User talk:Srich32977/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Mark Pennington

Would you like to add the discretionary sanction tag to his talkpage please? I reverted some vandalism a few days ago. I will try to expand his page with referenced info from Jstor, etc., soon.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Feel free to add it yourself. Frankly it is not needed because Pennington is a not a controversial figure and very little editing problems have popped up on the article. I do advice that you provide ISBNs for his books. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There was one, which I reverted.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helpful note

Hello Srich, thank you very much for being kind, by giving useful links to beginners and being helpful. Just recently, I got around to exploring Wikipedia's messaging system, so the thanks is very belated. Thanks once again,2know4power (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC). P.S. Conversation is here

Pssst....

We need good admins like you. Are you ready, yet? Atsme^📞📧 16:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: Wish I could say yes. A serious real-life issue occupies much of my time and consumes most of my energy. So I gotta say no. But you should go for it yourself. Best wishes. – S. Rich (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see what you're saying, you're saying poor people buy politicians???

How does that work then?

While I agree that political corruption can be an issue under many types of systems, that doesn't make it not a weakness of Capitalism.

(Personal attack removed)GliderMaven (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Deprecated template

Can you explain the Depreciated template edits you have been making Thanks. Unconventional2 (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Unconventional2: Sure. When a template is depreciated it means it has no more usefulness. The particular one I've deleted won't be read as meta-data. By removing it, I hope to keep it from being a distraction to other editors. E.g., they won't be tempted to waste time updating the useless data. – S. Rich (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC) For a bit more info, see WP:DOT. 03:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Stalking

Better to steer clear of anything that editors might view as stalking, particularly with your RfA coming along when the time is right. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Who is stalking whom? I've been interested in libertarianism, libertarian candidates, and the libertarian NAP for a long time. – S. Rich (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with... my own talk page. Why? It is not rendering (displaying) some comments by me and others. (Like the Los Angeles Metro revisions section immediately above.) They appear in the Editing window, but nowhere else. (At the same time this help message IS rendering.) I've re-started by computer, run diagnostics on it, and reset my preferences to no avail. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This happened because the comment code was left open above. <!-- Comment --> if the last > is missed it will comment out everything until it sees it. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so very much! – S. Rich (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Joan Harvey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joan Harvey 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/Joan Harvey 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. Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Oceana?

Amigo, I'm not sure the refimprove template addresses the problem with Oceana. The current article text may be verified by the references, but there don't appear to be independent RS citations that establish notability. Given the personal attacks and unconstructive talk page thread, I'm loath to revisit the matter just now. At first I thought perhaps the other editor had some relationship to the subject, but he appears to deny that. Sooner or later more eyes will fall upon the page and the article will sink or swim. Meanwhile, I defer to your professional judgment. Do you think this is a notable topic? If so there should be some coverage of it from better sources, I would think. I learned the constructive function of the improvement templates from you a few years back. The talk page thread seems to indicate some confusion between a notability tag and an AfD. I suppose at some point an AfD would force the community to adjudicate the issue, but that seems premature. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

FEE archiving

Thank you for the archiving. Abel (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thanks to you sir/madam at FEE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.184.18 (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Admin time?

You seem a bit more active these days. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Prof. Senholz

He was the most famous President at FEE so i think his story should be back in with rs footnotes! 166.172.61.43 (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen (politician)

As a participant in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen, you may be interested in participating in the related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Petersen (politician).--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Harvard Political Review

Why do you keep changing the Harvard Political Review's circulation number? The source you are citing has no mention of the circulation number (7,935). Where are you getting that number? While the page you cite does not contain the number 7,935, that page does link to another page that has the circulation number as reported by the Harvard Political Review. The current number that the Harvard Political Review reports is 2,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoureProbablyTryingReallyHard (talk • contribs) 19:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Milton Faver

Can you please remove the content which is in copyright violation? I don't see where it is. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: The descriptions of Faver's cartage business to and from Mexico are from the linked website. – S. Rich (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please remove all copied content and remove the tag. That's much more constructive.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are right, but I've got other fish to fry right now. I tagged with hopes that other editors could compare and make corrections. – S. Rich (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The Heartland Institute

Thanks for welcoming me. I hope to become a valuable contributor, once I learn better how things work at Wikipedia.

I found a number of errors on The Heartland Institute page and spent some time fixing the errors. However, none of my edits seem to have resulted in any actual changes to the relevant page -- because someone else quickly came in and unceremoniously deleted everything I wrote.

For example, The Heartland Institute does not engage in lobbying efforts. Its early work had nothing to do with government smoking bans. The listed Heartland publications should include 33 books. Errors such as these make the entire article appear untrustworthy and unfair. I just wanted to help correct some clear flaws in the article, but others seem to find this activity very unwelcome.

Perhaps you can help me to understand how to fix mistakes when I find them in Wikipedia articles. How should I proceed?

