I templated Gussert for autobio and COI; note that he hasn't edited since November 2007. As to the merge proposal: give it a bit more time before doing anything; there is no deadline to be met here. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your kind words. Depsite our differences I've always found your comments to be thoughful and reasonable.

I assure you my edits to the HUAC article were just an attempt to improve it's accuracy. I ackowledge that the MD committe was a precursor to HUAC. I was just making the point that the MD committe mainly investigated fascist activity and that HUAC was not officially formed until 1938. I'm not saying that the MD committe didn't have porblems of it's own, just that it was a seperate investigation from HUAC that had an entirely differenct focus.

I likewise look forward to debating you again on the Business plot talk page, just not right now. I'm still a little burned out on that subject and would like to wait a week or two before I come back to it.annoynmous 09:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. NB that Ted Frank has a Wikipedia link, and that you may (or may not) wish to cite the American article to balance the discussion of Buchanan in the main text of the Wikipedia article. THF (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC):[reply]

• Frank, Ted (2009). "The Truth Is Out There". American Magazine. {{cite journal}}: Text "]" ignored (help) A Recent Article Reviewing the Business Plot

I notice you were trying to nominate Creat page for deletion but you didn't do it properly. The article seems to meet speedy deletion criterion A7, so I've just tagged it as that. If the speedy is declined, I'll help you list it at AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No matter, it was just deleted. I'm surprised Creat page has been created so many times anyway, given the typo. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no independent knowledge regarding the significance of Easy-Way Store -- I've never been to Memphis, much less bought groceries there.

I found an unsourced and unlinked reference to the store and its founder in another article, searched Google for information about the man and the business, and created the article about the business on the fly while trimming the unsourced trivia out of the other article. I guess I should have flagged the page as "under construction" when I created it, but since it was flagged as "patrolled," I did not anticipate that a new-page patroller would come by to tag it for deletion before I had a chance to finish working on it.

It appears to me that the business is notable based on its longevity as a business, the existence of multiple independent articles about it, and indications that it is considered to be a "local institution". The fact that there are many other grocery stores in the Memphis metro area (most of them operated corporate chains that are the subject of separate articles) does not prevent this small chain from being notable. As a privately held business, it is unlikely to be the subject of the same types of coverage as publicly held businesses receive.

I've now finished the article with material I found in various online sources. There were other ghits to articles that are no longer online, and I imagine that Wikipedians in the Memphis area could add more sourced content. Please let me know if you still have concerns about the article. --Orlady (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I never know if people like my rewording of their work or not... --Sift&Winnow 20:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One person apparently does not understand "alleged" (sigh). Collect (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that nothing will change collects mind. No matter what edits or suggestions I make he will come out against them. You have always struck me as reasonable and fair despite our disagreements. I have made a compromise edit that trys to include everyones concerns. I hope we can engage in a constructive debate on the talk page and not get bogged down in another senseless revert war. annoynmous 04:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping in. The idea is to talk on the article talk page before making what you know are non-consensus edits. I again ask you (Annoynmous) to self-revert so that we can have a reasoned discussion. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when we last were discussing this, the editor removed only "Wall St Putsch"... now all 3 alternative subject titles have been removed... (also known as the Wall Street Putsch, the Plot Against FDR, the White House Putsch) ... do you deny that there was plot to overthrow FDR? all of these titles have been used at one time or another. how can we get this rectified?68.101.217.238 (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here's a 2007 BBC report titled "the White House Coup" ... not credible? http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

there was much discussion about the removal of "Wall St Putsch" several months ago (and the other names were left intact) ... the consensus among editors was to leave these in. where did all those comments go? 68.101.217.238 (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination) has been listed for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 15. You may be interested in commenting.Tatterfly (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Capitalismojo - I added a note for your on my talk page. Please respond with your thoughts on my talk page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selwyndvr (talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi capitalismojo, while I understand that you didn't know what the ASTM is, I don't think that is a good enough reason for you to add a boilerplate to every ASTM article about who the ASTM is. The beauty of Wikipedia is that we add internal links to an article so that those who are more interested in that term or idea can follow the link to learn more. Moreover, its hard to keep redundant info upto date when it is posted on multiple articles. As such, I definitely think these boilerplates should be removed. Wizard191 (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits. NB that http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432164378 is a secondary source for the existence of CCAF. Separately, for some reason, there is not an external link to tedfrank.com. THF (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0921/outfront-tort-consumers-lawyer-tries-to-block-settlements.html THF (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Answered your question on the article's talk page. But I'm not like "Hoo! She's as important as Gandhi, Einstein and Gumby combined." Not my heart's blood in it ... Greetings! --Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 13:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change the name of the section. What I'll say is that I'm trying to assume good faith, but that your edits at least could strongly appear as ones trying to frame a valid critique of Blackwater, made by many sources, including Jeremy Scahill, widely regarded as an expert on the subject (as described here by constitutional law professor Glen Greenwald [1]) as somehow a wild-eyed "conspiracy theory." You're not employing an appropriately neutral tone. I attempted to rephrase most of the sentences in this section earlier, and don't believe the section still qualifies as violating any "copyright laws," but if you have specific complaints on this subject, please share them with me or with others on the Talk page. Adlerschloß (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the talk page, but will also record here that the key problem I was attempting to solve was a major copyright violation, also the term "conspiracy theory" was used in the news accounts referenced in the section. It was not my term. I am glad we were able to resolve this amiably and reasonably. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalismojo, while it is true that TC: BOTFH is only being self-published, the fact of the matter is that it has a small cult following on Facebook, one which is growing a little at a time. Within the coming year, this book is expected to boom in popularity. The Wiki page is weak simply because I have very little time per day/week to work on it. Within a month, it will be a notable page with decent amount of traffic as popularity builds. If does not live up to basic standards, please tell me how it can. This book means the world to the author and it's fans, and it deserves a page of it's own. Apollo-kun (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)apollo-kun[reply]

CJLippert (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this--Fiskeharrison (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Capitalismojo! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to the Blackwater Worldwide page.Tommyboy1215 (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my talk page or the article's discussion page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you should restore the banner. The problem is that copyright violations appear in the history of the page and so require administrative action.

After my revision, no problems should have remained---it was unnecessary but perhaps better to begin a new article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Capitalismojo,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Two lines in the 'see also' section are not undue empaphasis. Please be reasonable. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also's are to be avoided. They should be included in the body of the article when possible.Capitalismojo (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're creating an article (Identical or extremely similar to) one that already exists, create a redirect from the other (less-common) title. I would say just move it, but you've already created the article. anyway, thanks for editing wikipedia! Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. =] I forget stuff too sometimes. Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you did it wrong. To rename a page you have to move it, copy and pasting the content to a new title and redirecting the old one is bad, it means the history required for copyright reasons is in the wrong place. I have removed the redirect from National Republican Trust Political Action Group, and redirected National Republican Trust to it, if you want to change the title please do it properly--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existing article concerning the American Liberty League is incorrect as it describes the American Liberty League as a defunct organisation. This is not the case. The American Liberty League is very much an active political group, with offices in Washington DC, at 1101 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, a facebook page, a twitter presence, business cards, a mailing list and all. In addition to that, I am not very happy with the description of my late grandfather, Gerald MacGuire, as some kind of seedy plotter and fascist. He was a decorated veteran of the Boxer Rebellion and was gravely wounded in combat, during World War I; but as he's been dead for seventy five years I guess he could hardly worry about a little libel. In any case I attempted to correct the page with correct and updated information and I did this as a representative of the American Liberty League. Mr Eleuthere Paul DuPont, our Chairman is willing that a new page be created for our organisation, though we regard the League of the 1930's and our modern League to be one and the same. Either that or we would be satisfied to have the current page removed in its entirety in order that any possible confusion be avoided.

