User talk:Buzzards-Watch Me Work: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:51, 6 March 2020

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of March 2020 (Due to loss of credibility and dissatisfaction with reporting system).

Geography of Monaco

I appreciate your work on Geography of Monaco, but there is absolutely no reason to have an article that is word-for-word exactly the same as part of the main article. Even if this geography article is expanded, it still should never simply duplicate something on another article. If you are indeed rewriting the page, I recommend doing it in a sandbox or test page (like User:B-watchmework/sandbox) and then transferring it to the article when you're completed. Until then, I think the page should be a redirect rather than a redundancy. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 00:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you our coming from, but there are some valuable things like the wiki box that cannot be transferred onto the main Monaco page. Furthermore every other country has its own geography page, so why should Monaco be treated differently. Please consider keeping this page on till I able to finish rewriting the page.B-watchmework (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries all have their own geography pages because they are large enough and have enough unique information to warrant one. In Europe I think the Vatican City, San Marino, and Liechtenstein articles should also be merged, as well as those of many Pacific island countries. These articles also contain minimal information that easily fits in or is redundant to the main article. The material in the infobox mostly just repeats the extreme points listed below and other info already elsewhere; nothing would be lost without. I'll let you expand the article, but I hope it will contain things that are not in the main article already. Anyway, Monaco#Geography is pretty short, why not expand that instead? Reywas92^Talk 15:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your probably right about expanding the Monaco#Geography, but having to long of a section is a bad thing.B-watchmework (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Coordinates of Monaco

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Coordinates of Monaco. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Monaco. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Monaco - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Eeekster (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Coordinates of countries are not generally (I mean, never) created separately from the Geography articles. If you would like to work on the Geography article, with a section on the coordinates that is robust enough for a separate article, I will certainly reconsider this. Thanks again. Jinian (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time formatting of the 2012 USA Pro Cycling Challenge

Hi, please keep the time format as shown after [this edit]. I have no idea what you mean with "wrong format", because this is the standard format as used in all cycling races. Check for instance the final standings of the 2012 Tour de France. Thanks! Also, I'm thinking of changing the article so we can see the overall standings after each stage, like for instance on 2012 Tour de France, Stage 11 to Stage 20, where you have the stage result on the left and standings on the right. If you have the info, feel free to beat me to it ;) Keep up the good work! :) --Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 14:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't want to sound mean or anything, and I’m deeply sorry if I offended you. It’s just I’ve never used this method before, and assumed it was another unhelpful addition to the article. I usually use s.t instead of pasting the same time over, and over again. - Example below:

	Rider	Team	Time
1	Jens Voigt (GER)	You have called `{{Contentious topics}}`. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead: Alerting users {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification. {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation. {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic. {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic. Editnotices {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page. {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page. Talk page notices {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page. {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page. If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned. Miscellaneous {{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Wikipedia.	3h 54' 00"
2	Andreas Klöden (GER)	You have called `{{Contentious topics}}`. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead: Alerting users {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification. {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation. {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic. {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic. Editnotices {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page. {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page. Talk page notices {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page. {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page. If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned. Miscellaneous {{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Wikipedia.	+ 2' 58"
3	Tejay van Garderen (USA)	You have called `{{Contentious topics}}`. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead: Alerting users {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification. {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation. {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic. {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic. Editnotices {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page. {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page. Talk page notices {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page. {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page. If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned. Miscellaneous {{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Wikipedia.	s.t
4	Levi Leipheimer (USA)	You have called `{{Contentious topics}}`. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead: Alerting users {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification. {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation. {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic. {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic. Editnotices {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page. {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page. Talk page notices {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page. {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page. If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned. Miscellaneous {{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Wikipedia.	s.t
5	Olivier Zaugg (SWI)	You have called `{{Contentious topics}}`. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead: Alerting users {{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification. {{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation. {{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic. {{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic. Editnotices {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page. {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page. Talk page notices {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page. {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page. If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned. Miscellaneous {{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Wikipedia.	s.t

As for your overall standings idea - I was planning to do that, but just haven’t had the time to. B-watchmework (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit

Please do not abuse the minor edit box. For example, here you seem to be adding a reference, one of the key "When not to mark an edit as a minor edit" examples. Thanks, Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 08:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me of this, I am not an avid policy buff so I didn't know this was a policy. If it is indeed a policy, then please link me to the policy page, thanks for your time. B-watchmework (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Minor_edit (linked in my original comment, and also as "what's this?" right next to "This is a minor edit" in the edit window) outlines what should and should not be marked as a minor edit. I noticed that, just on Civil Police (San Marino), you inappropriately marked both a reference addition and a revert as minor (and I must admit, it was the latter that caught my attention). Note how: "If there is any chance that another editor might dispute a change, it is best not to mark the edit as minor." Which is to say, there is no harm in not marking an edit minor. Though, please, read the page and draw your own conclusions ("There is a grey area"); I'm not too much of a policy buff myself. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 02:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the link - intrusting point you made about a possible grey area. By the way, I noticed the Stargate symbol on your user page - are you a fan? B-watchmework (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is Stargate? :) No, I'm not much of a fan, but I liked the look of that one better than most of the alternatives. (While I'm here; have you seen this?) Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 12:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate is of of the largest Sci-fi franchises in the entertainment industry so I assumed you were a fan since you were using the earth symbol. As for the Help page you linked - I've previously read it. B-watchmework (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was kidding. (the " :) " after the question mark was supposed to be an emoticon). I know what Stargate is, I'm just not much of a fan. I suppose I was just taking advantage of the "Please enjoy your self" step. In any event, I'd been meaning to remove it, and have since done so. Sorry for any confusion. Oh, and I specifically linked the "indentation" section, since you haven't indented any of your responses. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 20:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

It's not like I don't know how to indent (← did it), it's just I don't bother to do it on my talk page. As for the Stargate thing - it's not like it bothered me or anything - I just didn't get your humor, but I had a good laugh when you responded with "taking advantage of the Please enjoy your self".