Peter Thusat Co-CEO & Intelligence Advisor Safos & Thusat, LLC 14805 Detroit Avenue Cleveland, OH 44107

peter@thusat.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterthusat Tel: +1 216 264 9610 Fax: +1 216 521 5033 Skype: peter.thusat — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterThusat (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks

While I am sure there is a policy behind this, why sanitize a talk page by removing personal attacks made by someone else? I do not see the logic in censorship to protecting the guilty. Abel (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

rpa can promote/enforce WP:CIV – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That link discusses "Where the uncivil comment is yours" yet none of the censored comments are yours. Abel (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks by others is acceptable IAW WP:TPO. – S. Rich (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That policy seems to say the opposite, "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived."Abel (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The IP went beyond borderline. (And what's done is done. I'm not changing it back.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I just cannot find any policy that says such censorship is a good idea.Abel (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to see what was "censored" can look at the history. So, really, censorship is not an issue. Moreover, administrators have tools to completely remove blatant/grossly offensive personal attacks/material from all WP pages. – S. Rich (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

True, but the hiding makes finding the offensive personal attacks/material far more difficult. Abel (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Adoption offer

Thanks for the offer of adoption. Have you adopted others? If so, who and what steps did you take?

I'm not aware of any past interactions between us, other than the one just started at Talk:The Heartland Institute. Any other interactions you recall? --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, I was pulling your digital leg. You've got plenty of experience and should be adopting others! (And actually I have very little time to devote to WP these days due to some serious RL concerns.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well you got me, and April 1st is days away yet. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

70.183.161.142

not ssure how to talk to you. i was trying to make a change to make the grammar match up, plus align with historical context. i seldom ever edit here. Yet I'm being told its Vandalism. I also can't reach "consensus" with someone when they have the power to block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.161.142 (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Forget about vandalism. Sometimes we say that instead of assuming good faith. But you do need to read-up on WP policies and guidelines. Please don't make the change again because that is considered edit warring. Once you see how we go about improving this encyclopedia I think you will understand and enjoy making constructive contributions. – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The grammar edit was not labeled vandalism. The wholesale deletion of the McGann ranking was labeled vandalism. Abel (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

How is French the official language of the province of Saskatchwan? Please provide legit citations, not the "Crappy" citations

Hello, I'm Hastymashi. In regards to an article, Saskatchewan, I cannot find anywhere that says French is an official language in the Province of Saskatchewan nor the Government of Saskatchewan nor their official webpage: http://www.gov.sk.ca/ The references cited does not say French is an official language of the Province of Saskatchewan. I don't even understand who allowed these citations to be cited which says nothing about French is the official language of the province of Saskatchewan.
The 1st citation is just a 2011 Census result from Statistics Canada: Which part of the Census makes you think French is the most important language among all other minority languages: English 872,250, German 26,965, Cree 24,045, French 18,935, Ukranian 14,395, Tagalog 10,990, Dene 8,375, Chinese n.o.s, 5,540.
Of 965,925 people questioned in Saskatchewan, only 47,000 people knows French, that's just 4.90% of the population in Saskatchewan. How is French important if only 5% of the population speaks French? "The 2011 census added the question “can this person speak English or French well enough to carry on a conversation?”. 965,925 people in Saskatchewan report being able to only speak English, while only 430 people report being able to only speak French. There are 46,570 people who report being able to carry on a conversation in both official languages."
The 2nd citation refers to what the "Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages" is doing to help French-Canadians to communicate with the provincial government by providing provincial government services in French. It DOES not in any way to say that French is the official language of those provinces.
– Hastymashi (talk) 3:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hastymashi (talk • contribs)

@Hastymashi: Two issues: 1. you cited Wikipedia as a source. We never do that. 2. the source I restored referred to the number of S'ians who speak the official languages -- English and French. (See section titled "knowledge of official languages". – S. Rich (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles Metro revisions

Hello. I see that you reverted my additions to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area article. I don't understand why you did this. I've added a bunch of museums as well as airports and education to the article which I feel add value to the article. This is why I have spent hours adding useful information. Could you explain why I am wrong? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesnote (talk • contribs) 07:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)>

Help

Please help. The article 'fee' says it is a think tank but when I place this in the summary intro, one editor keeps taking it away. If you look in the article, the 'fee' is one of the oldest and #46 'think tank' so this should not be cut out. Please read oon the talk page to see ad homonem attacks and so forth. 166.171.187.167 (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

it's a FACT ... THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells

Read untill you are convinced. here are reliable sources stating THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=da&as_sdt=0,5&q=thc+cancer+cells+apoptosis

now correct your mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulfarf (talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Section 8

