-author-isaias-gamboa/

References

Hey, here is Mark Yoffe from GWU's Gelman Library's International Counterculture Archive, interested in doing a personal article for Wikipedia on myself. Would you mind to collaborate? If yes, what's the next step? Should I send you a write up?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toastormulch1 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the kind words. I don't believe we've interacted before and I haven't seen you on ancient Egypt-related talk pages, so I'm mildly curious as to how you became aware of my work. A. Parrot (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was browsing through articles for peer review and saw Egyptian mythology. And I read it and thought, 'wow, this article is really good'. Looking into the history, I saw that you pretty much created it out of whole cloth and have been working all year on the expansion. And I was all like, holy cow, this editor has been working really hard on this article without major collaborators. Then I looked at your "contribs" and saw that you actually work on maybe a hundred other ancient Egypt articles, too. That's awesome! Awesome -> barnstar. groupuscule (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mostly I just edit those articles occasionally to keep them from getting worse; I can only concentrate on a couple at a time. But I have created or rewritten a few fairly important articles. It's all a product of my long-standing ancient Egypt obsession, which may be getting crazier as it goes along. I'm always glad when someone appreciates the outcome. A. Parrot (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, one of my target articles for next year will indeed be a holy cow. A. Parrot (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool neckwear. groupuscule (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left my responses here. I'll work on some of your points tomorrow; on others I'm not so sure and would like your replies to my replies. A. Parrot (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining WikiProject Freedom of speech! :) — Cirt (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating it. It's an interesting topic that touches on many different articles. For example, there is a free speech zone in Baltimore's Inner Harbor, which I've been doing a little work on... and would love some help. The page on freedom of speech itself could also really use some work. It's also a really important and really difficult topic. groupuscule (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! In the future you can post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech for ideas on collaboration projects going forwards, or just simply to list important pages that could use improvement. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. The reason I put Jews there is because Israel is in West Asia, where the Jewish diaspora (except black and Indian Jews) originated. Putting Jews in the European section wouldn't have made much sense, especially considering that a large portion of Jews aren't European at all (Mizrahi, Ethiopian Jews, etc).69.248.98.23 (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...I understand and mostly agree, as I said in my comment to you. No offense, but your response to me does confirm the view that your edits are a little one-track-minded. You might consider working on some unrelated less controversial topics—for a while—to get a feel for collaboration and Wikipedia's trademark "neutral point of view". Good luck, groupuscule (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Can we interpret your remarks as supporting the move from "entailment" to "logical consequence?" This issue has plagued that article for a long time now, and I would like to move forward with it. Would you be willing to clarify your position by appending Support to your remarks? It is not clear at all that it will work at all out yet. Anything you could do to help move it forward would be greatly appreciated. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm really surprised that no one has weighed in on this question. But in fact I would suggest re-splitting, creating a new article for logical consequence or logical implication (I'm curious to learn why you prefer the former) and leaving "entailment" for anyone who wants to work on it as such (as some sort of 'relationship between sentences and operators' and not simply a logical operation). And in the process excise content from the 'entailment' page present and past that would be more appropriate for the new consequence (or implication) page. groupuscule (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support having two articles for the same concept, but even so; I had tried spliting the content into a newly expanded logical consequence article. However, my contribution was reverted. So there is a political environment going on here that we have to overcome. The original move was done without consensus, and my proposal to move it back failed because I didn't lay out a big case (in my mind it should have been very clear). I prefer the term "logical consequence" because it is more common in the scholarly literature (65k v 53k on google scholar). Furthermore, most of the most notable experts, (Quine, Carnap, Tarski, Russell, others) use the term "logical consequence" as well as all four of the reference resources I provided. This should be a slam dunk, and I really would like it resolved after years of being hindered by it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Greg Bard (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to create too much of a factionalist split among those wishing to change the current hegemony of the "entailment" article, but: not only is that not a very big difference, on Scholar, but also many of those articles refer to X as a "logical consequence of" Y; whereas "logical implication" unambiguously refers to the operation taking place. Eh? I mean, this page looks very nice, as someone mentions on entailment talk; why not simply restore that?

No, I don't support "logical implication" at all. I have never seen it used in any of the literature I have studied. I think the main supporting issue is the use of "logical consequence" by the other philosophy reference resources (SEP, InPho, IEP and PhilPapers). I have communicated with the editors of these resources, and I would like to have the philosophy department at WP as consistent with them as possible, and that is what I have been working on.Greg Bard (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Added a comment explicitly supporting the move to "logical consequence". groupuscule (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Feminist Africa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to losing my temper a little in response to your edits. groupuscule (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so did I, I guess. Let's start over... :-) I really am sympathetic to this journal, given its origin and subject matter. Let's see whether we can find good sources and if such turn up I'll withdraw the AfD. However, I really have to apply the same standards that I apply to other journals here, too... In addition, I'm not all that familiar with this field, so I'm afraid that the sources will have to come from you... Do you know of any database that this journal is indexed in? For that matter, do you know its ISSN? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Feminist Africa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist Africa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Guillaume2303, I find your choices here to be rude and unproductive. (See talk page for more.) groupuscule (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Groupuscule for your comments. From your interests, I think one article that might benefit from your attention concerns the Death of Mark Duggan. I'll be able to improve it eventually, I think, but overcoming the inertia of the "official" story has been impossible so far. -Darouet (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe just drop me a line if you think the Death of Mark Duggan page might be improved, or if you have any ideas! -Darouet (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification and the review. I've proposed an alt hook on Template:Did you know nominations/List of Intangible Cultural Heritage elements in Eastern Europe. Hope that works. Cheers,--xanchester (t) 03:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Groupuscule, Thanks for your review of The Making of a Teacher, and for your kind and thoughtful comments. I've recorded on the review template that I like and prefer the Alt1 hook you proposed... so when you get a chance, you can indicate if you think the hook is ready to go. Thanks! -- Presearch (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that you missed the clearest statement about the mound not being a mound; I've quoted it in the DYK discussion. Thanks for the praise for the hook! Nyttend (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#White Privilege". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 21:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed this article. What a great contribution—thanks! --BDD (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stopping by to say so! :-) groupuscule (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thanks for the DYK reviews for Art and emotion and Psychology of music preference and for the comments at Talk:Art and emotion. The class is Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Cognition and the Arts (Greta Munger) and is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/APS-Wikipedia Initiative. The professor, User:Greta Munger, has done 3 courses over 3 semesters involving the wiki...and there are some fairly interesting topics. If you're interested in participating in similar courses in the future, see Wikipedia:United States Education Program and Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Apply. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yum! Thanks, I'll check it out. groupuscule (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1949 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Inauguration of Harry S. Truman

Oregon State Penitentiary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Adlai Stevenson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Aerial view of Oregon State Penitentiary.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I have emailed the Salem Public Library to make sure they are okay with an acceptable Creative Commons license. groupuscule (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Amina Mama at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Harrias ^talk 15:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the nomination further, and there are still some outstanding issues in Feminist Africa. Harrias ^talk 11:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, at Template:Did you know nominations/Civil Rights Congress I have come up with three issues, one bit not expanded enough and some duplicate sentences with other authors, which may be an infringement. So you may be able to sort this out. Since you have a quadruple hook, I would also like to see you review three other articles worth of DYK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Groupuscule. Many thanks for your thorough review of the DYK nomination. I've responded to the issues you raised at the nomination page. Many thanks again. Yazan (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: Template:Did you know nominations/Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center

First, thanks for your recommendations, especially about the lede... I never would have noticed as it was the only part I did not completely rework. I've made some progress and comments. Thanks again. -- THMOPENREECYRA (public) 02:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to do anything with this article hook now that it is approved for DYK? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are welcome for the review! Second, no, you shouldn't have to do anything; someone should promote the hook soon. I'll put another green tick mark on it just to make that more obvious. groupuscule (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Groupuscule, just wanted to say thanks for your improvements to Jane Jacobs! You're right that it still needs a lot to do, but would be great to see it at WP:GA one day. Cheers, --ELEKHH^T 04:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! That's about the best thing anyone has every said to me on Wikipedia! You made my day! Thank you! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you appear to be familiar with the gated MacKinnon article on the case, could you perhaps provide a better summary, or perhaps a direct quotation? The sentence currently reads like emotionally manipulative propaganda, and is not readily verifiable. I'd do it myself, but don't currently have access to my university's VPN and journal subscriptions. 207.118.6.35 (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree with you that the description could be more neutral. I read the law review and a fair amount of side research on it some time ago; unfortunately I also cannot access the full text right now! Maybe one of us can find someone who can and we can go through it carefully. Here's what I remember now:

MacKinnon's argument is that the legal system embeds patriarchal assumptions in its understanding of definitions and basic comments. She talks about the commerce clause and the 14th amendment arguments in U.S. v. Morrison. She critiques the way that interstate commerce is defined to include traditionally male economic activity and exclude traditionally female economic activity. Similarly, she critiques the court's interpretation of the state action doctrine and Congressional power of enforcement, arguing that women's issues are treated prejudicially as "domestic" and therefore unworthy of rising to the level of federally protected civil rights.