Speedy deletion declined: Team Exergy

Hello B-watchmework. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Team Exergy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how you classified it (Team Exergy) as having sufficient context since the articular is only two sentences, thanks. B-watchmework (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says they're a professional cycling team that participated in the USA Pro Cycling Challenge. That provides sufficient context. An article with no context would leave you wondering what the subject of the article is. (For example, if the article only had this one sentence: "Former Tour de France rider Fred Rodriguez is a member of the 2012 team.") I hope that helps. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification - It helps. B-watchmework (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monaco revised edits

Anca kl (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Hello B-watchmework, just wanted to ask why the edit on Monaco was deleted. Had noticed during my last trip there that there is no ID check at the casino, so there was no way of telling whether Monegasque citizens were gambling. Also noticed that at the cash register you are required an ID for a sum over 3000 Euros. Thought that was interesting enough to add to to the Monaco article. I am still new to Wikipedia, just want to learn and improve. Would really appreciate an answer, thank you. Anca kl[reply]

I just want to start out by thanking you for your note - not many new editor respond by talk page. Now regarding your revised edits, I have no objection to them, but for them to remain on Wiki you need an independent reliable source. OH, by the way I'll be dropping off something on your talk page. B-watchmework (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello B-watchmework, thank you so much for you quick answer. Yes, I am hoping to stay, too, and contribute as much as I can. Thought that might be the problem, unfortunately, there is no way to provide a reliable source, since taking pictures inside the casino is forbidden. However, I will do some research on that subject and hopefully come back later when I have found one to sustain my statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anca kl (talk • contribs) 11:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to see new editors join - especially ones that follow the rules. Hope your research is fruitful. Thanks, B-watchmework (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Hello, I'm Grammarxxx. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 ‎ because it didn't appear constructive. You seemed to have taken an earlier poll and changed the results from likely voters to registered voters. Although this could have easily been a mistake, you simply copy and pasted the earlier poll and only changed the results, and even put it in the wrong place in the list of polls. You also marked it as a minor edit, for reasons I do not know, but I can speculate why. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 04:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying you as I saw your userspace links to {{User free speech}}. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. B-watchmework (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second Map for Monaco

I'm curious. You said that no other country had a second map when you deleted the map I added.

The first one I looked at does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein

The reason I tried that one is because it is also a small country. Those big maps on their own are pretty poor to get a quick sense of where a small country is.

Also can you explain why is there a second entry in the info template if it isn't meant to be used? Cheers SeanMack (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Liechtenstein does (that surprises me - something new you learn every day), but Andorra, Luxembourg, Malta, San Marino, and Vatican City don't. The reason why (probably) its not universally used, is simply, it takes up to much space in the user box. This pushes the box down the page, and takes every thing else with it. But in regards to the Monaco page their is already a distinctive map in the Geography section. Hope this helps - B-watchmework (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great - I'll definitely look into it. B-watchmework (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date formatting

Just a heads up -- I saw your edit to Daniele Colli, and really it was mostly changing date formatting, which is not something we tend to do except in certain circumstances. WP:DATERET says we should keep whatever style was used first, and be consistent from there on out. Exceptions can be made for MOS:DATEUNIFY and MOS:STRONGNAT, but the European cyclists should really be using day-first format, as that's what's common throughout Europe. Would you mind if I went back and changed the date format back on some of your changes? Cheers, Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know - and its fine if you want to revert it. B-watchmework (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro García Padilla being a Democrat and not in favor of independence

Hi,

Here's the reference you were looking for [1]:

Fortuño is seeking a second term as governor. His chief rival, Popular Democratic Party gubernatorial candidate Alejandro García Padilla, is a national Democrat who backs President Barack Obama’s bid for a second term.

Second, García Padilla is not in favor of independence nor in favor of Puerto Rico becoming a sovereign state. He is an advocate of the status quo movement in Puerto Rico which advocates to keep Puerto Rico's current political status.

Hope this helps.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, by the way I added the ref. to Puerto Rico page. B-watchmework (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of seats in the Senate of Puerto Rico

Hi,

The current Senate of Puerto Rico, the 25th Senate of Puerto Rico, is composed of 27 seats as it normally should be. This is because the minority has 9 seats in total (8 from the PNP and 1 from the PIP). The increment to 31 seats happens only when the minorities have less than 9 seats, like it happened with the 24th Senate of Puerto Rico which had to be increased to 31 as established by Section 7, Article III of the Constitution of Puerto Rico so that the minorities had 9 seats.

Hope this clears things up.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. B-watchmework (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cease altering content without researching

Please cease altering content without doing a proper research. You have made 3 critical changes which were all made in error and that could have been prevented with a simple Google search.

Pierluisi is a Democrat as stated by C-SPAN in [2].