Not sure why you didn't like my edit but I won't waste my time on it anymore. That site was a great resource for me when I needed to find section 8 housing. I don't see how relevant information like that is discouraged. I also don't see how it violates any rules but I'm sure you'll justify it somehow. Have fun. Benefitshelp (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Benefitshelp: – We try to present information which is a summary of the topic. Listing websites which helps people find benefits is spamming. Please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY for more information. Thanks for your comment. – S. Rich (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't look like I'm the only one that's had issues with you. Benefitshelp (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Goodreads

Hi. Could you explain your reasoning behind adding ELs to Goodreads to articles? There appears to be very little in, for instance, this page here that isn't, or couldn't be, already on the Wikipedia article. This appears, to me, to fall very much within WP:ELNO, (specifically points 1, 10, 14 and 17), and particularly because "GoodReads" is essentially a social-media front for the commercial operations of Amazon. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought about those issues before I embarked. Re the specific ELNO's: #17 does not apply because there is no tracking; #14 dna because the links are not confined to Amazon – other on-line and off-line stores are listed, as well as libraries; #10 dna because it is a "Social networking service" that is purely informational (type 3, and not a "social media front") similar to WorldCat (for example OCLC 167332 allows users to rate and review that particular book); lastly, #1 (which is difficult for me to understand), seems not to apply because none of the articles with the Goodreads links is close to FA status, and I simply can't figure how #1 precludes the link, e.g., many of the Goodreads links contain information or sources to info (such as editions) that would help an editor working to improve an article. The non-opinion information in Goodreads is edited by "Librarians" who are vetted by Goodreads. (Thus it is not a wiki.) The rest of it is Speakers' Corner free speech. I've looked for discussions of Goodreads on the WP:ELN and WP:ELPEREN, but find nothing. Perhaps you can bring it up. I'll hold off on more linking until we get consensus on one of those pages. – S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think you maybe misunderstand #1. It suggests that if the article was improved to that of a FA, would it therefore include the information in the linked website? The purpose here is to encourage to editors to first improve the article (perhaps by using the linked website as a source, if appropriate) rather than linking readers to an external website. In my example of Adam Smith, I don't see much there that isn't already in the article.

As for points #14 and #17, I realise that there are others, but the first "Buy This" link that a reader encounters is to Amazon, and that link contains tracking information informing Amazon the route the browser took to reach it. That leaves me uncomfortable with it being on Wikipedia. But I appreciate it's a judgement call. I'll bring it up on WP:ELN and see what others think. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Kemo Sabe, check out the meaning of "hoi polloi" in a dictionary. I didn't mean to refer to or compare you to Curly Larry and Moe. Just that public reviews and polls don't meet WP standards for RS. I suspect most readers understood no such reference was intended, but you might wish to circle back there. We do have a new restaurant by that name here not far from my flat, but its too chic for my expat tastes. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk

Non-Aggression Principle

The first source, the LP Platform, absolutely does not mention the NAP at all. The second source is opinion, and there are dozens just like it from all sides. The fact that the author found it necessary to highlight his position that the NAP is the core of libertarianism demonstrates that it is not the core for every libertarian. JasonW1415 (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are some sources: Yeager, Leland B. Ethics As Social Science: The Moral Philosophy of Social Cooperation. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2001. p. 283 http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/92/1605.pdf / http://www.jstor.org/stable/4144964?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Charles Murray, David Friedman, David Boaz, and R.W. Bradford. What's Right vs. What Works. Liberty. January 2005, Volume 19, Number 1, Page 31

In fact, the overwhelming majority of libertarians are not adherents to the NAP, and the overwhelming majority of libertarian literature is consequentialist. This is true of both the Party and the more general term. JasonW1415 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Jason, please see the comment I posted on your user talk page. Your efforts to improve WP are appreciated. At the moment my editing time is limited, so I will defer on looking at your suggestions more closely. Perhaps in a few days. Please be patient and accept my thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. JasonW1415 (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The NAP page is now demonstrably false. What is the process to get a review? JasonW1415 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus you had established

Hello. I'm contacting you regarding the consensus you had established here. Back them and edit was done which had stood up to recently, until someone had edited the article against that consensus. I've started an edit request which was denied with an explanation that there is no consensus, although I had put the link. I wouldn't contact you as soon as this if I had believed this is a simple misunderstanding (however I'm maintaining the benefit of the doubt in the discussion). I'm concerned that this edit was not noticed by any of the people who had participated in the original RfC and who had opposed that consensus. It seems that they are very quick to react when the article is edited against their stand, but they are not willing to answer to my edit request, although they are familiar with the RfC and the consensus. From my previous encounters with some of the editors involved in that article, I have no doubt that this won't go easily and that certain people will try to obstruct to revert the edit that had been done without and against a standing consensus. 89.164.127.101 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

At present I cannot look at the changes because of other commitments. Tomorrow or the next day perhaps. – S. Rich (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but it seems the request was accepted more easily than my previous experiences told me.212.15.178.1 (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome!