The law review is really detailed and I'd love it if we could get ahold of it somehow to provide a more detailed exegesis, but that's my paraphrase. I'll revisit the article right now. Love, groupuscule (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I would like to request your assistance with drafting an WP:RfC/U, at [1]

Thanks!

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Riki Ott article. Also, while here on your talk page I read the above exchange re Monsanto. I have followed Monsanto related articles for years and I share your concerns. The attempts to whitewash can be subtle or blatant, as is the case of the BP article where we've been arguing for months trying to get more than one sentence in the lead regarding BP's environmental history even though a good portion of the article is devoted to the fact that they have been found to have the worst record in the oil business. Gandydancer (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're welcome. The story of her life is actually pretty amazing. She acquired two degrees in marine toxicology, then moved to the future site of the country's biggest oil spill.

Whitewashing... yeah... it's a problem. And who really wants to spend their time policing a page that has become someone else's turf? I don't know the solution. groupuscule (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to thank you, found this and ... the solution? United we stand, divided we fall. This is a rant but .. we need to begin again in Virtuality the struggle against power and greed that had begun, perhaps, to be won in Reality. Anyways the solution to this one is to not accept an article has become someone else's turf. That's an anti-wiki concept. I gave up my struggles on Wiki because I felt isolated in the struggle against such "turf mentality". The bottom line is that if we don't come together we will fall apart! Think 1913 not 2013 and as far as I can see all the lessons are there to grab a hold of. Groupuscule, you're a star. Burn bright :) LookingGlass (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Groupuscule, I've tried to jumpstart the discussion of this DYK submission. As you were the one who argued for removing it from the queue for the main page at the time, I do hope you'll contribute to it in the hopes of finding a satisfactory solution. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For helping to expand the Human rights movement article!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! We can share the kitten, since you originated the article in the first place. Have a great solstice and here's hoping for a better baktun.

Thanks for uploading File:A. F. James MacArthur on WOLB.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I put the "disputed" tag on there because I see no way of finding a comparable free use image. Obviously a free image would be preferable but I'm not sure how to find one. (As you can see, MacArthur is incarcerated and incommunicado.) Please let me know if you have any ideas! Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Groupuscule, I made some revisions on the Zizek page in the hopes of cleaning up and clarifying. If you have a chance can you take a look and remove the tags if you deem that the revisions address the concerns? Cheeers, Archivingcontext (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you sign this post: here ? thanks. PumpkinSky talk 20:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Groupuscule, I found your name on the Peer review/volunteers page and am hoping that you might be interested in reviewing the C-SPAN article for me. With this peer review I hope to prepare this article for submission for Featured article review. Would you be interested in helping with this? If you have the time to review the C-SPAN article, please do so. The peer review request is here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/C-SPAN/archive1.

A little background on the project: I have been working on this article off and on for several years now, expanding and improving the article as part of my role as a consultant to C-SPAN. I should note that prior to December 2011 I did make direct edits to the article, but now, given my COI, I strictly follow Jimbo's "bright line" rule and only participate in Talk page discussion. Since I won't be editing this article directly it is my plan to make a copy of the current article in my user space and make any suggested changes there. This way we can review the changes once I've finished reviewing feedback and can discuss replacing the current article with my updated and corrected draft.

Thank you for taking the time to read my request. I'd really appreciate it if you were interested in reviewing this article. Please let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look soon. Aloha groupuscule (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I'm currently working on a version offline, implementing the citation-focused feedback I received recently. However, since those comments were so narrowly focused, I could use some feedback on content and structure, when you're able. Let me know if you have any questions! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Groupuscule. I wanted to let you know that I believe my Peer review request for the C-SPAN article is likely to be archived any day now. I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that requests without new feedback for two weeks are archived, and I think I'm just about at that point. Anyhow, if you still would like to review it I would appreciate the help. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, saw you'd done the review, and looks quite thorough—thanks! I'll get to work on it this week, and hope to make some updates (to my userspace draft, of course) soon. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Groupuscule! I'm so happy to see you signed up to join the project - welcome. You can dive into our to-do lists here. Be sure to watchlist your favorite to-do lists, as they will continue to grow as new content gets added to the WDL website. Also, you can always search the WDL website for something that you're interested in. And be sure to share your outcomes here. If I can help with anything just ask and welcome aboard! SarahStierch (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you meant to have the requested move in the same section as this. If so I would suggest at least giving it a secondary "=== header ===" as there is quite a lot of information to reply to and it could derail the move discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, good idea, I have done this. I hope folks will discuss the other points in my post, not just the possible name change. I guess I understand if people would rather have an article on the press/spin/hype whatever that accompanied the Séralini study. If this is really the desire, maybe another article on Séralini is in order. At any rate, an article on press/spin/hype around the 2012 study should at minimum be fair in describing the GM lobby as a source for the attacks on Séralini. Based on third party sources, the severity of the attack on Séralini equals or exceeds the elusive wrongdoings. I mean, this guy didn't fake his results or anything like that. Some people made arguments mitigating the strength of his conclusions; much of the mainstream "science press" reporting their criticisms as scandalous, for whatever reasons. A lot of the arguments against Séralini's study originated with people who were paid (directly or indirectly) to discredit him. Meanwhile, we're still talking about whether a particular poison chemical, capable of killing virtually any species of plant, might have some effects on the health of humans and other animals. groupuscule (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Recent edits and the chaos surrounding the March Against Monsanto article showed me clearly that on Wiki there is a slant - a heavy and very obvious one - towards GMOs and Monsanto. I think it is so obvious, ithe subject may be ripe for an administrator's noticeboard. Particularly, the "global scientific consensus" for safety of GMOs, it's to continue to be the focus of every article mentioning GMOs, needs to be corroborated. With so many non-US countries banning them and requiring labels, it seems the pro-GMO slant on wiki is very much a US-bias, and that is clearly a violation of wiki's NPOV policy. The larger wiki community should take a look at this and determine whether "GMOs are safe and everyone who's anyone knows this" is a meme this encyclopedia should embrace. The Séralini "affair" is just one (heinous) example of this slant, imo. petrarchan47tc 22:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A network of user accounts have been working together on dozens of pages to ensure a pro-GM and pro-Monsanto bias. They use any means necessary to ensure that this viewpoint prevails. (Just look at the interaction on my talk page, above, where two familiar users lay a guilt trip on my about some comments regarding Monsanto.) I think you are also correct to identify a USA bias. As I commented here, the status quo perspective is not only slanted but topsy-turvy given worldwide resistance to Monsanto & GM.

I am not good with Wikipedia bureaucracy but I would definitely assist with a formal complaint/investigation. I think should be a centralized place for discussion, since the users in question use divide&conquer tactics, playing a shell game with the different articles.

This systematic manipulation is really a bummer because, you know, most of us don't get paid to edit Wikipedia... and we would prefer to spend our time expanding articles through honest collaboration Thanks for bringing this up. groupuscule (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a first for me too, but after a week or so (busy plate) I'll look into this and leave a link here for anyone wanting to participate. A centralized discussion is a must. Time is precious, for sure. There is no reason to repeat arguments all over wiki talk pages. petrarchan47tc 01:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy hornets nest, look at the attack on March Against Monsanto that just took place. petrarchan47tc 02:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by IRWolfie

It's interesting to note which of the editors appear to be scientists, and those who aren't. It's also interesting to note those who have expressed very strong opinions on GMOs, and those who haven't, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many things are interesting to note, and I would invite broad public scrutiny of the whole situation. groupuscule (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arc de Ciel

Since we're discussing "interesting things to note," I have an interesting question (open for anyone, not just Groupuscle). If you go to a noticeboard and the consensus is against you, will you agree that it is evidence in favor of the position that the articles aren't biased? Or will your opinion continue to be that the articles are POV? In terms of trying to reach a rational conclusion, it's good to answer these questions for yourself beforehand. Feel free to ignore this, of course, or to keep the answers to yourself - although I'm also genuinely curious about your answers.