There's a difference between being bold and being reckless. Your edits can be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't thick I'm being reckless or disruptive, the ref. you provided doesn't say he's a Dem. it just says he spoke at the Dem. Convention. Generally speaking you don't have to registered with the party to speak at their convention. Notable examples include Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee and Florida former Governor Charlie Crist. B-watchmework (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

00:21 on the video: Pedro Pierluisi, D-Puerto Rico. C'mon man... —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing the K-MAX

Greetings, you recently made an edit here using this source. I'm not quite making the connection between Rhein Helikopter AG and the K-MAX. There are 3 listed operators, but they fall under (2) Rotex and (1) Eagle Helicopters. Some clarification would be greatly appreciated FOX 52 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Rhein Helikopter AG is apparently Rotex now. B-watchmework (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Vatsan34

Just so you know, it's actually his birthday, not his first edit day. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake, Sincerely. B-watchmework (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It happens. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. B-watchmework (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hello, nice to 'meet' you! I understand your point a bit about the Andreas Klier article, but I think if we start putting the top 20 of riders everywhere, it's going to be a nightmare. Also, sometimes when he finished 15th, so forth, maybe he was a lead-out guy? Anyway, I think we should stick to each palmares going no higher than a top 10 as a general rule, with maybe the exception of a monument like Paris-Roubaix or Tour of Flanders. Anyway, I didn't revert you again, just wanted to discuss it, sorry not to have dropped a message before reverting. I also ride a lot, got a brand new machine and I never went so fast, for so long :) OPUS Scherzo monocoque carbon, a Quebec brand. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 01:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to first thank you for giving me a holler. As for the article, placing top 20 results in my opinion is needed due to the fact that many cyclists don't have results under 10 in a given year - this causes them to have blank years. As for your concerns, placing top 20 results on pages like Klier is ok in my point of view because he has blank years and other years where very few under 10 results exist. With that said, I wouldn't have placed top 20 results for cyclists who are sprinters (i.e. Mark Cavendish, Matthew Goss Tyler Farrar), and those who already have two or more top 10s (i.e. Alberto Contador, Chris Froome, Levi Leipheimer). You also seemed worried that lead-out guys would be in the mix, but when you think about it, classics for instants, almost never finish in large (i.e. less than five/ten guys) group sprints, also tours such as Tirreno–Adriatico wouldn't be a problem. If I was, however, proposing top 10s top 20s on stages I could see the problem their. Oh by the way, interesting bike chose (looks nice), personally I've never heard of OPUS, but that's probably because I live in NVA. I'm more of a trek guy; love the quality, although there a little bit pricy. B-watchmework (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, though that may dilute his bigger results. I'm OK with it, as long as we don't do that with riders with huge palmares, as you said. :) Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 15:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B-watchmework, you clearly have no idea how things work on Wikipedia. Things are the way the are for a reason. Why are you trying to change things? Two editors disagree with your opinion, is that not clear enough evidence that you are wrong. Who cares that Alex Rasmussen finished the Giro in 154th and 150th place? Stuff like that should be in the prose not highlighted in the Palmarès. Bald Boris 20:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I have a very good understanding of how wiki works, but obviously you don't. Mattaidepikiw never mentioned or removed the grand tour timeline chart, with that said, you shouldn't be stating other's views when you haven't the clue what they are (I dropped off a message to see what his view actually is). Also to my knowledge - there isn't a policy that states timeline charts are bad unless they have a year less than - lets say 10. Lastly, I and probably others (obviously not you) find it interesting to see a cyclist's progression from year to year, regardless of their ranking. Plus this is the grand tours we're talking about - not many get to ride them. B-watchmework (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the top-ten issue, that's why I commented in this section. The GC thing is just obvious, why do you think no one else has done it? I'm sure 99% of the WP:CYCLING disagree with everything your going on about. 150th is not a notable result. I give up, I don't come here for conflict. Bald Boris 22:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that listing 150th in the palmarès list is a bad idea, but what I was talking was the grand tour timeline chart. I mean how in the world do we distingue when and were we place charts, Thomas Dekker finished 35th one year, but he has since finished 100+ so should we or shouldn't we place the chart on his page. French wiki, for instants, places grand tour results for every cyclist - regardless of rank. B-watchmework (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I think it's a bit pointless to have a Grand Tour table such as the one in the Andreas Klier article, clearly he was a gregario. But, in the end, that table still is info: it tells us he was a gregario in grand tours, and that he didn't participate in a lot of them. So I'm neutral there, I think it can stay. I believe though that the best way to improve articles such as Klier's would be to add text with references about the feats of his career. Anyway, cheers, happy editing :) Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 23:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fontvieille, Larvotto, etc.

Wards of Monaco.
Larvotto
Fontvieille

Hi, I don't understand why you reverted my edits of Fontvieille and Larvotto. I'm planning to work over all 10 secteurs and 4 quartiers of Monaco, plus the future quarter of Le Portier, with better locator maps (that show the areal extent and not just a dot on the map), area figures, etc. Before I continue, I need to know the reason of your reverts.--Ratzer (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the map you were using isn't correct, the correct map (source: http://en.gouv.mc/Policy-Practice/The-Economy/Analysis-and-Statistics/Publications/Population-census) is displaced to the left. Secondly, the data you used on the Larvotto page was not referenced, and if my memory serves, it was out dated, the newest info (from 2008) is available in the source above. With that being said, I'm glad you want to assist WP:Monaco, but please, in the future, reference and use the newest data available. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, B-watchmework (talk) 2:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Putting your map and the locator maps inserted by me side by side, I don't see anything wrong with the latter. I was suspecting that you deleted the area figures because I didn't reference them. But they were correct to the nearest hectare, and they can be verified in the census 2008 document referenced by you, on page 9, in square meters.--Ratzer (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say this, but the maps are clearly different, 10 Saint Michel is at least 3x larger than the locator map. While 01 Monte Carlo, 02 Saint Roman, 07 La Colle, 08 Les Révoires, and 09 Moneghetti are also distorted. As for the figures, the main reason why I removed them was primarily because they didn't have a ref. Thanks, B-watchmework (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Saint Michel, the difference is clear, true. In the case of Larvotto and Fontvieille, negligible, IMHO. In any case, I asked the author of the maps whether he sees the need and the possibility to redo them.--Ratzer (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good news: The author of the maps did all of them new, see here. Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The maps look fine! I also want to thank you for being levelheaded throughout this entire process. I'll see you around, B-watchmework (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cyclist changes