I appreciate the information, but you removed items to Brady Harran's Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Haran) that I didn't add and had been there for years previously. Namely, the Hello Internet flag. Please at least leave that alone. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatjh (talk • contribs) 15:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. About the edit of the Cannabis article in the section about cancer I added the fact that THC kills cancer and tumor cells. The source i added is a reliable source. The source is not the first and not the only. There are many universities that have confirmed that THC kills cancer and tumor cells. Although not your intention your revert of my comment is vandalism. Pleas repair!!!

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulfarf (talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

NATIONAL ARCHIVES BATAAN DEATH MARCH PRISONER PHOTO

Sir, I believe that the info re: Bataan Death March photo is more accurate then present info. My uncle Ralph Frank Maze, USMC Retired (deceased) who survived the march years later before his passing showed me, I was a Marine at the time, that photo and described in detail the date, location, etc. I have no cause to doubt him. This website, http://valor.militarytimes.com/recipient.php?recipientid=51504#.uptoh3dgwuy.facebook, confirms his POW status and I have photos of him and my father that may be of assistance in clarifying this claim. His profile and features match my Father's, his brother.

Respectfully, Jim Maze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmaze9392 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jimmaze9392: Jim, the editing question is whether Ralph has a Wikipedia article about him. I don't think he does. The reason is that Wikipedia limits articles to subjects or persons that are WP:NOTABLE. Also, WP is WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. For those who wish to honor our servicemembers we can go to the various memorial-type websites. (Such as Find a Grave.) Also, the surviving and deceased Bataan POW are honored each year at the Bataan Memorial Death March in White Sands, New Mexico. Thanks for your understanding and Semper Fi! – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Rajiv Dixit

Regarding this edit, is it now accepted that the US government "stage-managed" 9/11 ? Or that 80% of Indian tax revenues ... etc. His is a difficult article to source because there is so much of that sort of guff flying about but I'm pretty sure it counts as conspiracy theorising. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

August, 2016

Please do not restore content challenged on WP:BLP grounds to articles about living people, as you do here.[1] Also, as you have noted on my talk page[2] the article in question, Hillary Clinton, is covered by discretionary sanctions. Aggressive edits like this may subject your account to temporary blocks if deemed appropriate by administrators to maintain stability of the encyclopedia. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Don't raise the bloody BLP flag. Her own confidant, Sidney Blumenthal, used the term. – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

So what? Accusing a current US presidential candidate of being a "conspiracy theorist" or subscribing to a "conspiracy theory" is on its face a BLP violation. You're playing games here. What's your game? I'm assuming you're a little miffed that one of your content proposals isn't gaining acceptance. That happens to me too sometimes. It's annoying but I try to accept when I'm on weak ground, even when I think I'm right. Choose your battles, sir (or madame, or creature, or whatever). And please don't use discretionary sanctions to game the system. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone. The RS uses the term. Nor am I miffed. The discussion asked for third party RS and I supplied it. If the others don't like the RS, then we can post an RFC. Also, please note that I added the CT category to The Donald's article. Lastly, the note re sanctions was a friendly reminder. – S. Rich (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Broken date references

Hello, thank you for your many contributions to the Wikipedia cause. Unfortunately your recently edit removal of the years on the reference dates at Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 cause a major error in reference list. Please refer to WP:CS or MOS:NUM when editing or creating references. Thank you. DrFargi (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Your advice

Hi, I could use your advice as the editor who had done this closure. A group of Serbian editors have made a fort out of that article. They are banning every discussion and user who don't go along their way. However, when an user comes along which inserts Serbian nationalistic viewpoints [3] [4] they don't revert him even if it goes against the earlier mentioned consensus. Should I try to establish the consensus or let them completely control that article? It's hard since everyone who opposes them is being banned, including me. I hope you will review the edits that go against the rfc that you had closed, regardless of the accusations you hear from them. 141.136.252.195 (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that I'm the same person with the same problem as in this subsection of your talk page. So this just repeats once again. 141.136.252.195 (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that I cannot help in this matter. Other events in my live are interfering with my Wikipedia editing. I do thank you for the request. – S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Your advice

Hi, I could use your advice as the editor who had done this closure. A group of Serbian editors have made a fort out of that article. They are banning every discussion and user who don't go along their way. However, when an user comes along which inserts Serbian nationalistic viewpoints [5] [6] they don't revert him even if it goes against the earlier mentioned consensus. Should I try to establish the consensus or let them completely control that article? It's hard since everyone who opposes them is being banned, including me. I hope you will review the edits that go against the rfc that you had closed, regardless of the accusations you hear from them. 141.136.252.195 (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that I'm the same person with the same problem as in this subsection of your talk page. So this just repeats once again. 141.136.252.195 (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that I cannot help in this matter. Other events in my live are interfering with my Wikipedia editing. I do thank you for the request. – S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Bowe Bergdahl article