Best wishes,

David MacGuire PDMacGuire (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article 'Steve Kagen' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://www.shawanoleader.com/articles/2007/01/28/news/news2.txt

• You added this in April 2009.
• The bot tested this link on 4 April, 6 April, 9 April and today, but it never worked.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although since Americans have figured out what the ALEC does, many of its members have started downplaying their participation in it, Vukmir's website still brags about it! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Thompson and all the other members I attached the category to are identified in the master American Legislative Exchange Council article--Thompson in the History paragraph. That paragraph, in turn, is sourced by the organization's main website [2] where Thompson's name appears in the second paragraph. Trackinfo (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting whatever errors are out there. But I don't follow your logic. How could alec.org not be a reliable source about the names of members, the leaders of its own organization? Certainly if an article were to say someone is employed by a particular institution, the BEST logical source would be to quote that organization's staff directory rather than from an outsider like what we would consider a normal RS--the press--to be. I use staff directories to verify employment in many articles. Beyond the current people on that list, yes, we will need to go to outside sources. I welcome your help to find such sources and add to the list. Trackinfo (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion moved to article talk. Just to finalize this thread, this organization is a legislative membership organization, when someone is no longer a legislator they are no longer a member. They are then former members and should be listed as such. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a FYI. ALEC has not always been helpful about its internal workings, so there's some opacity there. In the face of criticism, GEO Group bailed from ALEC maybe four years ago because, they admitted, it looked improper. CCA took longer to officially drop its membership. However I understand that they both continued to be exhibitors at ALEC conferences, though they would not have had the influence they did when CCA chaired the various versions of its criminal justice committee and GEO was a committee member. ALEC also underwent a major overhaul last year, dividing activities in response to complaints about illegal lobbying, I'd guess. Activist (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see about softening the block ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your new edits look solid and NPOV to me. Thanx. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot. 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) 05:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your comment on Talk:Libertarianism. You say "epitome of canvassing". Perhaps you meant antithesis? – S. Rich (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opps. I thought it was WT:ECON. You are right. (Nevermind.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prisoner X. 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) 06:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civil?? You think I'm taking a swipe at him but I'm actually serious. He makes his living from trying to reduce the salaries of his fellow lawyers often seemingly just to prove a point and little to gain himself which causes a lot of resentment from many towards him. I don't think he'd like having a photograph in his article for privacy and security purposes. Why don't you ask him for a photograph and find out? He has a blog and website.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did indeed believe you were taking a swipe at him. There is nothing at the article to suggest such vast animus or security concerns, but then I am not a lawyer. His photo pops up on Google in .19 seconds. Perhaps I will ask for a photo.Capitalismojo (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course anybody can google him to identify him, but a lot of people wouldn't like their photo in the article for privacy reasons or even approve of their own articles. As you can see by the talk page he has multiple issues with the article itself and how "he has been treated" in the article, the impression I get is that I don't honestly think he's the sort of guy who is easy to please or would be willing to help with photographs, but feel free to prove me wrong.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Taliban. 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) 01:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrBill3 (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish I had ensured the first message was neutral. I didn't really think about it, honestly. I mainly thought to ensure to get it to the whole audience that took part in the pervious discussion. That said, I do think WP:RFC/U looks to be an excellent tool to help get to the bottom of problems.Casprings (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalismojo, I've moved the page over from "IRS Tea Party investigation" to "2013 IRS scandal" as you wanted, merging the page histories. However, in the future, please do NOT do copy-and-paste moves; if you are unable to do a move yourself, request the assistance of an administrator to make the move. Copy-and-paste moves are against Wikipedia policy, fork the page histories, and just create additional cleanup work on the part of admins afterwards to merge page histories. —Lowellian (reply) 21:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dodge City, Kansas. 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) 09:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Monarchy of Canada. 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) 10:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Capitalismojo. I just saw your comment at ANI, and seeing your name reminded me that I had wanted to drop a little note here for a while now. You've visited my Talk page a couple times, and I've seen comments of yours on a few other Talk pages as well, and in each instance you've left a memorable impression on me. Your civility, clarity and generally pleasant demeanor in discussions hasn't gone unnoticed. I'm sure we can find plenty on which we disagree, but I'm equally sure any discussions had on such disagreements would be amiable. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! Capitalismojo (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a famouse person in mearns called big cherry so could you stop deleting it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.190.201 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Capitalismojo, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 07:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apparently my contributions were not appreciated or appropriate. I apologise that you had to take some time to remove them; I tried to clean up the messes that I made but some of the pages were beyond an easy reversion. Whoops. I've stopped making any edits to pages, don't worry. If I could figure out how to delete my account on here, I would, but I've not put much time into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelcema (talk • contribs) 16:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Capitalismojo. You have new messages at RA0808's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

hi ]I see that you changed what I've done but Christina Aguilera is very proud to be latino and she has said it. 

thanks for listing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrodreamerr (talk • contribs) 22:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Capitalismojo! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- ^(T) Numbermaniac _(C) 07:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC) |}[reply]

Superman, the moral compass of the DC universe, snapping Zod's neck is pretty relevant. It is essentially murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.129.252.126 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... Jimmymcjimjim (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having just watched the movie, I fail to see how the addition to the plot narrative of very relevant element cannot be considered to be constructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phetchy (talk • contribs) 17:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please, don't revert my edit. You can check that any page related to a papal conclave contains the elected cardinal's name before the papal name, and it obviously redirects to the latter one. E.g.: Papal conclave, April 1555. Cardinal elected, Marcello Cervini degli Spannochi. It redirects to Pope Marcellus II, except it's explicitly redirected. Tokvo (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have shared with you on your talk page the standard approach for linking. Good luck and welcome.Capitalismojo (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Capitalismojo. I went ahead and started an RFC on the issue of which source to use for revenue in the Infobox here. Bilbo agrees with the employee count, so this is the last dispute-area for the infobox. CorporateM (Talk) 01:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Booboo babu sing! You speak Chinese right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.69.212 (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I kindly ask why did you undo the perfectly legitimate changes that I made on the "Lega Nord" page? I *AM* Italian, I know what I'm talking about and the changes were targeted to better describe the party and the actions that resulted in a reprimend from thhe UN.

You made an insertion charging the subject of the article was "racist and xenophopic". Controversial statements require references from reliable sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made that contributions in Ruta Quetzal because the origin of the term Latin America: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America#Etymology_and_definitions . For me the correct form to refer to all these countries is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibero-America or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_America. Now, I think I made a mistake, because if there are places on the route from Brazil, proper correction'd had been Ibero-America.

We are a nice family and very friendly. Could your ban keep out the way of our sight because the ban don't help,what can we do is punish for a week and think about their ban. That what my saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.17.214 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2002 Gujarat violence. 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) 10:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I revised the Psilocybin article with correct linkage, is this acceptable? Cocoanatta (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, Capitalismojo (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a simple redirect takes 5 seconds, an article creation takes 5 minutes. Think that before you do so hasty unilateral moves. Wikipedia will not be shut down if the article stays for a few more hours...--Reader1987 (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my talk page. Of course I will not be hasty but I do, very much, want your thoughts on my questions before moving on. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

often there is the need for one user to create a blurb, to be expanded then by other interested people soon afterwards, while he may have not the time to do that. If that does not happen, the redirect is good cca 24 h after the event "calmed down" let's say..--Reader1987 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks again. I'll revisit it sometime in September or October. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How was the page better without my edit? Is it not relevant to share common nicknames for a city? Themidnightwill (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im only saying that accusing someone of giving unreliable sources when that alleged unreliable sources were not presented (at least I do not saw them on the talk page, I would apologize if they were presented) is not the best way to deal with other editors...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've commented before on the Tea Party moderated discussion and I was wondering if you're at all interested in coming around again? I understand if you don't want to be there, it can be a hassle, but the more editors the better. Just recently Silk Tork went around to editors he knew to ask the same thing, but none of them came over. I'd understand if you say no, but think about it, okay? We could use the help. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Armoured fighting vehicle. 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) 11:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re's: Hello, I'm Capitalismojo. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Raven Riley because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! Everything I added or edited is true and verifiable. Confused on why it was pulled, and curious as how to make it correct.