Hi, I just see that you changed every edit i done before. Is it vandalism? I see all the rules and the edits that i've made were all correct so, why they must change if they are right? I don't understand. Now i'll wait your answer, so i can complete all the necessary edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.216.232.145 (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I was the first editor to place the GC boxes on those pages, the originally format used should be resected by others, as it doesn't violate any polices. Secondly, you keep capping General Classification, which shouldn't be capped, as its not a person, place, or thing. With that being said, I'll be changing back the pages to the original form. Thanks, B-watchmework (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E. W. Jackson

1. If you can't spell "soldier", you probably shouldn't use the word. It's inappropriate in Jackson's case anyway, as he was in the Marine Corps, and marines are very touchy about being called "soldiers". It also doesn't belong in the lede, since Jackson only served one three-year tour, and there is no evidence of his being in combat, despite serving during the Vietnam War period. Nothing in the article indicates that his military service was especially notable. Having it in the first sentence violates WP:UNDUE.

2. He is neither a former minister nor a former lawyer. He still preaches, and as far as I know, his law license is still active. The lieutenant governor's job in Virginia is part-time anyway, which will leave time for his other pursuits if he is elected.

3. I removed the former membership in the Democratic Party because it disrupts the heading of the infobox (which I also restored, since his candidacy is what is being presented there.) Also, please note that any reference to the "Democrat Party" is considered POV-pushing. Rklear (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you caught my spelling mistake, with that being said, I don't think you should be judging me for it. I mean you didn't spell "lead" right. With that being said, the definition of a soldier applies to all combat personal, regardless of their training (i.e. Army, Marines, Navy Seals). We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to cater to everyone's preference, but to write the facts. Now the facts point to him being in the Marines, but having only served three years, it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead, so I agree with you on this one.

Occupation, after some research on my part, it does appear he still preaches, which surprises me, since politics and church are [almost] always separate. And yes, his law degree is still active, but how can we call this his occupation when he doesn't even practice law anymore? Occupation is for his current profession, not a former one.

Personally I've never heard that writing Democrat was POV, I mean it's already on the page (under party affiliation). B-watchmework (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lede is a very common spelling in the newspaper business; it's used to distinguish discussion of the beginning of an article from talk about the metallic lead used in typesetting.

I'd need to do more research, but last I looked, Jackson was still teaching law at a business college, though not practicing as an attorney. It's also kind of odd to me to say that a lawyer is giving up being a lawyer so he can go to a legislature and work on laws. YMMV.

And as for the word "Democrat", it's OK when saying, "Jim is a Democrat," or "Democrats believe the moon is made of green cheese." "Democrat Party", however, in addition to being grammatically incorrect, is a form used by Republicans to bait Democrats. Using the term here is basically edit warring by its very nature. I have found that it's best to use "Democratic" in isolated places like infobox items and table cells so there's no question of intent. Rklear (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think lede is a [real] word, but it doesn't really matter.

Jackson is a former law teacher, I couldn't find anything that suggests he still teaches. So the question remains the same, why are we listing him as a lawyer if he doesn't practice law anymore.

I guess I'll trust you on the "Democrat" thing, though I've never heard that "Democrat Party" was bashing. B-watchmework (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DC WikiSalon on June 6

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Thursday, June 6 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 11:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't make it; out of town. B-watchmework (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have time on Saturday?

I'm sorry for the last-minute notice, but on Saturday, June 8, from 3 to 6 PM, Wikimedia DC and the Cato Institute are hosting a Legislative Data Meetup. We will discuss the work done so far by WikiProject U.S. Federal Government Legislative Data to put data from Congress onto Wikipedia, as well as what more needs to be done. If you have ideas you'd like to contribute, or if you're just curious and feel like meeting up with other Wikipedians, you are welcome to come! Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there!

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for D.C.-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Harej (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't make it; out of town. B-watchmework (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, June 15!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, June 15 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 20:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Join us this Sunday for the Great American Wiknic!

	Great American Wiknic DC at Meridian Hill Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic DC at the James Buchanan Memorial at Meridian Hill Park. We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck! :)

Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC. To unsubscribe from future DC area event notifications, remove your name from this list.

Harej (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TM

Hello, that is simply not the case. The Talk page I was referring to is the one for Terry McAuliffe's page. There are detailed discussions going on regarding the non-neutral nature of another users edits and his continued actions on the page. There are multiple complaints, including the page being tagged with NPOV. You are not correct about there being a consensus. Not even close. LitmusCycle (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the section is slanted, but your edit didn't follow WP:EIGHT guidelines. Furthermore, two other editors agreed with my assessment, and reverted your edit. So that confirms WP:Consensus. Thanks, B-watchmework (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)

Hey B-watchmework

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely look into it; thanks for letting me know. B-watchmework (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Tour de France King of the Mountains

I saw you removed a link to the 2013 Tour de France King of the Mountains page I made. If not there, then where would you recommend I put the link? Sorry if I was wrong in putting it there. Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link because it was improperly inserted; it looks fine now. Thanks, B-watchmework (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, cheers Smitchlovesfunk (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I have nominated this article for deletion. Feel free to share your perspective in the discussion. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 09:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, July 13!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, July 13 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 00:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're Invited: Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon at the Smithsonian

File:SAAM facade.jpg

American Art Museum

Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon at the
Smithsonian American Art Museum

You're invited to the Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon, part of a series of edit-a-thons organized by the Smithsonian American Art Museum to add and expand articles about American art and artists on Wikipedia.

This event will include a catered lunch and special tours of the Luce Foundation Center for American Art and the Lunder Conservation Center at the Smithsonian American Art Museum.

9:15 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 19, 2013
Smithsonian American Art Museum
Meet at G Street Lobby (9th St. & G St. NW, Washington, D.C.)