With reference to the edits I made to Bergdahl's page, I am in the sister company of Blackfoot (B) Company which has always shared the same building on Fort Richardson. I cannot confirm the truth to the Soldier of the Week honor, for which, a soldier is awarded a designated parking spot next to the company commander's parking spot. I can, however, confirm that he was indeed in B CO, 1-501 IN (ABN), 4 BCT (ABN), 25 ID. I'm sure I could Google the proof, but I am uneducated on how to site a source on a Wikipedia article. This particular article doesn't weigh heavily with me regarding correctness, so I am not too worried about it in this case. However, when editing articles in the future, I value the knowledge of how to do so properly. Thank you for your time.

Vsmeier2282 (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Percentages

Could you please explain why you shortened two decimal places to whole numbers when reporting vote percentages here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29#Presidential_candidate_performance

While you used one decimal place here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson_presidential_campaign,_2012#Results

In looking around wikipedia, it seems like most places that report vote percentages use one or two decimal places.
Example one decimal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29#Republican_Party_in_Presidential_Elections
Example two decimal:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States#Electoral_results
Example two decimal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#State_results

I've even seen it taken to five decimal places:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidential_tickets

So why only use whole numbers for the Libertarian Party?
Thank you,AJPEG (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@AJPEG: I'm trying to apply MOS:UNCERTAINTY quidelines. If we look at the significant figures in some of these tables, it seems 5 decimal places is absurd. Thanks for your comment. – S. Rich (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

What uncertainty is there that would cause the Libertarian Party page to have no decimal places, but the Gary Johnson campaign to have one decimal place? We're not talking about polls, which have a margins of error and confidence intervals. At some point they stop counting the votes and make it official. The Federal Election Commission then publishes the certified election results and we can do basic math to get a fraction and carry it to whatever decimal place we like. I suppose you could argue that write in votes, which sometimes aren't included in the certified results, introduce some uncertainty, but after looking at literally thousands of election results, I can tell you that write in votes from the states that don't include them in their FEC report don't amount to a hill of beans. In a Presidential race, they vary rarely even change the hundredths decimal. And they aren't included in the numbers published on wikipedia, anyway. It only uses the certified election results.

I'll agree that five decimal places is unnecessary. But I don't agree that zero decimal places is a good idea because because zero decimal places don't convey enough information. And I'm still having trouble figuring out why you would allow one decimal place for individual states on the Gary Johnson page, but zero decimal places for his entire campaign on the libertarian party page. Gary Johnson can get 1.1% in Illinois, but Bob Barr has to be <1% rather than 0.4%? Where is the uncertainty in the Barr election coming from that was absent in the Johnson election?

The Federal Election Commission itself - which is where most of those numbers on the Libertarian Party page come from - uses two decimal places. Observe (page 5) http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.shtml

I don't see why wikipedia ought to do any less. AJPEG (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The FEC page you provide is helpful. Perhaps 2 decimal places is the way to go. Still, I think WP:SUMMARYSTYLE ought to apply. This guidance, IMO, would allow us to discard the second (and first) decimal place. In any event feel free to tweak the figures. – S. Rich (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

is this really how we do page numbers?

Is this really how we do page numbers -- "237-45" rather than "237-245"? I don't see the benefit. We don't lack for storage space, and it takes the brain an extra clock cycle to process. If this is written down as a standard, well OK, but if it's just your personal preference, it was better before. Herostratus (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Herostratus: My current personal Wikipedia:Gnome project is fixing dashes IAW MOS:DASH. You will see that the "pp. 237–45" style is used in the MOS example. With this in mind, I'm striving to give a uniform presentation of the page number citation presentation throughout the various articles I edit. (Editors wishing to create WP:Good Articles or WP:Featured Articles must make sure citations are done well. (And now that I looked at your userpage I'm sure you already know this.) In those pages where I see the full "pp. 237–245" style used consistently, I usually leave as is. Thanks so very much for taking the time to ask! – S. Rich (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, very good. But I opened the question of whether we are standardizing on the best format here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#page ranges... Herostratus (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, look at Chicago Manual of Style. There you'll see the "439–58" format is used (without the "pp. "). But note that Template:Cite book (and other such templates) automatically add the "pp. " or "p. " to the resulting citations. With this in mind, I'll continue to add the "pp. " to the non-templated references and continue to use the shortened format. Also, is this a RFC worthy discussion? I think not. Someone might simply add the the user notes for the templates and MOS:DASH that either format is acceptable as long as the same format is used consistently throughout each article. – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. But while the Chicago Manual of Style is good, we can and do deviate from it. My personal opinion right now (I'm open to persuasion) is to not truncate that pages. I don't see an RfC as being a big deal; its how we settle these things. The alternative is to make no change, and I would like to see a change, or at least see a change considered.