On the same token, even if you don't escalate, I'm always happy to discuss any of my edits, or the articles more generally, with you or anyone else. I am always open to being convinced by sufficient evidence, or at least I try my best. Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been made difficult to comment on the above due to the deliberately disruptive style of IRWolfie's and Arc de Ciel's comments (which I have tried to dial down a bit). Their comments suggest, both through choosing to write under a headlining style and through their internal semantic structures, that there is a simple determininistic position available which, it is inferred, is also the position of IRWolfie, Arc de Ciel and all "those scientists" out there. The rump of ignorami among us who do not yet march to that tune are graciously invited to accept the apparently obvious bona fides of these two self-styled illuminati and address ouselves assiduously to answering their "have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet" questions i.e to futile attempts to address logical fallacies. Of course, while we struggle hopelessly to do so, it remains "business as usual" for the usual suspects. Their comments could be seen (sic) as little more that sophisticated passive aggression designed to achieve this end. Personally I find such faux-neutrality, combining thinly veiled arrogance with vaunted humility, nauseatingly patronising. Should I then be impressed by Arc de Ciel's proclaimed openness to being "convinced by sufficient evidence"? Should I hold Arc de Ciel in some special regard or care in some particular way about what s/he thinks? My apologies if so, but I have just not been informed ! As far as their questions can be answered in any meaningful manner, I would say that I reject simplistic predicates and that I am not an advocate of mob politics. Basically, reductionist approaches to understanding complex systems are futile and self-serving at best. LookingGlass (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope to be treated like any editor, e.g. with WP:AGF. By the way, it was Groupuscule who put IRWolfie's comment into a separate section. It seems that you have just accused them of disrupting their own talk page. ;-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the misunderstanding on my part Arc de Ciel. My comment is unaffected by it though. Groupuscule edit of the two comments highlighted their nature as well as their existence. My own attempts to tone that down seems to have had the reverse effect. I hope Groupuscule will edit as s/he sees fit. LookingGlass (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Arc, by pointing at the evidence and saying LookingGlass is wrong you are taking a "simple determininistic position"! You are acting like "those [evil] scientists"! You need to take use a more holistic approach to arrive at truth, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie, you again illustrate those semantic styles which my comment addressed. You have changed what I wrote into what you would prefer to argue against. I neither wrote, nor implied the colouring you attribute to me of: "those evil scientists". My comment did not concern the scientists at all but rather the manner with which the reference to "them" was used. Incidentally you make another mishmash in conflating holism and postmodernism. LookingGlass (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You commented on an RfC/U involving Apostle12 and his behavior at White privilege some time ago.

Subsequent interactions with him eventually led to an ArbCom case and it appears he has now retired. Even though the case is only suspended for the next two months, at the moment I feel it is unlikely he will return anytime soon.

Just in case you were interested is all. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 21:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Council for United Civil Rights Leadership at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for your work so far on International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers, especially in finding sources. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you, I think this is certainly the first barnstar (or praise of any sort, really) I have received for comments in an "AFD" discussion. :-) groupuscule (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'questions' here are off-topic and not suitable, so I have hated them. In future, please use an article talk page. Regards, GiantSnowman 13:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well I hope you have unintentionally mistyped the word "hatted" ... at any rate, I responded at the discussion. I think my comments are germane to the discussion. groupuscule (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Groupuscule. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Gatoclass 00:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This about the last bullet point in your Recommendations, near the bottom of your commentary on GMOs, here. As per policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, I am asking you nicely, to please delete that paragraph and to please steer clear of this kind of discourse going forward. We discuss content, not contributors. I an really committed to wikipedia being a civil place to collaborate and I found this paragraph disturbing. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that you are also accusing BLPs of academic fraud. That is a very serious allegation to make, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• IRWolfie, you have led me to reconsider my position on that issue and I agree with you. I have consequently deleted the first paragraph under "Recommendations".
• Jytdog, I have issued no ad hominem nor have I violated Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. I assure you that I greatly prefer to discuss content, not contributors, and to do so in a civil manner on article talk pages. I have taken the extraordinary step of compiling a report in my userspace because I (with several others) have been serially frustrated in my attempts to discuss these issues through normal channels. groupuscule (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Groupuscule, thank you for responding. On the Talk page for genetically modified food controversies you wrote: "Hi everybody. Here (linked to the document) is a report on the sources currently used to support the claim of a "broad scientific consensus" on the comparative safety of genetically modified food. .... I will not spam the link to this report, but I will post it at certain locations where this issue is directly under debate." So you have made the location known, asked people to look at it, and stated that you intend to link to it elsewhere. And you did link to it on the March Against Monsanto talk page, too. So your page is not private by any means. Also, the bullet point says: "We need to ask serious questions about the users who are fanatically promoting the "broad scientific consensus" claim on Wikipedia. Will they acknowledge this report on their sources? Will they find new sources of similar quality? Will they produce high-quality sources to support their claim? And most importantly: was their misrepresentation of these sources (and omission of others) naive or deliberate?" As I wrote above, I find this disturbing. I feel like you are essentially inviting a witch hunt and you are directly calling the integrity of me and other editors into question. If it is not a personal attack, it is very close to one, and again, I am asking you nicely to delete this under Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please. Imagine that somebody wrote something like that about you. I do not want to take this up on the relevant boards but this is very serious to me - I feel threatened. Please take it down. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant what I wrote. You will not guilt me away from the issue, as you did last August. I have not accused you directly, but I have raised a serious question—and I am hoping for an answer. groupuscule (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to guilt you out of anything!!! I totally forgot that discussion. But apparently you were doing the same thing last year. I welcome discussion on content. I know this get fierce but it is OK if it is about content. What I am objecting to is the remark above - which like your comment last year, was not about content, but about character. Out of line. On this go round, I and others have tried very hard to respond directly to all comments about content and sources, including yours. As I said last year, I am neither naive nor deliberately doing anything whitewashy or otherwise bullshitty. I think differently from you. I did my own research and arrived at different conclusions than you did. That does not make me evil or badly intentioned. It makes us different from each other. But your remark paints me into a corner of being an idiot or evil, and that is completely - completely -- out of line. You question is along the line of "does your mom know you beat your wife?" -- unfairly posed and has no answer. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the research under discussion in fact yours? As before, you took personal offense to a statement that did not mention you by name. If the research is yours, can you tell me why you interpreted the 2004 NRC study the way you did? Did you see this chart? Why did you think AgBioWorld was a valid source? Were you aware of the connection between AgBioWorld, Monsanto, and The Bivings Group? Do you still think these are valid sources for the 'scientific consensus' claim? groupuscule (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy to discuss content, on the relevant pages. Please don't change the topic. The bullet point is focused on contributors, not content. Wikipedia:No personal attacks starts out saying "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (emphasis in the policy, not added). When you write "We need to ask serious questions about the users..." you are not asking the community to comment on content as is proper for instance via an RfC - you are asking the community to criticize and judge specific editors (not named, but easy to identify) which is out of line. And the way you that you characterize me and other editors as "users who are fanatically promoting..." and the "they" in your several accusatory questions and finally "their misrepresentation" you are talking about specific editors -- you are not discussing content. That is why this is out of line, groupuscule. If there is behavior that I or other editors have done that is against Wikipedia policy, there are relevant procedures and boards to address that, and you should indeed pursue those avenues. I tried to think how it could be reframed to discuss content, not contributors, but I cannot do it. Please delete it. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...but I admire your Trystero horn every time I click on your user page. Nice choice. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's right... nothing to do with anything... groupuscule (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Like -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Groupuscule/GMO, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Groupuscule/GMO and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Groupuscule/GMO during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your outpourings of original research are bordering on the absurd now. can you please stop with the original research. Read WP:OR, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be honest I consider your response not only unwarranted but also quite rude. groupuscule (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that Groupuscule put that in quotation marks and clearly cited it? I'm not sure why you're immediately escalating to shouting about a ban. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I just realized that about 10 minutes ago, as my jaw hit the floor. Groupuscule| (and Khazar2), please accept my sincere apologies. I am deeply sorry. I have just struck the above as best as I know how at the moment... I would blank it completely, but I don't believe that I can. You may freely blank it yourself if you desire.  —Grollτech (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Grolltech, it's all good. I really appreciate that you are trying to stop plagiarism on Wikipedia. You are not the first editor to be fooled by my footnote quotations, which are much less obvious in diff view then at the article itself. I do think the quotations are quite useful, especially when they come from books, so I continue to use them even though they invade the Wikitext a bit. Thank you once for your intervention and thank you again for your apology, which of course I accept. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's very kind of you. Yes, it was indeed the diff view... and what really alarmed me next was when I looked at your contribs and saw just how many very large edits you had done in such a short period of time — I felt like I was running along the tracks to catch a train that had left hours ago. For example, I saw that you created a 28,000-byte, well-written Supreme Court article in the span of a half hour – which should have been my first clue. I don't know why I didn't conclude – as any sane, logical person would have – that you had prepped the article in advance. My only defense is that it was early, and I hadn't had my coffee yet, and I was already in red alert mode from the 13th Amendment article. But I've created 4th Amend. Supreme Court articles (Florida v. Jardines, Florida v. Harris, and Soldal v. Cook County) – and they took a LOT of time – and yes, I created them offline.