Thanks! Jason Morris (jaYMan)

Thank you for your message. I have added some welcome information to your talk page. You first edit seemed to be about yourself or a company you were involved with and have some issues related to Wikipedia biography policy WP:BLP. Please take a look at WP:COI. Its not uncommon for new editors to make initial mistakes, it usually takes a while to get a handle on things. Good luck.Capitalismojo (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have re-reverted your edit using STiki on the article Pierre Rousseau. The user didn't vandalize the page, he added content. --Ben Ben (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello ! - I am the one who made edits reverted in good faith. I was confused as to why it could have been vandalized as I allowed myself to create it (translation from French). Thank you for your help though ! Hope to read you soon. -- LeRuffle, 8 July 2013.

• Hi LeRuffle, have read your response. You are welcome. --Ben Ben (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a video link for a Kenny Delmar TV commercial, and you claimed that the article was better without it. Why was it better not to show an example of his work? I believe the YouTube video link of Mr. Delmar's work is VERY IMPORTANT, and helps to EDUCATE the reader. Please give me a SPECIFIC reason, and please DO NOT give me a "boilerplate answer." I believe I deserve better than a non-answer answer, like you gave in your intial message. [[Chance Enter (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)]][reply]

Hi! YouTube videos and similar services are not considered reliable sources at Wikipedia. Sorry. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Capitalismojo! I saw you recently reverted a major change to Larry Kane. I hope you will join in the conversation on Talk:Larry Kane on how best to improve the article. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Capitalismojo,

Thank you for your kind words in my talk page.

I sincerely hope you aid wikipedia in keeping good articles for which we all (?) love wikipedia!

Now that we've expressed some good words of greetings, I feel it my need to state that the changes to Dr Haitham Al Haddad's page does not only increase the completedness of the contents of the page, but is absolutenely vital and imperative.

Dr Haitham is an influential personality in the Islamic world. He is a well known speaker in 'Peace TV' and 'Huda (Guidance) TV' and his speeches are viewed perhaps by millions of (or less?) people in the world.

As such his wikipedia profile should show a balanced view as per Wikipedia policies!

I think adding in his educational qualifications is vital and even if you disagrees (which I respectfully accept) to its need, I hope that you would accept that there is no harm in outlining the educational qualifications.

Other than his educational qualifications, his life and other details are also important (according to my little knowledge, my friend) to be added to the article to ensure it shows a balanced and complete profile of Dr. Haddad.

Furthermore, (and I hope you will be patient with me for taking your time) introducing this famous personality as controversial in the first line is extremely misleading and biased. Undoubtedly, many famous personnel (and SPECIALLY religious personnels who speak about right and wrong..) will suffer (or enjoy) from controversy. Yet, this cannot be the base line for their introduction. Like most pages Ive seen, the controversies relating to Dr. Haddad can come under a seperate section of the article.

I sincerely hope you will not mind at my differing with you in these matters. After all, we are all different so we are bound to have differences.

I thank you again for the kind words in my talk page..

Kind regards MuhammadAbdullah1234

Haddad is a freakin' salafi radical, so cool down. Hamnavoe (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted my thoughts on WP:LEAD regarding this article on MuhammadAbdullah1234's talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thx ;) Hamnavoe (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Many thanks for working on the Brett Davis article.-RFD (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remarks concerning the CFB North Bay Wikipedia article. I am the Wing Heritage Officer for the base, essentially a history/heritage public affairs officer.

Regarding my contributions to the page, the key, fundamental problem is that there is no one outside of the base who can provide accurate data to the article that can be substantiated. Reasons are two-fold: there have been very few books published in the civilian world about Canada's post-Second World War air force and because of RCAF Station/CFB North Bay's critical front-line role in the defence of North America against nuclear attack, the base has kept a low profile, thus is seldom mentioned in any of the books that have been published. Example: the British book "Cold War Secret Nuclear Bunkers", by N.J. McCamley, published by Pen & Sword Books in 2002, describes NORAD and mentions Canada, but fails to include CFB North Bay's NORAD Underground Complex even though the complex had been in operation for 39 years. The same goes for magazine and newspaper articles, other than the local newspaper, the North Bay Nugget.

The results of this problem showed in the article's first few years, in that none of the contributors showed that they had the slightest inkling of the base or its history. Few, if any, had even visited the base. Moreover none of the contributors had researched the base's historical archives, or Canadian government records about the base at the Library & Archives of Canada or the Department of National Defence's Directorate of History & Heritage to gather data and check the accuracy of their work. Consequently--contrary to the requirements of Wikipedia--and why they were never picked up for this by Wikipedia monitors eludes me--(a) all of their contributions comprised opinions, assumptions and suppositions versus facts, and (b) none of their contributions had any verifiable substantiation. The article was a dog's breakfast of mistakes, inaccuracies and omissions. Anyone viewing the Wikipedia article would read incorrect information about the base and its history.

The base commander and command staff finally had had enough of people writing about our base, who hadn't a clue about the base. It's like someone inputting data as an expert about the Magna Carta who doesn't know what the Magna Carta is, and has never even seen the document.

This said, I must stress that I, and the base, have absolutely no qualms about people not from the base contributing to the CFB North Bay article or editing the article. This is welcomed. It helps make the article better.

In 2011, as the subject matter expert, I began amending the article and making contributions under three strict criteria:

1. Facts only to be inserted in the article, no op-ed or embellishments. If you read the article, you will find that this is the case.

2. No opinions, assumptions or suppositions. (As given in the citations listed in the article) all of the material inserted by me comes directly from (a) original base and base unit documents, (b) historical Canadian government documents (as at the Library & Archives of Canada and Directorate of History & Heritage), and (c) reputable books and newspaper articles. The first two are 'horse's mouth' sources; they do not get more accurate or verifiable than this.

Example: the CFB North Bay Wikipedia article states that the NORAD Underground Complex was designed to withstand a 4-megaton nuclear strike. While there are no public books on the subject, there is an 80-page engineering document in our historical archives, "Report on Hardening of SAGE, SCC, North Bay for A.D. Margison & Associates Ltd, Consulting Engineers, March 1960" by D.F. Coates, P.Eng, Ottawa, Canada, that details the engineering data and lays out the mathematical computations for the Underground Complex withstanding a nuclear strike. Formerly classified Secret, now anyone can review it.

These are the documents primary, secondary and tertiary sources would have to consult, anyhow, to make contributions to the Wikipedia article. To use the Magna Carta analogy, anyone wishing to write about the substance of the Magna Carta would have to consult a contemporary copy of the document.

3. Which brings me to the last criterion: every source used in the article has to be available to the public, and open to fine-toothed scrutiny. The newspapers and books are, of course, readily accessible to the public. Anyone can access all of the documents in base archives used as sources for the article. The same goes for the Library & Archives of Canada and Directorate of History & Heritage. Because of the paucity of third-party material about CFB North Bay out there, this point, of public accessibility to our sources, was strongly and singularly emphasized.

As for conflict of interest, it does not apply because what would I or the base gain from attempting to promote my interests or the base's interests? We are not a corporation trying to use the article to market our wares, for instance. If you read the article you will see that everything inserted is fact versus opinion or spin; this is our air force base and this is its history, period.

As for the article being "substantially and heavily edited". I ask you, without sarcasm or cynicism, who outside the base has the knowledge and source material regarding CFB North Bay to do this? Past experience has shown that the answer, unfortunately, is nobody. It will reduce the article to the shambles it once was, that got us involved in the article to begin with.

Incidentally, over this summer I shall be inserting jpegs of graphics and photos of the base and from its history, to complement the text. Many of these graphics and photos have seldom been seen by the public.

Our base's (ergo my) sole purpose for amending and contributing to the article is to provide correct information about CFB North Bay. To reiterate, every source used by me is available to the public for his/her/their scrutiny.

If you wish to contact me outside of Wikipedia for any reason (you have curiosities about Canada and NORAD?), I can be reached at:

Captain Doug Newman 22 Wing Heritage Officer Canadian Forces Base North Bay Hornell Heights, Ontario Canada P0H 1P0 (705) 494-6011 ext. 2783 Raymond.Newman@forces.gc.ca

22WHERO (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, Capitalismojo! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and  Tentinator  06:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Toluca Lake, Los Angeles. 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) 11:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can only assume you are being deliberately false. Your edit to Decline of Detroit was a direct copy of the source (with no attempt to tweak it at all into your own words):

Your edit: "On July 18, 2013, Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy case in U.S. history, culminating a decades-long decline that transformed the America’s iconic industrial city into a model of urban decline crippled by population loss, a dwindling tax base and financial problems. The city's bankruptcy petition was filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Detroit."