Capacity is limited, so please sign up today!

If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from our distribution list.
Message delivered by Dominic·t 23:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Luce Foundation Center

Sounds interesting; I'll look at my calendar. B-watchmework (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Froome

British License?

Tell that to all of us kenyans and the people who learned with him in school. You can not take Kenya, Nairobi city, the way of life, out of that man....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HonorTheIsland (talk • contribs) 20:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HonorTheIsland please respect page guidelines by always signing your comments. This is done by typing four tildes. It doesn't just identify authorship, but also assists in communication between editors. With that being said, Froome clearly rides under a British license, personally I don't understand why your so enraged at me. I'm just writing the facts. Thanks, B-watchmework (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential edit war: scandals involving McDonnell

The following has been inserted on the talk page of the McDonnell article.

Editor B-watchmework has repeatedly reverted a one-sentence summary in the lede paragraphs about the recent controversies involving McDonnell. These controversies, involving alleged illegal gifts to McDonnell and his family, have been reported frequently in national media, including multi-page reports in the Washington Post. B-watchemework claims that this material is not notable and should not be included in the lede. I dispute this. A well-documented, much reported controversy impacting the political survival of a person sometimes mentioned as a candidate for President is worthy of inclusion in the lede of a wikipedia article. I'm no wiki-lawyer so I don't know how to resolve this dispute, but assistance from somebody out there is requested. Smallchief (talk 23:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on talk page. B-watchmework (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, August 24!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 04:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you free on Wednesday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Wednesday, August 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 11:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hey B, you are doing great in the 2013 USA Pro Cycling Challenge. You would find interesting studing this template usage. Keep working. Osplace 04:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been planning to due it, just haven't got around to it. Thanks, B-watchmework (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But it looks waaayyy different! Osplace 04:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meet up with local Wikipedians on September 14!

Are you free on Saturday, September 14? If so, please join Wikimedia DC and local Wikipedians for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages are welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please visit the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 19:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 5 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 15:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Markel Irizar 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:

{{cyclist

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. B-watchmework (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Anthony Giacoppo

The article Anthony Giacoppo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:NCYCLING. No reliable source evidence of having competed at an Olympics or World Championship nor having finished on the podium at a UCI World Cup or event. Also fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on article talk page. B-watchmework (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 26 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 06:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you free on Sunday? Join us for a special Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for a special WikiSalon at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library's Digital Commons Center. We will gather at 3 PM on Sunday, October 13, 2013 to discuss an important topic: what can Wikipedia and the DC area do to help each other? We hope to hear your thoughts and suggestions; if you have an idea you would like to pursue, please let us know and we will help!

Following the WikiSalon, we will be having dinner at a nearby restaurant, Ella's Wood Fired Pizza.

If you're interested in attending, please sign up at the event page. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 02:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Your recent editing history at Terry McAuliffe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't use rollback in a content dispute like that; it's only for obvious vandalism. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about rollback policy, as for WP:3RR, I never intended to revert more than three time. B-watchmework (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many times did you intend to revert, then? Instaurare (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the last time, if you'd continued I would have persuaded an WP:ANI. B-watchmework (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks instead of discussing the content. Instaurare (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond anymore unless something changes, it's obvious that your acting in a biased manner. B-watchmework (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~You are ignoring the "D" part of WP:BRD. Also, you would be wise to read WP:BOOMERANG. Instaurare (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Also, your whitewashing of the political positions section, which you hid in a revert, shows you are calling the kettle black. Instaurare (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Do not respond on this page anymore, I'm fed up with the lies your circulating. B-watchmework (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VA 2013 Election, Polling

Thanks, Instaurare keeps reverting the polling threshold edits. It's annoying. JoshMcCullough (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instaurare has been involved in several altercations, so beware. As a side note, the vast majority of editors are actually helpful and trustworthy (though we differ amongst each other from time to time), so don't be frightened off. B-watchmework (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terry McAuliffe

Please see Talk:Terry McAuliffe#Discussion. Instaurare (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth fields

Hello, I have asked about what people think is appropriate to include in the {{infobox cyclist}} birth of place field at WT:WikiProject Cycling. Thanks, Severo (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on talk. Thanks, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meetups coming up in DC!

Hey!

You are invited to two upcoming events in DC:

Meetup at Capitol City Brewery on Saturday, January 25 at 6 PM. Please join us for dinner, drinks, socializing, and discussing Wikimedia DC activities and events. All are welcome! RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.
Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, February 1 from Noon – 5 PM. Join us as we improve articles on notable women in history! All are welcome, regardless of age or level of editing experience. RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.

I hope to see you there!

(Note: If you do not wish to receive talk page messages for DC meetups, you are welcome to remove your username from this page.)

Harej (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coming up in February!

Hello there!

Our February WikiSalon is coming up on Sunday, February 23. Join us at our gathering of Wikipedia enthusiasts at the Kogod Courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery with an optional dinner after. As usual, all are welcome. Care to join us?

Also, if you are available, there is an American Art Edit-a-thon being held at the Smithsonian American Art Museum with Professor Andrew Lih's COMM-535 class at American University on Tuesday, February 11 from 2 to 5 PM. Please RSVP on the linked page if you are interested.

If you have any ideas or preferences for meetups, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC.

Thank you, and hope to see you at our upcoming events! Harej (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DC Meetups in March

Happy March!

Though we have a massive snowstorm coming up, spring is just around the corner! Personally, I am looking forward to warmer weather.