If it was up to me, I would consider using "pages" instead of "pp.". "PP." smacks to me of some obscure latinism like e.g. and i.e. -- a barrier between our knowledge base and the 14 year old student in Dacca, the retired janitor in Billings, the ESL student in Lodz, and so forth. We don't abbreviate "author" as "au" or "publisher" as "pb" and so forth, and "pages" (an important part of a cite) is shorter than those words. It's just habit, unthinkingly inherited from academia, I guess. But that's not a winnable fight I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Like the CMOS says, use the format you like. My endeavor is to get the page number presentation as consistent as possible. Hence I scan for use of the hyphen (per MOS DASH etc) and seek to follow the 2 digits rule of thumb per the CMOS preference. This issue is not worth an RFC because nobody can invoke a higher authority. And the accepted authority—CMOS—says while we prefer 2 digits you can use 1 or 3 or whatever. – S. Rich (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Eagle Mountain RR

I totally give up. The entire article is based on a single book published for a historical group. Unfortunately the book doesn't have an ISBN. So you might as well just delete the whole page or revert it back to its early 2008 version before I added all the additional information. Sure, I might not have added all the necessary, line-by-line references, but the information is solid, from a well-researched book that doesn't have an ISBN because, quite frankly, the cost of acquiring a ISBN is too much for a historical group that has a very small budget.

I was congradulated when I added the information back in 2008, now I am told that my work is all crap. So you win. I will not be editing ANY pages from this point forward. I do find your "conflict of interest" statement fascinating, I surely doubt every page of Wikipedia is written by a someone that has no interest in the subject.

Eagle Mountain RR (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Eagle Mountain RR: I looked for Sand, Iron Ore & Steel Rails at the Library of Congress, WorldCat, and on Amazon – I can't find it. This means, in Wikipedia terms, it is not a reliable source because nobody can verify what it says. (Please look at the guidance I provided on your talk page so that you'll understand why these policies are important.) If, as you say, the material in the book is well-researched, then you might add that particular information (with the research results) to the article. Please don't give up! Anyone who writes about Colorado Desert subjects must have a bit of Desert rat in them (as I do) and thus they can be stubborn. I'm here to help out because I think Wikipedia is worthwhile and because I'd like the world to know a bit more about the desert. – S. Rich (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Republicans Opposing Trump Notability Standard

Hi, please express your opinion on this subject on its talk page. Thanks! — Andy Anderson 05:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

BC

Please read MOS:BCE before changing BC/AD style to BCE/CE in future. In particular:

Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change.

— Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, section 2.3.2

Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Martin, for your comment. The recent edits I've done were for dates arising out of non-European areas, such as China. As CE/BCE is becoming the accepted norm (see: Common_Era#Contemporary_usage), it makes little sense to open a discussion about making a change when the "reasons [are] specific to its content". If you think a discussion is worthwhile for any of the changes, you might follow the WP:BRD process. Happy Black Friday! – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem was that in Bell only some of the era markers had been changed, and one wikilink left malformed. If you are writing a new article on China, use whichever you wish, but the MOS caution is against changing existing articles. That aside, it does seem rather PC-farcical. Changing from BC to BCE does not change the basis of the system, it just allows a thin layer of make-up across an ageing visage. Speaking as an atheist, I'm well aware of how the division was fixed and changing from the original BC/AD to BCE/CE comes across as patronising drivel. On a technical point, BC -> BCE is one extra letter which can affect alignments and BCE is way too close to CE to avoid silly typos. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The malformed link was a stupid tpyo on my part. My lame excuse is I was using my mobel device. Still, IMO, the BCE usage for the Chinese history is proper. (I'm more anti-PC than most people, but I do think using the universally agreed upon format is preferable for Occidental and Oriental topics.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Details on status of WikiProject_Years_in_science

Hi S. Rich,

I'm looking to bring Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years_in_science out of defunct status. You marked it defunct on 2014/04/30 ([7]). Was this done simply because it had been inactive for awhile, or for some other reason? Metawade (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Metawade: Defunct because of no editing on it for some years. Best wishes on your efforts to revive! – S. Rich (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve Banking

Hi,

I saw that you made edits to Fractional Reserve Banking recently. I wonder if you would like to vote or pass comment on this rather important proposed change to the page => Time to change which theory gets prominence? - BTW, yes I know that this has been discussed before, but I think that there are good reasons why this issue should periodically be reviewed. Cheers Reissgo (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake news site

Thank you for your help on the article on Fake news site !!!

I added a little bit to it from a few sources.

Do you think it now looks good enough to not be deleted from Wikipedia?