Source: "The city of Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy case in U.S. history Thursday afternoon, culminating a decades-long slide that transformed the nation’s iconic industrial town into a model of urban decline crippled by population loss, a dwindling tax base and financial problems."

You said: If you felt it needed additional editing you should have done it and sent a note. I indeed edited the article accordingly with this edit and used the template to send you the note. Not sure how else I could have handled it. Ruby 2010/2013 21:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry! Unbelieveable. Truly I believed I had pared that ref down to a bare sentence before clicking save. This is my fault entirely. It really freaked me out getting that warning template because I believe it is the first one I have ever received. (Hence the WP:DTTR link at the top) Again, my sincere apologies. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. I thought it was odd that such an established editor had inputted such an obvious copyvio! (especially one from Wisconsin). :) No harm done. Ruby 2010/2013 21:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you use raw google books URLs. Check out http://reftag.appspot.com - it's a two click format raw book url into a nice cite. Also, you may want to submit such nice articles to T:TDYK in the future. Let me know if I can be of any help, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Two editors are advocating for the exclusion of any mention in the Zeitgeist: The Movie article that Peter Joseph, the creator of that film has stated publicly that words attributed to him in a story cited as a source in the article misquoted him, and that he has not distanced himself from the ideas expressed in that film, as that cited source indicates. I have responded to their arguments, but neither of them has responded directly to my counterarguments, but simply repeat the same statements of theirs over and over. Myself and one other editor disagree with them, so two editors are for the material's inclusion, and two are for its exclusion, with no sign of consensus in sight. Can you please offer your viewpoint in the discussion so that we can achieve consensus? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you explain on the talk page how pointing out when you've been misquoted shows a "disregard for the truth, interests, or well-being of others", given that that's the definition provided in three reference sources, which I noted in the discussion at least three or four times? I get it, you think it's self-serving. I'm asking if you understand what that phrase means, or if you using a different definition of it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;

This material is both self-serving and makes claims about a third party (the reporter) [[User: |Capitalismojo]] (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you tackle this one? I work for them (on coffee break now) and it would be grossly inappropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you also reverted this IP that is spamming some recent vote. Is there more that can be done to slow this type of thing down. I have zero interest in politics, but had to revert this mindless spamming. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw your edit first and used your format to clean-up the spam. I'm not sure there is any easy way to stop this sort of thing. Just revert and put a brief note on each talk talk page, I think. I left a long note at the IP's talk page, perhaps that will help. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I found a citation for the Regions of Wisconsin and removed orphan tag by adding hatnote to the geography section of the Wisconsin article that points to the article. Thank you for starting the article and the Wisconsin Families and Children Department article-thank you again-RFD (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. 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) 12:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask User:Scalhotrod; they originally moved it via cut and paste, and the only thing I did was to repair the edit histories. Bearcat (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me the barnstar! I have responded with a longer reply on my talk page. Royalbroil 03:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the definition of fascism one finds on the Oxford English Dictionary:

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Here is the definition of fascism one finds online: fascism [ˈfæʃɪzəm] n (sometimes capital) 1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism 2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc., that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc.

Please note that F is characterized not as "radical nationalism" but as a social and political movement. Footnotes (1 and 2) say Fascists espoused nationalist ideas not that F is essentially a form of nationalism. Fascism's identity, the core essence that distinguishes it from other political movements, is that it is a "radical rightwing political and social movement." It had qualities and characteristics such as nationalist.

The entry's introduction is ahistorical and should be historical.

Here are some samples from other encyclopedias:

Fascism is a term used to describe historically specific interwar (1919-45) European political movements and doctrines. Its derivation is from fasces, the ceremonial bundles of rods containing an axe with its head protuding, symbolizing the authority of the ancient Roman republic (which many Fascist governments wished to emulate). Fascist is also used more loosely to describe any form of right-wing authoritarian régime which is not explicitly socialist. In its most loose usage fascism is employed to denigrate people espousing either right-wing or left-wing views with which the speaker or writer disagrees. (Bloomsbury Guide to Human Thought)

Sometimes used as a word of abuse to refer to movements or individuals who are intolerant or authoritarian, fascism is certainly intolerant and authoritarian, but it is more than this. It is a movement that seeks to establish a dictatorship of the “right” (that is an ultra-conservative position that rejects liberalism and anything associated with the “left”). It targets communists, socialists, trade unionists, and liberals through banning their parties and their members, so that these groups cannot exercise their political, legal, or social rights. It is anti-liberal, regarding liberal values as a form of “decadence” and seeing them as opening the floodgates to socialist, communist, and egalitarian movements. (Cambridge)

Here is what I propose to insert:

"Fascism is a radical rightwing political movement and form of social organization characterized by nationalism, authoritarianism, xenophobia, and the use of state violence to terrorize leftwing opponents and to attain political ends. It arose in the early 20th century in response to the rise of economic egalitarianism, cultural liberalism, liberal democracy, and the perceived decadence of European society. It sought to restore a social order founded on hierarchy, submission to the state, inequality, and traditional rightwing values such as the church, the family, and law and order."

Let me know what you think.

If we continue to disagree, let's take it to mediation.

Mryan1451 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451[reply]

Here below is the change in "Fascism" I will be making.

Please let me know what you think.

I'm happy to work on it with you.

Again, let's go to mediation if we can't resolve this.

Mryan1451 (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451[reply]

Here are some justifications for the changes I've made: "Hi, Everyone. I've made a number of changes. Justification follows. Please read carefully and get back to me on my talk page. We will likely have to go to mediation on this. The entry is out of keeping with standard definitions. Those describe F as a rightwing social and political movement of which nationalism is one feature. But nationalism is not what defines F. The first two notes even makes this clear, as they describe Fascists as espousing nationalist ideas--not as being nothing but nationalists. Also, there has always been in this entry an attempt to make F seem indistinguishable from socialism and communism. The use of words like "totalitarian state" and "vanguard party" reflect this somewhat propagandistic impulse. They should be removed. They do not occur in any other definition in any other encyclopedia. The same is true of the word "revolution," which lumps fascists with leftwing revolutionaries (the ones the word revolution is usually associated with). All in all, there is distinct rightward bias to the entry as it stands, especially in the introductory paragraphs in the repeated references to the State--which suggest a libertarian capitalist bias. The entry needs to be made more neutral and more in keeping with other encyclopedia entries. Those entries tend to be more historical, and we need an historical dimension here as well. All in all, this is a very tendentious entry that needs to made into something more judicious and accurate."

Here are the proposed changes:

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ was a radical rightwing political movement and form of social organization characterized by nationalism, authoritarianism, xenophobia, and the use of state violence to attain political ends. It arose in the early 20th century in western Europe in response to the rise of social liberalism, communist revolution, and the perceived cultural decadence of European society. It sought to restore a social order founded on hierarchy, submission to the state, property inequality, and traditional rightwing values such as the church, the family, and law and order.

Fascism refers specifically to an Italian political movement (1927-1945), but the term is also used to characterize other rightwing political movements in Germany, Spain, and elsewhere during this period. Fascism is usually distinguished from other authoritarian political forms by the mass mobilization of the national community in accordance with the fascist principles of hierarchy, corporatism, and law and order.^[1] Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation and asserts that stronger nations have the right to obtain land and resources by displacing weaker nations.

Fascism sought to provide a solution to the divisions between classes within the nation by displacing attention to the conflict between nations and races. It advocates a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.Fascism supports what is sometimes called a Third Position between capitalism and Marxist socialism. Fascist movements emphasize a belligerent, virulent form of nationalism (chauvinism) and a distrust of foreigners (xenophobia), the latter closely linked to the ethnocentrism of many fascist movements. The typical fascist state also embraced militarism, a belief in the rigors and virtues of military life as an individual and national ideal, meaning much of public life was organized along military lines and an emphasis put on uniforms, parades, and monumental architecture.