So, I try to learn something every day (before I use up my 5 minutes allotted for thinking), and today I did just that. I learned that no matter how much of an "urgent" matter I think it is, it's ok to slow down, because everything can be undone, and nobody's gonna die if the "offender" isn't stopped right this second. And for that, I thank you.  —Grollτech (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work!! Liking the inclusion of arguments from amicus briefs. salve, groupuscule (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Augusta Chronicle and Sentinel'' in June 1865—based on a report by Stephens from after the meeting.)<ref>Escott, ''"What Shall We Do with the Negro?"'' (2009), p. 207–208.</ref> Seward's biographers
• "Abraham Lincoln: A History. The Hampton Roads Conference" ''The Century'' (Oct 1889) pp 846–852], by Lincoln's two secretaries [http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ABP2287-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• **The [[Franchise and Ballot Act]]] of 1892 raised the threshold for suffrage from £25 to £75, accomplishing ''de facto''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I know work is going to continue on it, I think the 13A article is ready for its nomination. It already meets or exceeds the criteria, and it's usually a 2-4 month wait anyway; there's no reason we can't continue to work on remaining issues before, during, and after its nomination.

Would you do the honors of nominating the article? I was about to do it, but realized it might be presumptuous of me; you've added more, and better, text, and really deserve to be considered the lead editor at this point. I don't mind taking responsibility for whatever revisions the reviewer requires either way, but I thought you might like to have your name on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay did it!! First time. groupuscule (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But hopefully not the last! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, K. I am inspired by your drive to improve these important human rights articles. groupuscule (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As an aside, that's really interesting that Larry Sanger was the original creator of that article. Makes sense, of course. But I haven't often crossed digital paths with the Big Fishes of Wikipedia. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you already have the latter on your watchlist as well, but I wanted to let you know that I'm going to go ahead and tackle Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as long as we're on a Reconstruction roll. I'd be glad to have your input if you're interested. As a side note, I think I'm going to nominate the 14th for GA later today if no one objects loudly to my latest expansion. Obviously work on the article can continue, but I think we've met the GA standards at this point. Thanks for your suggestions there, too... -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar, you're doing some great work here. I'm going to have to slowly trail behind you, since before I can move to A14 I will have to make improvements on (1865) historical context and contemporary (post 1968) caselaw for A13. Don't let my plodding slow you down... and I won't be deterred if A14 and A15 are already Good Articles by the time I reach them :-) Now, a huge theme in my "context" research has been the issue of black land ownership (40 acres and a mule), and I want to point out to you this comment by WEBDB regarding the (surprising) relative political expediency of Black suffrage. groupuscule (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Groupuscule, thank you again for the feedback you provided last month (and the research you put into finding new sources to add) for the C-SPAN peer review. It took me a little while, but I've finished working through your suggestions. Just today I have posted a newly revised draft version of the article, incorporating your feedback along with points made by User:Imzadi1979.

Because my work here is not just as a C-SPAN fan, but also as a consultant to the network, I am looking for other editors to review these revisions and implement the draft if they agree that it is an improvement over the current version. If nothing else, I'd be very appreciative if you could read through my explanation at Talk:C-SPAN detailing what I did (and in some cases did not) and offer a comment in the discussion thread.

If you are interested in reviewing my recent changes please take a look at the following:

• Updated draft in my user space
• Changes based on your feedback
• C-SPAN Talk page note explaining revisions

Let me know if you have any questions! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Groupuscule. I recently got around to reading your GMO subpage, and I noticed that you quote one of my diffs. You wrote, "Arc de Ciel has dimissed Lotter's work because it...[might] not have undergone peer review by scientists." This is incorrect; I did not say that your citation was not (or might not have been) peer-reviewed, and in fact I said that it was. My direct quote is, "It appears to me that your first source [i.e. Lotter] is from a peer-reviewed journal, which is a good sign." As I said, the problem is that the journal is in the wrong scientific field; a sociology journal isn't a very good source on biology.

Please correct this. For reference, the full quote (including both your comment and my reply) is as follows. The relevant part of my reply is the first paragraph.

--Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, changed it. Have you altered your opinion of the "broad scientific consensus" on comparative GMO safety, now that you have (a) seen flaws in the evidence currently used to support this claim, and (b) read dozens of reliable sources arguing that no consensus exists? Do you at least agree that some of the sources currently used to support this claim are not appropriate? groupuscule (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For the record, sociology is definitely a science - specifically a social science. :-)

I will answer your question; you've certainly put a lot of effort into your analysis, and I'm impressed by that. However, I'd first like to ask a question of my own: what do you think my answer will be? What do you think my reasons would be, in each case (either agreeing or disagreeing)? Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, no response? groupuscule (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he had a question he wanted you to answer first. II | (t - c) 06:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Arc de Ciel does not see any problems with the current statement or the sources used to support it. They seem comfortable with the status quo version of the page. Would prefer not to speculate about their opinions or motives at this time; hence the question. Do they seriously consider Henry I. Miller an independent source? Are they familiar with the situation around AgBioWorld and Monsanto's covert publicity actions online? Do they, as someone who seems very invested in their self-identification as "a scientist", consider institutional press releases to be higher-quality sources than literature reviews? groupuscule (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The contradiction at issue, with regards to the last question (regarding press releases vs. peer-reviewed scholarly articles), is that appeals are being made to the authority of "Science" as a system based on experimentation and peer review, but most the sources being cited do not really make use of this system. (While others do and remain ignored.) Frankly it would seem more consistent within this stance to delete the existing sources and substitute the Snell et al literature review you highlighted. This change would be inadequate, given other articles in existence, but it would sort of make more sense. groupuscule (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I had actually stopped expecting an answer, but I expected that you would infer my position anyways from my continuing edits at GM controversies - as indeed you have. Also, in your second paragraph, you refer to "the last question" - is that my question? If so, I'm not sure I understand what your answer is. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please directly address the questions about source quality? groupuscule (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you were trying to answer my own question, so I was waiting for clarification. (I was also unsure whether the questions were rhetorical, given that they talked about me in the third person.) Please note that I have not in fact read all of the sources, because after reading the first five I found them to be (much) more than sufficient. Therefore, I have no comment on Miller, or on AgBioWorld; I did not add these sources to the article. I am not aware of reliable sources describing "Monsanto's covert publicity actions online" but I'm not sure why this is relevant. If you're asking me to question the motives behind everything I read that supports a particular point of view, then I would become a conspiracy theorist.

With respect to "press releases," I assume you mean the AAAS source. This is a "position statement from a nationally or internationally recognised expert body" which is explicitly a WP:MEDRS-acceptable source. Here is the full list of AAAS statements; you will notice that among other things, the statements supporting climate science and evolution are in the same category. I agree that the statements are not peer reviewed; they are MEDRS-acceptable because they are generally issued by experts among the best in their field. In the case of the AAAS Board of Directors, it has 12 members plus a treasurer, and at least one of the members is often a Nobel laureate. As far as I am aware, all of them (other than the treasurer) are working scientists or have been working scientists. Here are the members at the time the resolution was passed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The report contains a description, based on published work in The Guardian, of how "AgBioWorld" was covertly created by a Monsanto PR firm in order to discredit damaging research. This is more of a conspiracy fact than a conspiracy theory. AgBioWorld is currently cited as a reliable source for the problematic statement at Genetically modified food controversies. Is that acceptable to you? You say you have "no comment" because you did not add these sources, but surely you would agree that they need to be removed if they are inappropriate?

Regardless of whether the AAAS is considered acceptable by WP:MEDRS, why do you think that this politicized statement by a politicized body is superior as a source to peer-reviewed published work? Why do you think it's okay to cite the papers we do now, many of which contain only a single sentence about GMO safety, and ignore whole literature reviews that address the topic directly? Why don't any of the scholarly peer-reviewed articles contesting the existence of a "consensus" affect your opinion about the five non-peer-reviewed press releases which you remarkably found "to be (much) more than sufficient"? groupuscule (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about that. But no, I have no comment because I have not investigated it; thus I have no opinion in either direction. Feel free to raise the issue on the talk page, and unless I find extra time I likely won't participate. (I may comment if you start pulling in other issues, of course, so I suggest you stay focused.)

With respect to AAAS and the others (which are not press releases), yes in general I consider them superior. Like I said, they're generally issued by experts among the best in their field. By contrast, typical peer review has three reviewers; a smaller number, and (except for the very best journals, such as Nature) not always of the same caliber as those who write the above statements. If you disagree with me, I recommend you ask at a relevant talk page or noticeboard, such as Wikipedia talk:MEDRS.