Wikimedia DC is looking forward to a spring full of cool and exciting activities. In March, we have coming up:

Evening WikiSalon on Wednesday, March 12 from 7 PM – 9 PM. Meet up with Wikipedians for coffee at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle! If you cannot make it in the evening, join us at our...
March Meetup on Sunday, March 23 from 3 PM – 6 PM. Our monthly weekend meetup, same place as last month. Meet really cool and interesting people!
Women in the Arts 2014 meetup and edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 30 from 10 AM – 5 PM. Our second annual Women in the Arts edit-a-thon, held at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Free lunch will be served!

We hope to see you at our upcoming events! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page.

— Harej (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

What kind of userbox do you want? Buaidh 19:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I want Template:User in Virginia|19 replaced with: This user is a resident of (line split) Northern Virginia. Also, I'd like to replace the flag of Virginia with: File:Annandale Flag.jpg. Thanks, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Template:User Annandale. Yours aye, Buaidh 16:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look's great. Thanks, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Clay Ford Sr.

You changed his birthplace to Kansas City - it has now been changed to Detroit following a Ford company biography. Do you have a source for your change? Was there some other Kansas City connection? Rmhermen (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This source states Kansas City - 1 - however, Ford Motor Company's bio is probably the accurate one. Thanks, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An exciting month of wiki events!

Hello there,

I am pleased to say that April will be a very exciting month for Wikipedia in Washington, DC. We have a lot of different events coming up, so you will have a lot to choose from.

First, a reminder that our second annual Women in the Arts Edit-a-Thon will take place on Sunday, March 30 at the National Museum of Women in the Arts.

Coming up in April, we have our first-ever Open Government WikiHack with the Sunlight Foundation on April 5–6! We are working together to use open government data to improve the Wikimedia projects, and we would love your help. All are welcome, regardless of coding or editing experience. We will also be having a happy hour the day before, with refreshments courtesy of the Sunlight Foundation.

On Friday, April 11 we are having our first edit-a-thon ever with the Library of Congress. The Africa Collection Edit-a-Thon will focus on the Library's African and Middle East Reading Room. It'll be early in the morning, but it's especially worth it if you're interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of African topics.

The following day, we are having our second annual Wiki Loves Capitol Hill training. We will discuss policy issues relevant to Wikimedia and plan for our day of outreach to Congressional staffers that will take place during the following week.

There are other meetups in the works, so be sure to check our meetup page with the latest. I hope to see you at some of these events!

All the best,
James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

List of countries by military expenditures

Hello there. I noticed that you often edit the article List of countries by military expenditures, and presume therefore that you have an interest in that area (as do I). I was wondering then, if you would care to express you thoughts on the articles talk page here: Talk:List of countries by military expenditures#IISS figures on defence spending. Thanks. Antiochus the Great (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use Wikipedia as a source for tabling your sources, you have no sources but are using Wikipedia pages for military budgets. You need academic sources to verify each countries budget.--198.23.83.227 (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two edit-a-thons coming up!

Hello there!

I'm pleased to tell you about two upcoming edit-a-thons:

This Tuesday, April 29, from 2:30 to 5:30 PM, we have the Freer and Sackler edit-a-thon. (Sorry for the short notice!)
On Saturday, May 10 we have the Wikipedia APA edit-a-thon, in partnership with the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, from 10 AM to 5 PM.

We have more stuff coming up in May and June, so make sure to keep a watch on the DC meetup page. As always, if you have any recommendations or requests, please leave a note on the talk page.

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Meet up with us

Happy May!

There are a few meetups in DC this month, including an edit-a-thon later this month. Check it out:

On Thursday, May 15 come to our evening WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle. If you're available Thursday evening, feel free to join us!
Or if you prefer a Saturday night dinner gathering, we also have our May Meetup at Capitol City Brewing Company. (Beer! Non-beer things too!)
You are also invited to the Federal Register edit-a-thon at the National Archives later this month.

Come one, come all!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Washington, DC meetups in June

Greetings!

Wikimedia DC has yet another busy month in June. Whether you're a newcomer to Wikipedia or have years of experience, we're happy to see you come. Here's what's coming up:

On Wednesday, June 11 from 7 to 9 PM come to the WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space. Hang out with Wikipedia enthusiasts!
Saturday, June 14 is the Frederick County History Edit-a-Thon from 11 AM to 4 PM. Help improve local history on Wikipedia.
The following Saturday, June 21, is the June Meetup. Dinner and drinks with Wikipedians!
Come on Tuesday, June 24 for the Wikipedia in Your Library edit-a-thon at GWU on local and LGBT history.
Last but not least, on Sunday, June 29 we have the Phillips Collection Edit-a-Thon in honor of the Made in America exhibit.

Wikipedia is better with friends, so why not come out to an event?

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The Great American Wiknic and other events in July

I am pleased to announce our fourth annual picnic, the Great American Wiknic, will take place at Meridian Hill Park in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, July 13 from 1 to 5 PM (rain date: July 20). We will be hanging out by the statue of Dante Alighieri, a statue that was donated to the park in 1921 as a tribute to Italian Americans. Read more about the statue on Wikipedia. If you would like to sign up for the picnic, you can do so here. When signing up, say what you’re going to bring!

July will also feature the second annual Great American Wiknic in Frederick, Maryland. This year’s Frederick picnic will take place on Sunday, July 6 at Baker Park. Sign up here for the Frederick picnic.

What else is going on in July? We have the American Chemical Society Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, July 12, dedicated to notable chemists, and our monthly WikiSalon on Wednesday, July 16.

We hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Terry McAuliffe

Please see Terry McAuliffe#Discussion of content. Thanks, Instaurare (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon!

Greetings!

Sorry for the last minute update, but our friends at the DC Historical Society have scheduled a Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War battle fought in the District. The event will last from noon to 2 PM on Wednesday, July 30. Hope you can make it!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Joe Dombrowski‎‎ war

It looks like I have to break it down for you:

If you read WP:OVERLINK, it clearly says "the names of major geographic features and locations" should not be linked. So why have you linked American, United States and France?

Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher says "simply the city name by itself can be used for world-recognized cities like New York, London (except in articles about Canadian topics), Paris, Tokyo." So why have you put Manchester, England and New York City, New York?

There is no need to link locations in the references. It clogs ups the section making it hard to see which is the actual link they have gone there to find. Also its irrelevant to the article.

Why do you use commas in the palmarès when most cyclist's pages have none? All of the road cyclists' good articles feature no commas in the palmarès. See: Alberto Contador#Major achievements, Greg LeMond#Palmarès, Bradley Wiggins#Career achievements, Fabian Cancellara#Major achievements, Tom Simpson#Career achievements

I hope you take in what I've said and become a better editor from it. I haven't been unreasonable, I'm just following the rules like everybody else. Bald Boris 23:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, last time I checked, 'American' was not a "major geographic feature". American is linked on various United States' related page, like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

The policy states "can be used", not 'must be used'; ultimately it's the editors choice. With that being said, Manchester is not a global city.

Third point is clearly an opinion...

Finally, no policy exists regarding palmarès formatting; ultimately the initial editor choices. Roughly one in five pages uses the comma method. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet

Come one and come all. To a presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history.

Show the Internet who is the better editor.
Be the creator of culture that you know you are.
Spread the knowledge of noteworthy people who no one but you cares about.
Lead the charge to a better Wikipedia --- eventually.

Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet

See you at the Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street, Laurel, MD on Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 7:00 PM EST. See http://www.meetup.com/Wikimedia-DC/events/205494212/ for more information. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia DC invites revolutionaries, free thinkers, and other sundry editors to a DC WikiSalon

The WikiSalon is a special meetup usually held during the first and third full weeks of every month, from 7 PM to 9 PM. It's an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss Wikimedia wikis and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own.

If you're coming by Metro, the closest station is Dupont Circle (on the Red Line). If you're driving, a lot of parking opens up downtown after 6:30 PM, so finding a parking space (even a free one) should be easy. Once you've found the building, go to Cove on the second floor. We will be in the conference room.

When: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM

Where: The Cove, Dupont Circle, 1730 Connecticut Avenue NW, 2nd floor, 20009, DC

For more information, see http://www.meetup.com/Wikimedia-DC/events/205500822/

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia DC's Wonderful meetups

Wikimedia DC's Upcoming meetups

Thursday, September 11: “Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet, One Article at a Time!”
A presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history. Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street in Laurel, MD. 7 PM.
Wednesday, September 17: WikiSalon
Come for the pizza, stay for the conversation. 7 PM – 9 PM
Saturday, September 20: September Meetup
Get dinner and drinks with fellow Wikipedians! 6 PM
Sunday, September 21: Laurel History Edit-a-Thon
Local history for Wikipedia! 10:15 AM – 4 PM
Saturday, September 27 – Sunday, September 28: Please RSVP for the Open Government WikiHack at Eventbrite by clicking on the link. The National Archives and Records Administration and Wikimedia DC are teaming up to come up with solutions that help integrate government data into Wikipedia. 10:30 AM – 5 PM each day

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navardauskas

Any idea who the photo is of? I could have sworn it was him. May it be Phil Gaimon or Steele Von Hoff? If so I will rename the file. Connormah (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's Phil Gaimon; here's his team photo. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wonderful annual meeting! And more!

Hello, fellow Wikipedian!

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

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

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 Garmin-Sharp season may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|{{dts||October|13}} || [[2014 Tour of Beijing|]Tour of Beijing]], Stage 4|| [[2014 UCI World Tour|UCI World Tour]] || {{flagathlete|{{sortname|Dan|Martin|Dan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD behavior

Hi Buzzards,

I noticed you've nominated a large amount of cycle team articles at WP:AFD with the deletion criteria for all of them being that they have 0 or 1 references. This is not a valid reason for deletion, and as you seem new to AfD, I'll ask you to read WP:BEFORE and follow it before any future nominations. AfD is not cleanup, and sourcing undersourced but otherwise notable articles is always preferable to deleting them outright.

Thanks, Deadbeef 03:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citation needed says all unsourced material should be removed. All the articles I nominated are relatively old, and have remained unsourced for, in some cases, years. I don't think the article are going to receive sources. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand... WP:BEFORE is an implicit requirement before nominating articles. You seem to be unfamiliar with deletion guidelines. "Old and un/under-sourced" is not a criterion for deletion. You are expected to do a thorough search for sources to try to establish notability for articles before ever nominating them for deletion. Only if you are unable, after such a search, to find reliable sources to establish notability, should you ever nominate an article at AfD. Please read the Wikipedia Deletion Policy and relevant category-specific notability criteria before you make any more AfD nominations or !votes to make strong, policy-based arguments at AfD. Deadbeef 04:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please for the love of God Bundle your nominations infuture - Had you bothered doing just that earlier I could've closed it and gave you some advice, -
2. As others above have mentioned you clearly haven't followed WP:BEFORE which is a requirement before nominating articles here,

I suggest infuture you read WP:AFD#Nominating article(s) for deletion before disruptively nominating articles - Not following BEFORE can and will get you topic banned from AFD entirely,

Thank you, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One last thought, try being nicer, people will appreciate it, Davey. Goodbye. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your essay (up top[3]) as it's obvious you're unhappy with me -

I apologize if I've upset you or made you feel unwelcome - (Everyone's welcome here

) - It's just you've been here a long time and you should generally known all of this - Ofcourse if you didn't then you should've perhaps read how to first,

That all said I could've worded it in a more friendlier way,

Anyway we all make mistakes here and to be honest the 'pedias a learning curve for everyone (myself certainly included!)