Hi, thanks for getting back.

The problems with the first section of the entry go beyond the missing word "rightwing."

There is also a problem with defining F as "nationalism," with blurring the distinction between rightwing F and leftwing socialism, with the overemphasis on "statism" which seems to reflect a libertarian conservative bias, and with an absence of a sense of history.

I just posted today a revision of the entire first section on the Talk page of the article.

Mryan1451 (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Fascism Talk". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kamapitha. 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) 12:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment here. Thanks. georgianJORJADZE 00:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tommy Thompson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBO (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) 11:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:L'Origine du monde. 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) 12:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

am confuse by two things relate to edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Manning&curid=27630477&diff=572667836&oldid=572664799

for first, why is remove? web site is one of noted journalist who cover trial and receive grant from journalist institution to do work. is not personal blog where she talk about boys and hair--is useful repository of original documentation relate to case and fact thereof. is not even controversial statement, is only statement of fact on one charge.

for second, why not inform as request in edit? very rude. Lakdfhia (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the personal website is a reliable source, you can make that point at the article talk page or at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Several editors have now looked at it and concluded it is not, but you can make the case that it is, in fact, a eliable source. As regards notifying editors of reverts, that's just not done here at Wikipedia. Each editor have a Watchlist at the top of the page. Any pages you have edited are automatically watched for changes. Also, you should also have a notification button at the top of your page, that automatically informs you if your edits are reverted. That is how people are informed of changes here. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

am unsure what is meant by "several editors have now looked at it and concluded it is not [reliable source]"--where was discussed? cannot find to give own input. Lakdfhia (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Virgin [3] made the first removal of this material with the note that it was removing personal website ref. I reviewed your edit and the ref and made the same conclusion about the ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for guidance, is much appreciate--am new as editor, do not know how approach of problems is handle at times. Lakdfhia (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Clint Eastwood. 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) 00:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion: [4] - you are mentioned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot make additions to the article, by undoing mine and then tell me to take them to talk, which is entirely hypocritical. There isn't a single mention throughout the article that Butler was a self-proclaimed Socialist or proclaimed himself left-wing and the source you dug up is clearly laughable, you do not even know how to cite a source firstly, you just took a random link from amazon which you no doubt searched up and haven't even read and pasted it into the lead, simply because an historian calls him left-wing doesn't make him so he just happened to have some similar views. Criticizing an action, for example "this business makes profit" is not a political viewpoint, its just a fact, I do not become left-wing for pointing that out. Guidelines suggest refs shouldnt be in the lead anyway, but thats besides the point. Keep this up and I'm taking this to the administrators because I do not consider this to be a disagreement on content, but someone (yourself) commiting to contentious editing and censorhsip to put forward a view, completely against Wikipedia. --JTBX (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about an incident please feel free to take it to ANI. Know that I am uncertain, based on your comment, what precisely you consider that incident to be. You have made a Bold addition to the article lede. It has been reverted by several editors. You have been invited to discuss the content on the talk page. This is the essence of WP:BRD. I look forward to reaching a consensus on the lede quickly. Thanks. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back at WP:RSN about the map. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The White Queen (TV series). 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) 00:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Great Dane. 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) 00:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote in the 'no paid advocacy' discussion seems to be in the wrong location. You are clearly opposed to the policy change but you put your vote in the section talking about closing the discussion. I didn't want to move it up to the main voting section as it it your edit. Just an FYI. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I got completely lost in the edit view and was working my way up from the bottom of the page. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iran–Iraq War. 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) 00:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have started a conflict of interest investigation on IP 161.141.1.1 as that IP is owned by Enbridge corporation and has been doing a lot of pro-Enbridge edits to the Enbridge article. As you have also contributed to that article I thought you might be interested to have a look. Cheers, Djapa Owen (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler. 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) 00:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in a deletion request for List of Dewey Decimal classes as it appears to be a copyright violation. I'm notifying you as you have either made multiple edits to the article in the past year and/or on the talk page for that article and Talk:Dewey Decimal Classification. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Patriotic Nigras. 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) 00:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re this edit: I believe I addressed your WP:COPYVIO concern. I'm just writing to improve my understanding of the policy. While I have some knowledge of copyright law, I know next to nothing about Wikipedia's treatment of it.

I've assumed that a single sentence can be copied verbatim from a reliable source, particularly when it's contains contentious language (neutrality issues aside). Sometimes if you stray from the language even slightly then you're distorting the source and creating a neutrality/OR issue. However, this has now gotten me into trouble a couple of times, with editors reverting my additions citing COPYVIO. So my question is, are you familiar with any guidance (policies, guidelines, essays) on the subject of very small (e.g. single sentence) copying? If not I suppose I'll post an inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations. Cheers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 3 December 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. 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) 00:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. 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, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well the pic has been removed because it is supposedly advertisement.... :-( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek#Payday_loans_in_the_United_Kingdom Do you know how I can appeal the removal? --Peabodybore (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a note about your recent removal of "and business representatives." Aside from the fact that this bit is well-cited in the body of the article and therefore doesn't require a citation in the lead, it's generally considered to be rather aggressive to remove non-controversial uncited material without warning. In fact the relevant guideline says uncited material should only be removed if it's both doubtful and harmful (or a BLP violation). In this particular case you know as well as I that ALEC is composed of business representatives in addition to legislators, so the material you removed can hardly be called doubtful, let alone harmful. Cheers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The in-line refs for that sentence did not say "and business representatives." There are other refs elsewhere in the article that talk about membership. They mention business, non-profit, and think-tank members. Those were not used in the refs for that sentence. I think that the older lead sentence that talked about non-profit and members was better. However I don't generally like making large edits. It seemed best to edit conservatively and stick with what the current ref said. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given this discussion and your thoughts, I'll re-add the non-profit, and think tank members to the sentence. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like those. The non-profits and think tank members are all for business groups and are therefore business representatives. Putting these in the lead might be seen as misleadingly suggesting a very different kind of organization. Beside, ALEC isn't primarily known for its non-profit and think tank members. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, my point wasn't so much about the merits of your removal of "and business representatives" as much as your decision to delete the phrase instead of adding a cn tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. There are straight-out educational think tanks. There are non-profit groups like the NRA. There is even an odd umbrella group that combines a co-op and a state water authority. The fact that some of the non-profits are business trade associations does not change the fact that they are non-profits and that not "all" the non-profits are for business groups. Its just not so. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:POV. 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) 00:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments at WP:AN. I will try and prove the community's confidence in me by editing in a productive manner and avoid entering into conflict with other editors as in the past. You may be interested to note I have just launched the article Esteban Mestivier as I promised and I would welcome your input if you have a moment. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:British Isles. 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) 00:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the tagging of the article without putting something on the talk page, but I simply could not stand the condition of the article. The "Clarification needed" superscripts and the sheer complexity of the article bothered me. An encyclopedia article should have the definition in the first or second sentence; yet I had to read into the second and third paragraph to find a clear definition of it. Thanks for the input though :) | Glenzo999^(Talk) | 17:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in our user study. Please email me at credivisstudy@gmail.com. Wkmaster (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you send me an email? I will then send you additional information to set up some time for the user study. Thanks! Wkmaster (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalismojo,

Last night I edited the top part of Wayne Madsen's bio page only to find all the changes, nearly each of which had a link to prove the veracity, stricken in less than 24 hours.

In place of my accurate edits, someone, perhaps you, reverted back to the previous entry. The first sentence is factually wrong and the second sentence repeats the ad homenim fallacy that Madsen is a "conspiracy theorist."

Whoever took down my post has replaced an accurate, objective entry with the erroneous and fallacious entry that has no place in an encyclopedia.

Whoever did this either lacks the skill or is too biased, or both, to be entrusted with making edits to Madsen's bio.