69.50.70.9 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request for {{Libertarianism sidebar/sandbox}}

Hi,

You recently requested speedy deletion of {{Libertarianism sidebar/sandbox}} under the T3 criteria (that it substantially duplicates another template). However, in the case of templates under the /sandbox naming convention, that is precisely the point: to serve as a staging area for template development. Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases has some further information on this if you're interested. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Thumperward: then shouldn't the categories have initial [[:category:colons]] in them so the template does not show up in the indexes? – S. Rich (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If that's still the convention, then yes - however this only requires a trivial page edit, not its deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Antonio de Viti de Marco

Which naming conventions are you referring to? Nemo 15:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, not conventions per se. James M. Buchanan uses de Viti de Marco in his writings about Antonio. And see http://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9781137534927 . "Grazie" – S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You must have had a long night in the ER – I am not some newbie, so a canned welcome message is hardly necessary or helpful. But to the point, the new content is not about health or PD itself, but about a technology which will help patients mitigate the effects. – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't change era BC/AD to BCE/CE

As per WP:ERA, please don't change era BC/AD to BCE/CE as you did here. I notice that you've already been told about this above. Paul August ☎ 18:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Jeez, the guidance says either method is acceptable! What is objectionable is your reverting the entire effort. I made changes to the presentation of the pages cited, but you ignored those changes. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes either choice of era is acceptable when creating an article, what is not acceptable is changing the established era style without talk page consensus. Quoting from MOS:ERA:

"Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question"

I reverted your change as the easiest way for me to undo your policy violation. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the targeted change. But "policy violation"? Hardly. (WP:LOP vs. WP:LGL.) Considering that the topic is one that goes well beyond religion or Western history, there should not be much objection to a switch. Per Common_Era#Contemporary_usage it looks like AD/BC is very passe. – S. Rich (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Violation of WP:MOS then. Paul August ☎ 20:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, MOS:CENTURY allows for either method BC/AD or BCE/CE. Enough of this quibbling. You and I have better things to do. I will try to be sensitive to your preference for BC/AD, even in the articles which encompass non-Western cultures or time-frames. – S. Rich (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, (as I said above) MOS allows either BC/AD or BCE/CE, but what it does not allow is changing from one to the other without consensus, which is what you did. That MOS guideline was established to keep people from edit warring over which era method to use, something which used to be a serious problem. It was decided after long discussion and compromise, that while either method would be considered acceptable, once one method had been established, that it would not be acceptable to change it without first establishing a consensus on the the article's talk page. This has nothing to do with any era preference I might have, or whether articles "encompass non-Western cultures or time-frames". This has to do with the avoidance of needless conflict. So I'm asking you to please to follow the guideline. I think you'll find that it will make things easier. (By the way I also revert people who change from BCE/CE to BC/AD without consensus). Paul August ☎ 01:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

ISBN hyphens

Please stop removing hyphens from ISBN numbers. Correct ISBNs have hyphens and the placement of the hyphens reflects the registration group and registrant id. You are removing meaningful information for no apparent reason and damaging reference information as you do so. --RL0919 (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It don't matter. Look at WP:ISBN. You'll see three examples using ISBN 978-1413304541 and ISBN 978-1-4133-0454-1. The MediaWiki produces the same result for either format. When the Book sources page pops up, you'll see "Spaces and dashes [sic] in the ISBN do not matter." (Thanks for your interest in Hospers. I removed the ISBN hyphens when I added a doi link. The removed hyphens simply shortened the sentence length by a trivial amount, and did not impact linking.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Readers can use the ISBN through means other than following a link. Anyhow, at best these edits are unnecessary ("don't matter"). At worst they make the information provided less accurate and complete. --RL0919 (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The ISBNs are accurate and complete whether or not hyphens are inserted. Look at Aristotle's Politics (which omits all hyphens) or OCLC 586101537 (no hyphens) as two examples. The magic link for ISBN 9780486414249 or ISBN 978-0486414249 or ISBN 978-0-4-8-6-4-1-4-2-49 all lead to the same page. No reader is going to write down the ISBN with or without hyphens. They click the link, get the title on the Book sources page, and go on from there. Feel free to revert any editor who adds or subtracts hyphens – I subtract at times IOT keep the sentence length a little bit shorter. So far I've been okay – Santa does not leave lumps of coal in my stocking for doing so! – S. Rich (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Help with List of ALEC Members

Hi Srich32977,

I'm hoping you can help me have an edit made to a Wikipedia page, being as I cannot due to my conflict of interest--my client would like to be moved from the List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council to the list of List of former members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, being as they haven't belonged to ALEC since 2012. I've left a note at Talk:List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council#Association No Longer a Member with documentation. Would you be able to assist?

Thanks in advance!