Also, please check your background assumptions when discussing with me; if you are not sure that I will agree with something, please don't make statements that take it for granted. This is a rhetorical device which I find a bit irritating, as it makes it more difficult for me to keep track of your argument. I disagree that the AAAS is a "politicized body," in the sense that although it is elected, it is not partisan. I disagree that it is a "politicized statement" as well, for the same reason. Similarly, I am unlikely to think that my own opinions are "remarkable" in the sense you seem to be using the word. You may of course present me with arguments to this effect, but that is not the same as me agreeing with you a priori. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope you'll agree that paper in a sociology journal is not an effective counter to scientific journals. It's probably a point-of-view which deserve to be included and is likely worth including in the body if there aren't better sources, but it seems clear that there are better sources in this case. Anyway, I'm somewhat inclined to change my vote on keeping your essay, as Jytdog makes a good point that it doesn't seem real conducive to dialogue focused around changing the article. I suggest making incremental changes. II | (t - c) 08:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sociology of scientific knowledge studies the phenomenon of scientific consensus—of course it is a reliable source for information about this topic! The literature reviews are also worthwhile, but they hardly seem superior to Lotter's work in terms of assessing the state of "consensus". (Lotter is himself an agricultural scientist, with expertise on this topic, writing in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.) Jytdog is welcome to fork the page if they want a line-by-line debate. Or maybe they think ominous talk page messages about "HIV/AIDS denialism" are a better use of their time. Look, incremental changes are fine... and should be made ... but what is to be done about the very egregious single claim of comparative GMO "safety" which continues to glare from the article's lead? groupuscule (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

btw, you seem very happy to point out what you see as conflicts of interest with respect to the science produced by companies on the safety of food from GMOs. Why do you not think it is worthwhile to point out that Lotter has a dog in this hunt? As per his bio at the bottom of the article you link to, he worked for The Rodale Institute - he did his postdoc there and wrote for their magazine. Rodale is of course dedicated to organic farming. And if you peruse Lotter's website and publications http://www.donlotter.net/New_Farm_index.htm it quickly becomes clear that he is opposed to food from GMOs. So he is not exactly objective or an honest broker in the discussion, is he? Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did I become plural, I wonder? :) my goal is not to be "ominous"... I have no idea how to dialogue about your essay as it outside the bounds everything normal in WIkipedia, so I put it here. You cited Mae-Wan Ho as some kind of respectable scientist. I wanted to address that, and while I was at it, was struck by the parallels in reasoning and rhetoric. moving on, groupuscule, you haven't shown that the consensus is not true - you haven't even addressed the evidence (the actual sentences in the actual sources) that we are using; instead you tried to do this deconstruction all around them. There are sentences set off in big blue boxes on the talk page that you did not even address in your essay, much less on Talk where it would actually be useful in discussion. This is one of my frustrations with your essay - it is not dialogue, it is a monologue. The claim that the consensus is false is just fringe. Like human-caused global warming is real, like HIV causes AIDS, the consensus is the currently marketed GM food is as safe as/as risky as food from conventional counterparts. There is no just no reliable evidence to counter that - not even a reasonable theory theory of how it might be harmful, no matter how much the anti-GMO folks wish it were otherwise. No matter how much big Oil wishes global warming were not true, no matter how much pseudo-scientists like Mae-wan Ho wish that exercise and aspirin could cure AIDS. I just don't get how people can persist on the fringes like this, with such company. You seem like a smart and reasonable person, outside of this issue. I don't get it. What is at stake for you in this? Do you actually believe that currently marketed food from GMOs is harmful to your health? If so, I wonder what your evidence for that harm is? (boy that was a lot of questions, sorry. i mean them all tho) Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ comment deleted by Jytdog ]

This reads as a vile, bad faith comment, Jytdog, and if I were you I would delete it and try to stop writing like an asshole. Why don't you try as hard as you can to avoid straw-man arguments and stick to discussing the strongest sources profiled in Groupumuscule's essay? Why highlight Mae-Wan Ho rather than any of the number of other scientists with less fringe views, such as, Jose L. Domingo or David Suzuki? II | (t - c) 20:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ comment deleted by Jytdog ]

[ comment deleted by Jytdog ]

Jytdog finally took ImperfectlyInformed's advice—more than a month after the fact—after I described the actions of Thargor Orlando as harassment. As far as I'm concerned, this response comes too little too late, and looks like an attempt to conceal evidence of repeated abuse. groupuscule (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a more appropriate way to do it, thanks. The reason I deleted it today is because today you wrote to Thargor that "you and your buddies are harassing me...". I assumed that you included me in "your buddies" and that is the first hint I have had that you may have found this posting offensive. And I do apologize. I am not attempting to conceal anything (nothing can be concealed on Wikipedia once it is posted), but rather to respond immediately to your statement of harassment. As you know I am very concerned with civil behavior and when any user states such a concern it should be addressed ASAP with clear apologies. I have no desire to offend you, Groupuscule, and I am sorry that I did.Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this:

• Sprenger, Polly. "Sun on Privacy: 'Get Over It'." Wired. January 26, 1999.
• "The chief executive officer of Sun Microsystems said Monday that consumer privacy issues are a "red herring." "You have zero privacy anyway," Scott McNealy told a group of reporters and analysts Monday night at an event to launch his company's new Jini technology. "Get over it." "

Where would this go? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're still feeling like a big expansion of Right to privacy is in order. "No privacy in practice" would be an argument against "right to privacy". Or we could add another article to the "Get Over It" list . We wonder if Scott McNealy feels he has nothing to hide... groupuscule (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I added it there :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Groupuscule! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:

• We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
• Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
• WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
• Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hampton Roads Conference may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

countering systemic bias
Thank you for quality articles on cybernetics and civil rights, letting us know the Poor People's Campaign and the Year of Africa, for countering systemic bias, for inventive reviews, - a horn proclaims that you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh herzlichen dank!! Congratulations yourselves for bringing F.K. to the main page. We love/are "Up in the Gallery". your groupuscule (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 534th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like Thanks for expanding this one so much. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I'm not ignoring your comment at 13A, just have been having a scatterbrained day. Will be back there tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Groupuscule, I'm not sure if you saw my previous message, but I wanted to reach out to you again because I haven't been able to find other editors to review the changes I've made to the C-SPAN draft. I really appreciated your detailed review and I've put a lot of time and effort into updating and improving this draft based on your suggestions. Would you have a few minutes to look over the changes I made and comment on the Talk page? I'm anticipating that when I find other editors to review it for FA purposes, they'll want to know what the original reviewers think of the changes. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi WWB Too! Sorry to be lagging behind on this one. You are not forgotten! I have been very busy and want to make sure I give this re-review the care it deserves. Hope you're keepin' cool. groupuscule (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for your comments (and the good-natured humor in one of them) here. ;) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 09:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, thanks! It's a heavy topic but still good to try and keep our manners & senses of humor. groupuscule (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 13:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if the article is good to so that I don't make a mistake by promoting the article. SL93 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Homeless Bill of Rights. A little work is needed on the hook! Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent expansion on the article on the Black Codes, well deserving of the WP:DYK addition today. However, as I was reading (and learning a ton from) the article, I came across the following:

"After creating the Civil Rights Section in 1939, the federal Department of Justice launched a wave of successful Thirteenth Amendment prosections against involuntary servitude in the South. By the 1950s, it was also targeting"

I went to see about finishing the thought, but I don't know enough about the topic to do so. I checked through the history to see if a vandal had removed something, but instead it looks like that thought just wasn't finished. Do you remember what you were putting in there? Eauhomme (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Somehow I really don't have any idea what was supposed to go there. How about that. Maybe something will remember itself... or maybe that was just a totally wrong thought. We need better articles across the board on the intersections between racism, laws, and law enforcement in the midcentury U.S., eh? Glad you enjoyed the article. groupuscule (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thank you for teeing up the RfC on the GM food controversies page so simply and directly. Elegantly done. I debated whether to add my framing remark as the first comment - if this would dishonor your gracious act. I decided to do it, as I did not want the RfC to go off the rails with comments about everything under the sun. So thank you again. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your first comment is included as a "framing remark", it should probably not present as fact your assessment that the issue is "solidly supported by the science, hotly contested politically". As you know, this opinion is contested but you have refused to give any ground on it. That's why the RfC was necessary. If you appreciate the neutrality with which I framed the RfC, perhaps you would reciprocate in your framing statement. groupuscule (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair request, and resolves my feeling of ambiguity. Done. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm still feeling like there's a lot of "echo chamber" going on, with many of the "usual suspects" chiming in to applaud each other and denigrate opposing views. The Request for Comment is supposed to be an opportunity to hear new voices, but instead we are hearing a lot from you, Arc de Ciel, Black Hades, IRWolfie, and others, who already feel very confident in the current wording. (Tryptofish keeps emphasizing that they're new to the discussion, when in fact they're already in the thick of it at March Against Monsanto.) The same people who demanded that my report be deleted are now reappearing at the RfC to support the existing version. groupuscule (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We did get The Banner with whom I interacted on some organic articles, and Wayne, but neither brought much in the way of substantial arguments. Bezet and DanHobley are new to all GM pages that I have worked on; Spectravalor and trypto are new to all GM articles (outside the March page where they have indeed been active). So that is 6 new voices, next to the folks who have been active in the GM pages (me, arc, aircorn, wolfie, blackhades, and you (who are relatively recent) - 6 of us). Thargor is relatively new to the GM articles (he by the way argued to "keep" your essay). So it is actually about even steven between new people and the usual suspects. Wolfie, by the way, spends a lot of his editing time beating back pseudoscience in Wikipedia. Very respectable editor. Like you! This will be no surprise to you but I will be surprised if anybody comes with anything substantial. The statement is accurate and solid under wiki guidelines. There are several reasonable arguments to oppose GM food but this is not one of them. Really, it's not. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

btw I am really delighted that the conversation is remaining relatively civil. I was afraid of ugliness breaking out. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Freedom of Speech for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -buffbills7701

Well, the review process is complete, and this is clearly of GA quality, and I really hope you go for FA with this. Congratulations! The GA review follows. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 05:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm going to take this one on. From having done the Fourteenth Amendment yesterday, I know these sort of articles get rather complex, so I just want to claim this one before I start, lest all my work is lost. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adam. I'll be off Wikibreak tomorrow and will dive into this one, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Would it be worth briefly summarising the Twelfth Amendment when it's mentioned? Something like "...more than sixty years had passed since the last amendment to the Constitution (the Twelfth, which revised the rules for electing President and Vice-President) had been successfully ratified."? Or is that getting too off-topic? Use your judgement, I suppose. I've done a little copyediting of my own.