Unlike you, I sign my work with my real name: Len Bracken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenbracken (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenbracken (talk • contribs) 02:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each page has a history button that tells who made each edit. I have replied on your talk page but will note here that you deleted a stable consensus that had been worked on by many editors over considerable time. You also deleted many, many reliable source refs. This just isn't done. I reverted the edit. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that after you have made more than six edits you may have a better feeling for Wikipedia's policies and practices. You will certainly be better able to understand what constitutes appropriate editing here. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read about half of the edits you made, per my request. They look good to me. Thanks for your considerable work. Activist (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed the remainder of your edits. Thanks for all you did. That was a heck of a job. Activist (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jesus. 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) 00:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check again? (Search for "sister.") --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC

Well the term does appear. It, the ref, doesn't seem to me to be either reliable for its use of the term or factually accurate. Sister organization: A company which is owned by the same parent company as another company. One parent company can have one or many subsidiaries, which all are sister companies to each other. Read more: [[5]] There is nothing in the ref, or any other ref to suggest that there is any such "sister" relationship between these two organizations. I suggest this is a controversial and poorly ref'd description. While ALEC is one of dozens of affiliate members, they have no joint creation, overlapping boards, overlapping members, nothing. They share a common ideology. That hardly makes for a "sister" organization. A better ref is necessary. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, the only corroborative evidence I could find was this, which appears to me to be a misreading of its underlying source. Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fenelon Township. 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) 00:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could also reply to Talk:United_States#Images_that_lack_relevance_to_the_section_or_article and the current proposed image changes there... it would help us reach a consensus faster. Thank you. Cadiomals (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that ELNO doesn't apply, right? --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And BLP? It doesn't apply? How about POINTy? NPOV? Wildly inappropriate edit. Please abandon this effort to use that list article to make some sort of larger political point about TRUTH. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question.

I don't believe I've indicated in any way that other policies/guidelines are completely non-applicable as is ELNO. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the "see also" style guidelines are abbreviated and incomplete, so abbreviated to be unhelpful. The ELNO thoughts are well considered, well known, and entirely applicable. It is up to the editor who wants to include material to justify that inclusion. ELNO makes for a great guideline to assist editors in adding that which improves an article. That's why I, and other editors, often suggest that people familiarize themselves with ELNO. It's a tool to help guide thinking about what to add to an article. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. ELNO has a great deal on inclusion and exclusion for external links that may be helpful when considering inclusion and exclusion of information elsewhere. However, it being specific to external links doesn't give it any weight in WP:DR, as WP:ELN would never be an appropriate venue for resolving such disputes.

I've restored the link and can provide sources supporting it per the points I've made on the article talk page, which I hope address your concerns. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, why are you restoring content sourced to a personal blog of random author?--Theamazo (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Sydney Morning Herald. Please see WP:NEWSBLOG. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So would you explain how a technology editor is a professional on September 11 attacks / personality traits? For example has his blog post, or any related work been cited by any reliable source?--Theamazo (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I didn't add the section. I merely restored something sourced to a reliable source ref. If you think that the Sydney Morning Herald is not reliable you can take it to WP:RS/N, if you think the ref is reliable but that the material doesn't belong in the article for other reasons, you should discuss it on talk. What you can't do is remove it as a "blog" ref because it's not. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/blogs/untangling-the-web/dont-get-caught-in-the-web-of-conspiracy-theory-truthiness/20101105-17gq1.html is not a blog?--Theamazo (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per Wikipedia policy which I have pointed out to you above and linked for you. WP:NEWSBLOG Please read it before you are blocked for vandalism. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the technology and science editor of the Sydney Morning Herald is not "some random author" of a blog. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So will you explain to me how a technology editor's views on personality traits is reliable and relevant?--Theamazo (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Take your content objections to the relevant talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement about "profoundly boring and academic" next to "a reliable source as far as" you can see made me smile. If only that were actually a sufficient condition, what fun we'd have, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I don't know if you already know, but a substantial amount of my contributions to Wikipedia are done in a COI capacity, where companies recruit me to bring their article up to GA. That article was a different kind of COI (I basically probably didn't even have one), but I do routinely need editors to collaborate with on articles where I have a COI in a Bright Line(ish) fashion. I was wondering if you had any interest in helping out now and then?

For example, I was just pinging a few editors looking for someone willing to take a look at these proposed edits. There is a lot of directory information and unsourced contentious material on that article. My list of proposed edits is rather intimidating and I know I will have a hard time finding someone willing to look through the wall of text. CorporateM (Talk) 23:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I don't mind. Glad to help. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! It's hard to find editors that are willing to spend time on articles they may not have a particular interest/expertise in, so it's sort of an endless task for me to find editors that enjoy editing company pages and don't mind swooping in to new articles. CorporateM (Talk) 00:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hope you don't mind that I moved the comments around so it is easy to tell which are completed and which are still pending. CorporateM (Talk) 07:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this revert: [6] Would you please undo it and just remove the Nazi gun control part? Most of the edits you reverted have nothing to do with the Nazi gun control material. I only boldly added the new NGC material [7] after Scalhotrod boldly removed the old. [8] Lightbreather (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2014 (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/Comics. 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) 00:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Posted a question for your follow-up at Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council#First sentence. Cheers --The Cunctator (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide. 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) 00:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re [9] please read WP:LEAD about the introduction being a summary of the article's body. Please read WP:COMPREHENSIVE on what is and is not on topic for any given article. EllenCT (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at your talk.

Your understanding of the MOS guidance at WP:LEAD is not correct. We are not to duplicate entire paragraphs or broad swatches of the body in the lead section. It is to be a summary. Your linking to an essay does not change that.