(Bgluckman (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC))

Yes. In a day or so. – S. Rich (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC) @Bgluckman:  Done12:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Dubai Terminator

I see you commented at User talk:DubaiTerminator/ub/formerpage. I am not sure exactly what the problem was but do these pages User:DubaiTerminator/elderscrolls, User:DubaiTerminator/template/shepard fall under the same criteria of WP:UPNO and WP:FAKEARTICLE? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Take a look at WP:USER. – S. Rich (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@DubaiTerminator: Please read this section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Robart

You might be interested in Talk:James Robart#Should there be detail about the travel ban case, or not?. Sundayclose (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Saskatchewan - language issue

Hi, I've started a discussion on the Talk Page for Saskatchewan on the language issue - hope you will participate. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Age of Enlightenment

Thanks for the edits you made recently to Age of Enlightenment. You made some mistakes:

• You changed "conduct – including" to "conducti—ncluding".
• You changed "492–494" to "492–94". Surely it should have been changed to "492–4" (or left as it was). There are several other places where that mistake was made.
• You changed "pp" to "pp." in a number of places, but missed "pp=v–viii". I suspect there may be other examples. Ideally, for consistency, these also ought also to have been changed.

Do you want to make these changes, or shall I?

My general advice would be "if in doubt, leave it alone". If however you want to make style changes, more consistency would be desirable. Again, thank you for your work, but my advice would be to slow down and take more care. AWhiteC (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The edits were done on my mobile. Generally I go back and double check on my laptop. The goal is have consistent p. & pp.s and two-digit second page ranges (492–94) IAW the Chicago Manual of style. Thanks for the heads up. I will fix. – S. Rich (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW, p=123 and pp=123–45 render as p. 123 and pp. 123–45 automatically. – S. Rich (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't know about the Chicago Manual of style. Are you sure the two-digit second number convention is not just something that applies only to dates? I thought the usual convention with other number ranges was "give only the digits that differ", so

• 1234–1235 becomes 1234–5
• 1234–1245 becomes 1234–45
• 1234–1345 becomes 1234–345

AWhiteC (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean page citations. Here is a quick CMS guide. You'll see they always have 2 or more digits used to fill the page ranges, except for when the initial page is a single digit. This quick guide does not use the p. or pp. But WP's citation templates do. So I'll add the p. and pp. for the non-template citations to make things consistent. Thus p. 1 or pp. 10–12 or pp. 123–45 or pp. 123–223. The WP MOS allows for any of the major citation guides. 02:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right about the page numbering in CMS: they do seem to have a lower limit of 2 digits for the second page number of a range. You Americans are more pedantic about such rules than we British. We tend to think it's perfectly correct either way. Anyway, good luck with your rationalisation work! AWhiteC (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I (and WP) think either way is perfectly fine too. But I've simply chosen to go with CMS as a personal preference IOT achieve consistency. Please don't think that Americans in general are pedantic simply because you see one example. ;-) Cheerio. – S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

You undid my edit on Stefan M. article with following justification:"Completely non-RS -- appears to be a blog comment and nothing more." Not true. The quotation is from webpage https://www.freedomofmind.com section "group listing". See freedman radio on the list: https://www.freedomofmind.com/Info/list.php Freedomofmind.com is a cult-information source apparently upheld by Steven A. Hassan (https://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/prof_detail.php?profid=108149&p=10), Steve Guziec and Rachel Bernstein. Specialist opinion: "Steven Hassan is a compelling spokesman on the topic of cult mind control, which encompasses issues of human identity and our innate psychological vulnerability to dissociate. In addition, he educates and challenges us to think about the groups using mind control techniques in our culture, and how to help those affected reclaim their lives. His commitment to this neglected area of human experience is exemplary. At my invitation, Steven has taught psychiatry residents at Brigham and Women's Hospital about these issues for the last 14 years. Knowledge of these issues is crucial for all mental health professionals." -- Mary K. McCarthy, M.D. Harvard Medical School. This is a genuine source. Furthermore, Stefan Molineux himself is nothing but a blogger and if we actually followed your criterions, this article shouldn't exist at all. In any case, the source is not a blog but a cult-information webpage. --Raži (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Charles Murray

Why are you keeping the biased language and information on Charles Murray's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raider1918 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources talk about the violence that occurred. No bias is involved in my editing. In fact, I've omitted the reported fact that "hundreds" of protesters where there. Middlebury should be proud of its effort to allow reasoned discussion of controversial issues and ashamed that its students sought to repress freedom of speech. – S. Rich (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Srich32977,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 818 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You'd be proud of me

I'm serving as faculty sponsor for a group called "gays, lesbians, queers and trannies against safe spaces" at my university (I being the tranny). The snowflakes need to be purged if we are going to save liberalism (and fun, generally).

But you're a libertarian, not a liberal. I wonder how you voted in 16'? Steeletrap (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

ALEC

Hi. I'm reaching out to you since you have been one of the top contributors to American Legislative Exchange Council. There are a number of recent discussions at Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council that could benefit from additional input. You are invited to participate. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention here.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)