I think it may be a little too much detail for the lead, but I don't have strong feelings about it either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either. One possibility might just be to wikilink "the last amendement to the constitution" and leave out the parenthetical. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tried that out. See what you think, feel free to revert. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. I found it a little comical in our previous draft to point out that the Twelfth Amendment was the one that preceded the 13th. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery in the United States

I'm not quite sure what the term "sectional tensions" is meant to mean. Tension between sections of the country? Best to clarify.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is incredibly unclear: "The American Colonization Society, in contrast, called for the emigration and colonization of African American slaves, who were freed, to Africa." I think this is referring to the split in the abolitionist movement between integration and emigration, but the next sentence states that it was an alternative to abolition, so I really don't know. Make this clear, please. Also, isn't "African-American" hyphenated when used as an adjective?

Style on that hyphen varies, in my understanding (this has come up before in my professional work). I recently consulted the MOS about this and didn't find any specific reference.

As for the ACS, I don't think it's correct to call them a branch of the abolitionist movement. It included some abolitionists but also many Southerners who just wanted to ship off free blacks while maintaining slavery. Eric Foner, the source for this material, describes them as separate and opposing movements. But I'll admit I'm not deeply read on the ACS, just following my source. Is there a source you could suggest as an opposing view? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Took another pass at clarifying this this morning. Let me know what you think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I poked at it a bit myself. I didn't want to go into too much detail, but I think that explaining a little bit about it helps. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As the country continued to expand, the issue of slavery in its new territories became the dominant national issue." - "the" implies it was the only dominant issue; wouldn't it be better to say "a dominant national issue"? I mean, it was pretty big, and the Bleeding Kansas events it inspired were a major cause of the Civil War, but it seems...

Sorry, I just wrote a paragraph contrasting the subtle variations in meaning between "a" and "the". I'll just change it.

I hope you don't mind, but I restored the original phrasing, which seems to me a more accurate summary of our reliable source: "The issue of slavery in the territories became the defining issue in the years that followed." (emphasis Goodwin's) To be clear, do you think the sentence isn't a fair summary of Goodwin, or do you just disagree with Goodwin? As above, I'm fine with looking at other sources for opposing views. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's definitely what the source says, I'm fine with it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for reviewing! I appreciate the assistance and feedback. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier proposed amendments

This section seems mis-placed. It comes between the history leading to the thirteenth amendment, and the actual passing. It should either come right after the lead, or right at the end of the article, in my opinion.

Good idea-- Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that appears to be it for me. References look food, so once the things above are fixed, I think we have a GA. I'm open to reasonable compromises if any of my suggestions are stupid.

Also, I have made some copyedits while reviewing. If you care to check I haven't changed anything inappropriately, here's the batch diff for all of them. [2]. Individual justifications are in the edit summaries for the individual edits. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going back in now for a (hopefully final) review. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For something that had to combine a history of slavery with politics and constitutional law, this was already extremely good before I came here. There were a few bits to work through, but they were a tiny, tiny proportion of the article, and everyone involved here deserves a lot of praise. I would hope you take this to FA, although you may want to get one or more experts to review it first - I am not a constitutional expert, nor a lawyer, nor anything more than an amateur historian, after all. ✓ Pass Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes but slavery was ended. Try 14th Amendment. Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because I've noticed you using the plural "we" and "us" on multiple occasions when discussing various issues. Could you shed some light on that? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a bad faith question! I see Groupuscule using "we" and "us" when referring to himself as a member of various Wikipedia editors who are looking at the same thing. It's normal English, normal behavior.

If you have any serious concerns about Groupuscule's editing behavior you can file a WP:RFCU. Your own behavior here might become a discussion item. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured, instead of just running to whatever noticeboard is around, I would ask and see if it could be sorted out. You know, not jumping to conclusions. Something you could use a lesson in, for the record. And be sure that, in the event I do escalate it further, I will let groupuscule know. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Groupuscule has described her/himself elsewhere as a dolphin brain controlling a human body to explain the "we" (which G regularly uses). FWIW, I'd chalk it up to running gag rather than account abuse. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like that template. That's...weird. Where? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a handy one. I don't specifically remember where the comment was at this point (Maybe on 13th amendment or Thaddeus Stevens); you could search G's user contributions in the Talk space if you're interested in running it down. I've worked with G on several articles, though, and I'd be surprised if they turn out to be a joint account; their contributions are consistent in style, interests, major strengths (terrific research) and minor weaknesses (typos, repeated words, etc.). -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Groupuscule, is your continued use of "we" dolphin brain or something else? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really tired of being harassed on my talk page because I contest the GMO industry's talking points. Are you concerned that I'm pulling the ol' "reverse sock puppet"? We'll use whatever pronouns she wants, thank you very much. groupuscule (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one's harassing you. Multiple use of accounts is not allowed is all, and part of the reason why is because, if multiple people are using an account, it's impossible to keep a consistent conversation going. Is it a yes or no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't owe you an answer. Are you having trouble understanding my position on the statements you advocate? Does it seem inconsistent to you? You—and those marching in lockstep with you on the GMO issue—are harassing me, and other users who disagree with your perspective. Kindly excuse yourself from my talk page. groupuscule (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions on this, but as I refuse to be held hostage by an editor who wishes the article did not exist I have withdrawn it as I said I would. Sorry you had to waste your time on it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Long overdue for your topical, thought provoking and genuine efforts, edits, discussions and contributions to Wikipedia! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 08:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that means a lot. groupuscule (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for the wikilove. I see that you are a copy editor. I struggle along and can usually come up with something that's not too bad--but not so good either. Would you be interested in doing a copy edit for the Yodeling article? Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're on it! groupuscule (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's with this we stuff? petrarchan47tc 08:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the groupuscular "we". groupuscule (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! There must be a noticeboard for this, we have files on you - I'll get someone on his ASAP! You're so busted. petrarchan47tc 21:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help at the "Yodeling" article! (I enjoyed Petrarchan's note :-)) Gandydancer (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a query about the possibility of this being an account used by multiple people, and that query can be found here. Thank you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and your buddies are clearly harassing Canoe1967, Viriditas, me, and anyone else who challenges GMO industry talking points. You should be ashamed of yourself, whoever you are. More importantly, I hope you know that in the long run these tactics will only discredit you and the corporate interests you are protecting. And once again, we'll use whatever pronouns we want—we are not the disruptors here. groupuscule (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reached out to an off-wiki third party to investigate. We should all do the same since in-wiki doesn't seem to see the issues. This is the latest drama board--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cat's out of the bag... petrarchan47tc 08:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this investigation and have told Thargor so on his/her Talk page. I am sorry about this, groupuscule.Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to what you wrote above: I am sorry that you feel harassed. Earlier I deleted my comment about HIV denialism as this is the first blush I have seen that you may have found it offensive. I apologize for posting it. You are unfailingly civil and I respect that about you.Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, there are no "camps" and there is no "war" - there are no "good guys" and no "bad guys" and this camping-off is really, really toxic. There are actually a range of views among all the people talking about GMOs, which is often surprising to me - these differences and nuance emerge more, and better content is produced, when people are given space to speak and are listened to. That cannot happen if everybody puts on a battlefield mentality and pounds on one another over ridiculous/petty things. We need to find ways to move away from camping-off and ramping-up and toward real communication. Differing on content happens all the time and it doesn't mean anybody is bad or a big terrible cheater in some way. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, you are talking a good talk. I hope we will substantial article-space changes as a result. As petrarchan eloquently commented, no amount of politeness and good behavior makes up for heavy-handed control over content. groupuscule (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi groupuscule, Thank you. As I wrote to Petrarchan between those comments and as you know better than most, civility has nothing to do with sticky sweetness, and truth and civility are not mutually exclusive. We can (and may well continue to) disagree over content. I hope all of can work toward consensus more fruitfully and with less acrimony. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn the request based on other evidence I found. My apologies for raising it, the evidence suggests I was wrong on this. I hope you can accept this apology, although I understand I am not owed such a thing nor are you under any obligation to do so. The error is mine and mine alone. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done User:Thargor Orlando, although I think something got garbled there.  :) Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih^Talk 00:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GMO Myths and Truths has a link for downloading a 123-page report titled "GMO Myths and Truths" ("An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops"). Many references are provided.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to mention that I am sorry to trouble you with this. I am unhappy it came to this.Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't know about it already, i thought you might like to see this page http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/08/12/wikipedia-as-a-political-battleground-after-a-gmomonsanto-content-dispute-longtime-wikipedia-contributor-viriditas-is-blocked, which has a thorough breakdown of the involved editors. I tried to help balance several GMO articles including M.A.M a couple months ago but got tired out by the argumentative circles from the pro-GMO crowd, which is their aim i think. El duderino ^(abides) 12:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Groupuscule. I wanted to let you know that I've submitted C-SPAN to WP:FAC. If you were interested in helping with this stage of the process too I would really appreciate it. If you'd like to help you'll find C-SPAN on the FAC page here. If not, I completely understand. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (estimated annual readership: 1,167,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to Good Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it!

Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, cool! Of course, we don't do it for the pageviews... but it is nice to feel that your work is appreciated. Now it's time to get moving on those next improvements to the article... and then finally I can move on to helping out at Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as originally planned ;-) Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Groupuscule. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. I think the feedback tool is a great resource. I didn't realize it could be enabled from the toolbox. Cool. groupuscule (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I have been asked to userfy the Willpower_paradox page - and I have no clue how to do this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kgashok#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FWillpower_paradox_concern

Thanks! Kgashok (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kgashok, I just created a page in your userspace here: User:Kgashok/Willpower paradox. I think that is what is meant by userfication and I hope it's helpful. I'm a little confused by what's going on here, since we already have Willpower paradox in article space, and it seems to be covering the same concept. Aloha, groupuscule (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know! Thanks anyway! Kgashok (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your work on this article. Please let me know if there's other ways I can help out. groupuscule (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are intent on deleting "Willpower paradox", and I have no idea of how to save it. Take a look at this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kgashok#Proposed_deletion_of_Willpower_paradox - Please help! Kgashok (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! You are invited to attend Wikipedia Takes Baltimore on Saturday, September 21 at 1 PM. The goal of Wikipedia Takes Baltimore is to take pictures of nationally-recognized historic sites to upload to Wikimedia Commons, so if you have a camera (even a cell phone camera!), meet us on the north side of the Washington Monument on North Charles Street in Baltimore. Feel free to bring a car, too, since some of the sites are spread out. To learn more and sign up, see the event page. You can also RSVP on our Meetup page. I hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. An "Armed resistance in civil rights movement" article could be a good idea. I was already thinking of elaborating in the Malcolm X page regarding Malcolm's relationship with the movement, and also introducing "Malcolm X Joins the Movement, 1964-1965" as a 'key event' section in the civil rights movement article, including the Rockwell telegram, Malcolm's appearance in Selma hosted by SNCC, and so on. GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the praise of John Sherman. I'm glad to see someone enjoyed reading it! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false "The CIA in Guatemala: The Foreign Policy of Intervention"] By Richard H. Immerman, 1982</ref>}}
• York Times'', 20 October 2011. [http://www.webcitation.org/6CIPVPcFl Archived] 19 November 2012.]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Groupuscule. Glad you like the edit-I started it before I even realized you were the originator of the page! Thank you for putting it together.

I'm curious to know why the title "Birmingham crisis" was chosen though. The reason I ask is because that term doesn't seem to appear much, if at all, in the literature on the event, either academic or journalistic. It's almost always referred to as the "Birmingham riot" or "riots in Birmingham". I suppose it could be argued that the historically notable event here is BOTH the bombings and the riot, yet bombings in Birmingham had been going on for years, and bombings against MLK and his associates had also been going on for years. The central and novel event, as the quotes from Malcolm X indicate - as well as the scholarship that I cited show - was the riot. The military mobilization, while unprecedented, was an after effect of the black unrest. The military order was also quite restrained, as the troops were never actually deployed on the streets (the full National Guard deployment on the streets of Cambridge Maryland in June of 1963, is probably more historically significant). I think the real significance of this event is the long-term effect on government policy, including the Civil Rights Act (as well as the long-term effect on movement culture and strategy, which I plan to write more about on the page).

Furthermore, if someone searches on Google for "Birmingham riot 1963," they will not find this page (at least not in the first 40 results)! They will find the "Birmingham campaign" page, which is ironic, since the riot is not supposed to be part of SCLC's campaign.

I'd propose that the title e changed to "Birmingham riot" to conform to the literature and correspond with people's web searches. Either that or the information in the article be fully absorbed into the "Birmingham campaign" page. What do you think? GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's so cool that you asked about this; I was actually fixing to ask your opinion of the title.

• The story on my end is that I started working on a page just about the bombing. As I did the research I realized it made more sense to include discussion of the various aftermaths: black mobilization, police response, state response, federal response. It no longer seemed appropriate to name the page just after the bombing, but at the same time it didn't occur to me to shift the 'center of gravity' completely. "Birmingham crisis" is a compromise name, plucked somewhat arbitrarily from a couple news reports that used this term.
• As for incorporation into "Birmingham campaign" I don't think this would be unreasonable. But it doesn't really fit with our current definition of the "campaign" as a nonviolent SCLC campaign. And it is true that in the popular literature (though not in McWhorter) these storylines are basically treated as separate. On a more practical note, we've got lots of material here that would be hard to squeeze in. I do think the Birmingham campaign page could use some sensible revisions (like was there really "Resolution"? And what concretely happened in Birmingham over the next few years?)
• "Birmingham riot" would be a pretty good name. Although I don't like the term "riot", I did convince myself that it was the most well-known name when unilaterally creating King assassination riots (a page which, by the way, would certainly benefit from your attention). While I agree that the violence in the streets did not escalate to the level Cambridge, I have seen the Kennedy administration's response (a potential military invasion) to the Birmingham SNAFU described as unique in scale. (Sidenote: that page on Cambridge really needs some work, eh? In my understanding, the situation really went further than a "riot"—it was open war.) Anyway, I think your argument is convincing and I can get behind a move to "Birmingham riot". So, I don't know how many editors are really watching "Birmingham crisis", but you could put up a move notice at the talk page there, or troll around for more opinions on various other relevant talk pages. One way or another, the name really should change.

Thanks again for the terrific work you've been doing. groupuscule (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll bring it up on the "Talk" page of "Birmingham crisis" and see what the comments are - look out for it.

Re: Cambridge, I thought for a moment that "Cambridge rebellion" might be a better title there - but as I understand it, a rebellion is planned and a riot is spontaneous and fairly chaotic; in Cambridge, I can believe that Gloria Richardson's team was organized and militant to plan armed engagement, but there's no proof. Maybe more importantly, Cambridge was very chaotic. I'm still trying to parse it out, but it began with whites attacking blacks, blacks fighting back, police backing whites, blacks fighting police, National Guard usurping police, NG negotiating detente with blacks, whites attacking NG, NG negotiating detente with whites, blacks attacking NG, and then both whites and blacks attacking NG because they were all sick of martial law. I think the word rebellion implies something less shifting and more bilateral. Also, as in Birmingham, the word riot appears most often in the literature.

GPRamirez5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G, I just tried changing the title, but it didn't not go through via the standard editing methods. Do you know how to do this? I would be sure to edit the article, including the capsule sidebar, to correspond to the new concept. GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you again for your help on this; another idea though: the infobox should probably be suspended until its edited to fit the new focus (we could both save the html in our sandboxes). In particular, I think there should probably be a new photo that's not of the bombing - the current photo is already on the Birmingham Campaign page anyway. I am interested in using the photo at this page, but I'm not sure if it fits Wikipedia copyright standards. Do you have any idea? GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the infobox now needs changing. I've recently the use of multiple infoboxes in a page, with subsidiary boxes in sections that describe discrete events. So, the "bombing" infobox might belong in that section. Alternatively we can change it. (Remember the code will always live in the article history!) As far as that photo goes, the chances are actually not good that it will work. To use an image according to the community norms, at least one of the following must be true:

(1) It's in the public domain...

(a) ... because it was created by the US federal government. (Internationally, the rules are different. Let's just talk USA here.)

(b) ... because it was created before 1923 and its copyright has therefore definitely expired.

(c) ... because it was created between 1923 and 1964 and its copyright was never renewed.

(d) ... because it was licensed directly into the public domain.

(2) It was licensed into Creative Commons.

(3) No other remotely adequate images are available, and so we'll use it under the "Fair Use" law.