From WP:LEAD : "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

The quote removed was a cut and paste duplication of a paragraph from the main body. That never is allowed. It is also why Ubikwit shortened the deleted paragraph and put in one sentence in its place. Sorry that you misunderstood. Capitalismojo (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If verbatim duplication of the body in the intro is not allowed, there are a very large number of featured articles which aren't allowed. Where are you getting that from? EllenCT (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted both the wiki link and the actual language. I can't imagine that you don't understand the word "summary" in the MOS, so it seems you have come to this page to be disruptive. Please stop. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, this article is a blatant copy-vio. When you are marking it as patrolled, you should tag it for copy vio as well :) — Abhishek  ^Talk 14:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All MLAs are notable. See WP:POLITICIAN. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States) 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/List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States) 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 notice from the top of the article. gobonobo ^{+ c} 17:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Policy. 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) 00:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated File:Stay-behind.png for speedy deletion as a hoax. I have read what you wrote on the talk page, and it does look to me as though you are probably right. However, it is not so obvious and blatant a hoax that I am confident in speedily deleting it. What is more, your nomination has remained in place for a few hours short of two days. In that time, numerous administrators who patrol speedy deletion candidates must have looked at it, and the fact that not one of them has either accepted or rejected the nomination implies that they must all, like me, be rather on the fence about it. If a number of admins have all been doubtful, it is evidently not a sufficiently clear-cut enough case for speedy deletion, so I have declined the speedy deletion, and if you think it should be deleted you will need to take it to Wikipedia:Files for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing it. I will follow your advice. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alex Van Pelt 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Green Bay Packers]] ({{NFL Year|2012}}–{{NFL Year|2014}}<br>(Running Backs coach)
• * [[Green Bay Packers]] ({{NFL Year|2014}}–(present)<br> (Quarterbacks coach)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexico. 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) 00:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. 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) 00:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. 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, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bosnian War. 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) 00:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice that this edit summary got cut off. The full relevant language from the source is: "In 2011, fully 95 percent of the Franklin Center’s revenues came from a charity called Donors Trust, whose top contributors were the Koch brothers." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CJR is not a reliable source for Donors Trust on this matter. Donors Trust has given away $400 million plus in recent years. The biggest donations mentioned by Mother Jones (publisher of the principal investigative article on Donors Trust) talk about $2 million from the Kochs. At the very least that is UNDUE for us to suggest within the article that this is Koch money, based on one ref that is inaccurate on the facts. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then this isn't a verification issue, it's a reliability issue. I'd have a hard time seeing CJR being deemed unreliable. If there is indeed a conflict between reliable sources then it should be reflected. If you wish to continue this discussion it should probably be on the article talk page. (I only started this thread to let you know what I meant to include in my edit summary.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re your feeling insulted, do you have a personal connection to any of these organizations that the community should know about? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have no conflict of interest of any sort whatsoever. I have more connection to you than to these organizations. I find it wrong to take a solid concerns about policy and leap to personal questions about other editors. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just checking. I was wondering why you'd feel insulted by something I wrote about an organization with which you have no connection. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified my remarks at talk. I believe it is an insult to women to assert or suggest that because one is married there is some sort of control over organizations the wife runs or automatic expectation that a wife is not independent. It is a general view that is wrong and sexist. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, though I doubt you'd find much support for it. Wikipedia policy on spousal COIs (or at least the quotation of the New York Times ethics guidelines) is a ubiquitous view ensconced in ethics rules throughout the United States at least, such as those adopted by legislatures, bar associations, and reputable news outlets. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are all entitled to our opinions here, particularly when as a matter of policy and custom we work by consensus. You have not achieved consensus on your original research and its applicability to the source in question especially related to the modest content you have proposed as being in dispute. I suggest that a footnote (one of several) that points to a NYT ethics guidelines hardly qualifies as wikipedia policy. It's effectively a "see also". Capitalismojo (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the body of the policy does say that sources that have "apparent conflicts of interest" are questionable. One way or another that term has to be interpreted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which gets us to the point that the husband does not in fact run the second organization and that the supposed conflict does not even rise to the level of an "apparent conflict of interest". Capitalismojo (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joint control is not a prerequisite for a conflict of interest. So explain to me how you get to your conclusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "joint control". He has no control over, and no evidence presented shows that he has any control over, Franklin. A grant in 2009 is hardly the stuff of conflict in 2014. Absent his control over Franklin or specifically Franklin's Watchdog org, there is no conflict. I have laid out my further thoughts related to the "conflict" very clearly at RSN. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've hashed this over pretty thoroughly. Hopefully others will weigh in on the merits. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have. :) I hope so too. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to, but what is BRD?Ericl (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD or BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS is a standard of practice and methodology commonly used here at wikipedia. It is used in order to avoid edit wars or other friction & strife. It relates to wikipedia's policy on consensus. The idea is that an editor makes a BOLD edit and (if other editors REVERT it), rather than reinserting we take it to talk to DISCUSS. Thus rather than slipping into an edit war, that gets nipped in the bud and consensus can be achieved at the talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you requested, I moved the discussion of the relevance of Wage theft to Income inequality in the United States to the Talk page. See Talk:Income inequality in the United States#delete Wage theft as "Relationship? I see none". User:Arthur Rubin and I have exchanged comments there. Neither of us are convinced by the other. I've invited User:C.J. Griffin to comment, and I'm inviting you to also comment. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented at talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. 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) 00:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Capitalismojo. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research. 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, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to see whether Galant Khan comes back in to reintroduce the coatrack crud again on Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. As it is, he's taken his forum shopping further by posting a complaint against me on an administrator's talk page, for which he and I were handed an edit warring notification! I pinged the admin asking him to please qualify how he'd come to the conclusion that I have been edit warring on this article, but have had no response as yet.

Until I have some form of response from him, I'm reluctant to nominate it for deletion per WP:COATRACK. Either it establishes why the group are notable, or it should get the boot. Even if there are arguments for notability, I want a tight case for its being developed with their full background, memos, etc. without the tendentious use of a few convenient examples when contributors are POV-pushing the 'look, they were right in the past!' bollocks. The single example of where they were 'wrong' ("Israel did not attack Iran that month or at any time since." has been deleted (as editorialising, presumably) whereas, according to the same editor, retaining op-ed pieces from WP:BIASED sources is not considered to need WP:INTEXT attribution.

Furthermore, how do these editors justify the use of a WP:PRIMARY source in the external links? The letter to Merkel is a primary source which should not been introduced where secondary sources are available... so I'm removing it. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Capitalismojo, per the policy regarding publicizing RfC’s, your name was chosen from the list of editors who participate in them.

The RfC link is here.

The question is:

Should we keep these newly created separate country articles about the Ebola epidemic, or should we delete/redirect them to the article Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa?

• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone
• 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States

Your participation is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

SW3 5DL (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user Eyeswhyde has reverted the article back to how he/she liked it despite not gaining consensus. I have not been following the controversy there for too long, so someone else that was I feel should get involved and possibly report Eyeswhyde for Edit Warring or some other disciplinary action. --Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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) 00:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your removal of unreliable sources for James L. Buckley's possible membership in ALEC. I've agreed with all of your edits on this so far. (Though I'm baffled as to what's up with ALEC's "History" page... How can a large, established organization screw up the name of one of its founding members and not fix it for over three years?) In any case, what are your thoughts on the usability of this source:

• Hunt, Thomas C.; Lasley, II, Thomas J., eds. (January 12, 2010). Encyclopedia of Educational Reform and Dissent. Vol. Vol. 1. Sage Publications. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's an encyclopedia ref so under wikipedia policy we are to avoid it per WP:TERTIARY, right? Is it at the ALEC page? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its sort of odd, screwing up their own history. I wonder if they watch the article page? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:TERTIARY, I don't know. The policy seems awfully vague and I don't have experience with it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Sorry, but I have reverted your revert.

If you wish it to say that, as I said in my edit summary, it really needs to be as a quote. As a quote, we are saying "such and such a person said 'it is harassment'", whereas your edit says that "it is harassment".

All it needs is quote marks (and a direct quote). Chaosdruid (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continuing work on Wallace L. Hall, Jr.. In truth I have little interest in this article but the way it was written when I found it irked me more than most. I'll hold off with the meat cleaver until you're done with the scalpel. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't interested but have become so. Republican Governor appoints regent. Regent asks uncomfortable questions about improper legislative influence. Republican legislators try to quash or impeach regent. You got me hooked. Its still a mess, but getting (a bit) better. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, you're doing a great job. In my view the right way to clean this up is to move most of the content into a new article, say University of Texas admissions controversy, that describes what's happened beyond Hall's involvement. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I'll start work on it.Capitalismojo (talk)

Capitalismojo, would you consider supporting the "alternative text" that begins "In the summer and fall of 2014, conservative websites and social media attacked Tyson's character and scientific understanding . . ." I'm not in love with it, either, but it may be the best chance to achieve a consensus compromise for inclusion. If we can arrive at a compromise at NDGT, that should also shake things loose at The Federalist article. Please consider. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "RT Network". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 October 2014.

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Christian terrorism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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) 00:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning RT Network, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Whatever you think of the idea to also require secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming", thanks for taking time to participate in the poll on that question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Capitalismojo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RT (TV Network)...neutral feedback desperately needed!.The discussion is about the topic neutrality of lede. Thank you. --Kenfree (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard was the first edit made today in UTC! :D -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. 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, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Watergate scandal. 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) 00:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Texas admissions controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Powers. 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) 09:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

for the revert - that was actually a misclick. Thanks for catching that - Alison ^❤ 06:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Goryeo. 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) 00:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jersey City, New Jersey. 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) 00:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep. 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, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed it. Great start, and thanks for taking this on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wallace L. Hall, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Powers (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) 09:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, as you have now created this University_of_Texas_admissions_controversy please request deletion of your userspace article hosted at User:Capitalismojo/UT admissions - I have removed the copyright fraud pictures and hidden it from search engines, please request deletion at earliest convenience, or let me know your reasons to continue hosting it in your userspace, thank you. I think there is also an issue with using the logo in your article and the non free statement for the logo needs to be updated - I have opened a chat about it here, User_talk:Stefan2#Non_free_seal please comment Govindaharihari (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott Walker (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Koch (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) 09:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eddie Foy, Sr.. 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, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thank you for the great sense of humor! Popish Plot (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just did two unsourced removals of people from the International Task Force. What is your source for the removals? Everything I can find shows they were members until the beginning of 2014 and I find nothing since, particularly no announcement that they quit, were removed or renounced their membership. Trackinfo (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should look a little harder. :) They are no longer members. Both of those people are no longer legislators. I will be adding them to the list of former members. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Capitalismojo. You have new messages at Gilliam's talk page.
Message added 02:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

– Gilliam (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have recently extensively edited my bio page Peter Gleick. I presume this is an effort to improve formatting and accuracy, and I appreciate that. However, a number of changes, I believe, make it less accurate and I would like to offer some feedback. This is a bit complicated, given the number of changes you made, so bear with me...