Option (3) is difficult, and there actually are image copyright cops who will come around and delete your upload if they don't think your reasoning is good enough. However, it can work if you can really demonstrate you've exhausted all other options. Option (2) is unlikely, since the image was probably published before Creative Commons existed. Option (1)(d) is similarly unlikely, just because that wasn't done much. That basically leaves us with (1)(c) which is not super common for high-profile news photos, and is also quite difficult to verify. And again, there are copyright cops, and the burden of proof sort of lies with the uploader.

The photo we have now, we're using because it comes from Library of Congress. As you can see from the description in the image file, the photo was donated by USA Today to the LOC ... so it's fair game. Sometimes it's really hard to find a good image. In conclusion: maybe hunt around government documents (e.g. military or DOJ reports on B'ham), and if really nothing turns up, maybe we can use your image under fair use rationale. Aloha, groupuscule (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, just created an article on Canadian activist Harsha Walia. It's a work in progress, but I thought you might like to review it. GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. I have added some categories and some wikilinks from elsewhere, so as to resolve those banners that were added. If you're interested in submitting this article to "Did You Know?" for a possible mention on the frontpage, you're still within the window for doing that. I can help with this process if you're interested but I don't want to inflict it on you if you're not. Paz - groupuscule (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. Here is another source which may be useful. groupuscule (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and now I have also gone to Flickr and done an advanced search for images licensed as Creative Commons with permission to modify and use commercially. I took the four results and used this tool to upload them to Wikimedia Commons. Then I put them all in a new category, Harsha Walia. Now these images are available for use on Wikipedia. Scores of additional images might be generated by taking stills from these appropriately licensed YouTube videos of Walia. groupuscule (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Aaron Swartz. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Thomas C. Mann at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for you! petrarchan47tc 06:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, watched this yesterday but didn't get a chance to reply. Beautiful and well-timed. We also appreciated the discussion happening in the YouTube comments about representations of people (as homeless, in particular). There is validity on different sides of the discussion. When it comes to the music itself, "Presidential candidates can't debate over this instrumental" ;-) groupuscule (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i've fallen in love with humanity via comments sections, especially on YouTube. Strange, huh? Yes, the music is beautiful, the epitome of soul and of reggae, imo. i wake up singing it, even days later. (Thanks for tipping me off to Sage Francis, btw.) :o) petrarchan47tc 00:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Groupuscule, would you like to collaborate on Emma Mashinini? I've got the sources all formatted, would you like to jump in and do the writing? It would make a great DYK now that folks are remembering Nelson Mandela ... Djembayz (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Djembayz, I would be honored to help out. Looks like you have things nicely set up in your userspace; see you there. groupuscule (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for your kind compliments for my edits on the Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation. I edit Wikipedia from time to time though I spend most of my time on Wookieepedia. I've just finished a BA degree in History and Politics at the University of Otago in New Zealand. Will be starting my Masters next year and will be looking at New Zealand's relations with Indonesia between 1945 to 1965. I tend to focus on articles and topics relating to Malaysia, New Zealand, and sometimes Indonesia when on Wikipedia. It was a pleasure to get encounter you. Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.Andykatib 08:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see your message, Andykatib. I like to let folks know their work is appreciated. It's great to have historians such as yourself working on the encyclopedia. Also it's cool to correspond with someone from whose perspective I am upside-down ;-)

Groupuscule has been 'watching' Indonesia/Malaysia for a while but not yet done much outside reading on it. Hoping to check out some of those materials you added regarding the Sarawak resistance. Huge congratulations on your academic success so far! and good luck as you move on in life. groupuscule (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm trying to improve on the List of notable people under Five Eyes surveillance to make it a featured list before Feb 11 so that we can include it for our project (Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day). As time is running short, I hope someone is there to help me do a peer review soon. Could you help me out with that? I would really appreciate it. Thanks!

• Wikipedia:Peer review/List of notable people under FVEY surveillance/archive1

-A1candidate (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I would be happy to help out. Looks like a complex issue. I'll get on it as soon as possible. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise, there was no biography of Alonzo G. Decker, Jr. ... Djembayz (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this former Featured Article back to snuff as best as I can tell. I need more eyes, for obvious reasons, and you're listed as a volunteer in the history category. Equally obviously, if I can be of assistance of a similar nature, I assume you'll let me know. xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment below is reposted. Djembayz (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, Djembayz, just went and answered a couple of the questions. Hope I didn't come off too ranty :-) groupuscule (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:2014 main page redesign proposal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In black suffrage, in the section on the United States, you added an odd sentence fragment "The Court upheld" near the bottom. I was hoping you knew what this was supposed to read. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great catch, Someguy1221. I imagine the thing to do there would be to list some cases in which The Court upheld instances of redistricting. I know some of these cases exist and have Wikipedia articles ... but for some reason I failed to include them. Feel free to hunt them down for yourself and make the necessary changes. Otherwise I will try to get in there soon. OK, hope you are doing well and have a good month of March! Aloha, groupuscule (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Way cool, I'll be there. I think 11 April is a Friday, though? Unless the event is actually scheduled for 2016 :-) Thanks for the invite, Dj! groupuscule (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited October 1964, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stanleyville (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) 08:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoted as saying: "Contrast the vehement labelling of Ayurvedic medicine as a "pseudoscience" (also see "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and "Wikipedia:Fringe theories") with the praise for string theory ("many theoretical physicists believe ... a step towards the correct fundamental description of nature"). The accumulated wisdom of generations versus today's hot topic; centuries of evidence versus virtually none; yet the former is policed and the latter extolled."

Wow, seriously wow. I applaud people who are legitimately trying to make Wikipedia be more objective, but that statement shows you are only interested in adding your own bias to the project. An attitude like yours will probably get you blocked sooner or later. DreamGuy (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care to elaborate? groupuscule (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Crowned Crane. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dingo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Australian Senate special election in Western Australia, 2014. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Groupuscule. 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.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Right Sector. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Groupuscule. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:10, 7 May 2014 (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.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Donald Sterling. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi g, hope you're well. I just uploaded this draft for review. Thought you might like to review it. Thanks,GPRamirez5 (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, fellow Wikipedian!

I am excited to announce the upcoming Wikimedia DC Annual Meeting at the National Archives! We'll have free lunch, an introduction by Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, and a discussion featuring Ed Summers, the creator of CongressEdits. Join your fellow DC-area Wikipedians on Saturday, October 18 from 12 to 4:30 PM. RSVP today!

Also coming up we have the Human Origins edit-a-thon on October 17 and the WikiSalon on October 22. Hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 08:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bath School bombings. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 02:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Axis powers. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of cases of police brutality in the United States. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Satyananda Saraswati. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Amy Pascal. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Libertarianism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 03:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Economic growth. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Project Camelot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tass (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) 09:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islam. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Groupuscule:

I use Wikipedia daily to look up and supplement any research on a wide variety of subjects. If I find a Wikipedia entry that has problems, sometimes I will try to correct them. Recently, I have seen a number of false claims of a "scientific consensus" that GMO's are safe. I wanted to see how Wikipedia handled it, and was floored to see that this false claim was repeated in the article I looked up. I was tempted to fix it, but I also know that correcting a blatant falsehood like that is likely to meet with substantial and unreasonable opposition (from my experience on the Lennar_Corporation page) and that contentious pages are can be more or less "owned" by a small group of watcher with a particular slant on the subject, and if one or more of them is an admin, they often threaten novice editors with their power to censure and block, their greater knowledge of the process and connections and credibility (deserved or otherwise), making any attempt to challenge their slanted view almost hopeless, except for those with extreme patience and perseverance.

So before jumping in to correct the bogus "scientific consensus" claim, I decided to see where it came from and who the players are on that page and what kind of resistance I am likely to encounter by stating the "inconvenient" truth.

The "scientific consensus" claim was added to Genetically_modified_food_controversies by a now defunct user "pathogen5" on 14 December 2010 (23:48), with a host of other strong pro-industry statements, some of which were quickly identified by Gandydancer on 24 April 2011 (11:14) and eliminated. Unfortunately, the "scientific consensus" sentence survived and I was unable to find any debate on it on the talk pages there. I looked up Gandydancer and this is how I found you, Viriditas and Petrarchan47. From reading Gandydancer's talk page about the March Against Monsanto, I saw your comment "I was disturbed by what seemed like a pattern of corporate manipulation at the Monsanto page. I get that you see the 'scientific consensus on human health' claim as a lost cause, and maybe you're right." From my limited review of user talk pages of that time period on the subject, I got the sense that a number of the four of you were met with heavy resistance (some even blocked) for trying to put in the truth on this and related subjects. I definitely understand, I have been there too on a page that will remain nameless, but for which I did get the truth in after a 3 year wait!

So, I am contacting you and asking any advice on how to proceed with addressing the issue. I will likely write up my proposed edits and see what the 4 of you think, before I jump into the water of sharks with them...

David Tornheim (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]