1. You significantly changed/shortened the sentence that addressed the range issues I work on. It now reads: "Among the issues he has addressed are conflicts over water resources,.[2]"

Conflicts over water resources are only one, and not the most important, of the issues I have and still address. The entry used to include "the impacts of climate change on water resources, the human right to water, and the problems of the billions of people without safe, affordable, and reliable water and sanitation."

Each of these topics is extensively addressed in my peer-reviewed publications, my public writings, and my speeches/lectures. I strongly ask you to replace these (i.e., "the impacts of climate change on water resources, the human right to water, and the problems of the billions of people without safe, affordable, and reliable water and sanitation."). Otherwise as it reads now, it gives a very (too) narrow and misleading summary of my work. My CV, which is referenced, mentions these, but if you need further citations, a partial list of my peer-reviewed publications can be found here: http://www.gleick.com/journal-articles.html.

2. You removed a sentence describing the award of the first US Water Prize, and your justification was it is "non-notable"?

and that same year he and the Pacific Institute were awarded the first U.S. Water Prize.^[1]

This seems subjective on your part. The US Water Prize is considered a prestigious award in the water world, given by a national organization. I ask you to reinstate this text in the intro, and certainly in the Career section.

3.You similarly removed from the opening and the Career section this same honor, along with the reference to the 2012 Oxford Amnesty Lecture. This is also a prestigious lecture at Oxford University. I request you reinstate that as well, at a minimum in the Career section if not the intro. I see that there was redundancy here. Thank you for removing it, but please do not completely remove reference to these honors.

4. And just a thought, if you're focused on removing redundancy: The last paragraph of the first section (starting "In February 2012") is also redundant with the entire section below. If your goal is to remove excess and repetitive text, feel free to remove this paragraph from the intro.

PGleick (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. We have no ref's that state that the water award is notable, nor do we have any RS refs saying the Oxford speech is notable or that it is considered an honor worthy of inclusion. I shall search again for such reliable source refs on your behalf. As regards the variety of your areas of focus, we don't rely and can't rely on "SPS" (self published sources). Your CV is the ultimate SPS as such things go. It read like a resume not a biographical article. We'd have to find a newspaper/media article saying something similar in order to use it. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This seems a bit like an unfair level of citation. Everyone sort of assumes that the Nobel Prize is "notable" but what source is appropriate to cite for that. (Not that I'm equating the US Water Prize with the Nobel, but it is a big honor to get it.)

The Oxford Amnesty Lectures are highly regarded. Books of these lectures are regularly produced. Various references cite them: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/49483/francis-fukuyama/on-human-rights-the-oxford-amnesty-lectures-1993. They are published by Oxford University Press: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/category/academic/series/politics/oal.do Here is a citation explicitly about my lecture: http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/event=11735

As for my "areas of focus" -- this hardly seems necessary to have sources for. My peer-reviewed publications cover ALL of the topics that you deleted. My election to the US National Academy was not based on "conflicts over water" but the whole scope of my work. If you want to find newspaper articles that say this, you could cite The New Yorker article by Michael Spectre, which describes my work: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/10/23/the-last-drop-2 He describes my work as "Gleick, who is forty-nine, has studied the connections between water, development, and human health for nearly three decades."

Or

The story in Los Angeles Times Magazine "Visionary" that describes my work on water efficiency, water management, water and climate change, and water and conflict. Here is the citation: http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2010/01/visionary.html

PGleick (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, here is an article describing the US Water Prize (for 2014), at which the USEPA Administrator and the Deputy Secretary of the Interior spoke, at the National Geographic Society. http://www.wateronline.com/doc/epa-administrator-congratulates-u-s-water-prize-winners-0001. PGleick (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response from a couple of days ago, and request to revert background summary, topics, expertise. PGleick (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the Water award insufficiently notable. I see little indication that giving the lecture is an honor or that it should be included in this article, but perhaps other editors could find more support. The LA Times is a classic "puff piece" but I think it might be used to add something on "conflict" etc. I suggest you go to the article talk page and share what you think should be included in your biography. That way other editors can weigh in. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Israeli cities. 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 feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Powers, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Powers (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, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy or guideline reference, please? Hugh (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spend some time at WP:MOS Capitalismojo (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover look at this. If you can find even one usage of Frontline that is like yours I would be amazed, truly. I have looked at 20+ so far. Not one defines frontline in its usage. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And why would it be neccessary given that it is Wikilinked? This is a non-standard formulation and not an improvement.

Capitalismojo (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What standard? Hugh (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. WP:LINKSTYLE Hugh (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all; remember that it is not always possible. For example, a reader might be working from a printed copy of an article without access to facilities for following links. WP:LINKSTYLE Hugh (talk) 05:30, 5 March

2015 (UTC)

Thats's absurd. Truly absurd. People won't have access to the internet? For an online encyclopedia. That's your justification for creating an entirely new way of displaying/describing media companies in articles. It doesn't wash.

I'll note that your "overdefining" of obvious words isn't being accepted at other pages either. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frontline is an American program and many English language readers and editors are not American. Hugh (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why it was wikilinked.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely irritating when editors revert with the "no consensus" summary. It directly contravenes WP:BOLD. And mass reversion of a whole series of edits under this rubric is even worse. How do you expect him to respond? I know Hugh can be really irritating and disruptive, but some of his edits were actually pretty reasonable, and you owe it to him to explain why you disagree with him. Plus, we really don't need to be stoking his battle rage any more than necessary. Just my two cents. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

?? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly suggestion, I hope you will take it that way: take 302d Maneuver Enhancement Brigade to good article WP:GA. Hugh (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy collaborating with you, particularly in article space on new content and new reliable sources, but please don't take this the wrong way, I sometimes find myself wishing you could spend a little more time on formatting references. I sometimes feel that bare urls are being dropped off for another editor to clean up. Hugh (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The site is not a WP:RS, it is a user edited content. Murry1975 (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No bother, you went true trouble getting one, it would have been shitty to just remove. Sometimes I just do ES, sometimes I drop a line. Thanks for the response. Murry1975 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wikia. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A comment by Ubikwit, that appears to be the comment that you requested be deleted, has been marked deleted by an arbitrator in response to a request. I think that this resolves the situation. If not, please let the clerks or arbitrators deal with a further request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best place for any future comments about the case page is the case talk page. I think that this resolves the immediate question. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: Wikipedia guideline WP:ORDER states the order of the various sections of a Wikipedia article with External links being last. I wanted you to know that is the reason I have placed the External links section back at the end of A Rape on Campus. If you think I am mistaken or have a rationale for why this External links should be placed before 'Notes' and 'References', let's discuss it further on the article's talk page. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apple University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joshua Cohen (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) 09:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit added a bare URL instead of a complete citation. I know you're a long-time and regular contributor to Wikipedia, so you know how helpful it is when citations are complete. Complete citations help guard against the dreaded link rot (yeah I know, the *horror*), and also make it easier for readers to verify information. If you were a younger editor (in terms of number of edits), I'd place {{subst:User:Shearonink/ref}} on your talk page but you're a regular and, so, that would be rude. Anyway, maybe make your cites complete in the future - Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's fixed. I had tried refill but it didn't work in this case. I did it by hand. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I can tell you're on an editing tear today but please try to fill out those bare URLs and make them into complete citations (So here's where the various WP acronyms like WP:LINKROT go, etc., etc.). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now he thinks YOU are a "sock". Did you check out his talk page? This dude is out of his mind. hahaha Cavalierman (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it funny in the least. Flyer may be mistaken but I don't think she is about the pattern she is seeing about you. I think she's on to something and would be happy to see a checkuser performed. Stay off my page. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]