Anyway I hope to see you around and again I apologize if I've upset you,

Have a nice day, Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BWMW - the intention is not to make users retire, but to point them to other Wiki policies to enhance their editing and knowledge. On first glance, yes, some of the cycling teams don't appear to be notable. Maybe there are some borderline cases. If you had doubts about them all, maybe first contact the article creator(s) and the Cycling Project. If you were then still unhappy about non-notable articles AND you'd tried to source them yourself, then take them to AfD. Maybe this is an opportunity for you to help add to the cycling notability guidelines around cycling teams (which seems to be lacking). Every negative has a positive and all that! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated all of my team pages for deletion. Withdraw all of them and Matt Cooke (cyclist) or i will do it myself. no-one supported them all said keep and even told you to withdraw nomination.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A (last) thing I want to say, although you nominated articles while not necessary (I think because you're new to AfD), I do appreciate your work to look out for 'bad' articles and nominate them. I (and I now we) don't want to stop you. Everybody makes mistakes and has reverted edits. Please go on with your work (and we can help you out if you want)!

Davey, my essay/rant included past experiences − you're quite cordial in comparison. I was trying to convey my disappointment with the system. Most of my edits evolved around fixing horrible (then cycling related) articles, something I realized was rather pointless... More dreadful articles were published than I could deal with... I felt like I was fighting a loosing battle.

I may continue editing again − I've missed wiki to a certain extent. Wish you'll the best of luck. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

End-of-the-year meetups

Hello,

You're invited to the end-of-the-year meetup at Busboys and Poets on Sunday, December 14 at 6 PM. There is Wi-Fi, so bring your computer if you want!

You are also invited to our WikiSalon on Thursday, December 18 at 7 PM.

Hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

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

Resolution Comment

Look Buzzards we can agree to disagree on formatting until a consensus is reached, Sander has come up with what sounds like a reasonable idea - removing all "1st" or "1st," from the sections and having those results sections possible renamed something like "team victories" that way it is implied. You've obviously got some good ideas about how to improve the project as well as the drive to carry out those improvements. Looking back, you've butted heads with numerous project contributors, so rather than bicker between ourselves why don't we try and generate genuine consensus discussion - improving the project for future editors as well as ourselves?XyZAn (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem finding consensus... XyZAn, you can't start an edit war over your personal disagreement. You have to follow the community's decision or face a block. When consensus is trying to be reached, the original version is left in place; per Wikipedia:Consensus. That is/was my point. I didn't what you to face a block, which you could have had; per Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so let's put formatting on the back burner for now, but as an exercise and FYI I've had a look at all the Pro-conti & conti team articles from the 2014 season and the formatting structure is as follows. Out of the 17 proconti teams- all 17 use no commas. For the continental team pages the following is split up by the region in which they're listed, and looks at those teams which have articles and have a result section in them. There's only 1 African team and it uses no commas. There are 11 American teams, 6 use no commas, 1 does not (jelly belly) and the rest do not have a results section. Out of the 14 Asian team articles, 13 use no commas and 1 does not. There are 53 European teams with articles, 46 use no commas and the remaining don't have a results section. Finally, there is 1 Oceania team and it uses the no comma method - so as far as I can tell there are only 2 team pages out of 115 2014-active teams use the comma method.

Consensus-wise, what do you think we should add which would improve current articles, and articles which are created in the future? Minimum number of sources per team article? etc etc.. XyZAn (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, currently 95%+ of the teams are in the no comma format. When I started editing cycling pages, about two or three years ago, the ratio was roughly 1:4 in no comma's favor. Things have progressed in no comma's direction. Most editors now like the no comma format, like yourself, and have started uniforming the project. Maybe I'm stuck it the past, but I personally like the old method... As a footnote, the ratio amongst rider pages is (roughly) 1:5 maybe 1:7, which is still significant.

I'm glade you asked that question. I redid Davide Villella's page; I think it's a perfect example of what new pages should look like.

I'll respond to the comma format issue at cycling's talk in the next two days (hopefully) − holidays are just too busy. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buzzards, I've replied at the project page and looked at the Davide Villella page and it looks good - the only thing I'd change is the formatting of the palmares. But just to clear up the discussion on the project page the consensus I'm trying to reach is regarding Team articles only - not rider articles - hence me saying that I think we should change the 2 articles which do not follow the rest (Garmin & Jelly belly).

With respect to rider articles we obviously can't remove the placings, i.e, 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc as the palmares section would make no sense. Realistically the formatting of rider results should be like below (but that is for another separate discussion in my eyes):

1st Overall, Volta a Catalunya

1st Stage 4

1st Liège–Bastogne–Liège

1st Stage 9, Tour de France

2nd Overall, Tour of Beijing

4th Giro di Lombardia

4th La Flèche Wallonne

8th Overall, Tour de Suisse

Responded at cycling's talk; GRS and JBC should be changed. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Buzzards-Watch Me Work!

Happy New Year!

Buzzards-Watch Me Work,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 06:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Team naming rationale

Hi Buzzards, hope you've had a good Xmas. I see you've moved some team pages dropping the "cycling team" etc.. from the page name (e.g. You have called {{Contentious topics}}. You probably meant to call one of these templates instead:

Alerting users

{{alert/first}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/first}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the contentious topics system if they have never received such an alert before. In this case, this template must be used for the notification.
{{alert}} ({{Contentious topics/alert}}) is used, on a user's talk page, to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that a specific topic is a contentious topic. It may only be used if the user has previously received any contentious topic alert, and it can be replaced by a custom message that conveys the contentious topic designation.
{{alert/DS}} ({{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}) is used to inform editors that the old "discretionary sanctions" system has been replaced by the contentious topics system, and that a specific topic is a contentious topic.
{{Contentious topics/aware}} is used to register oneself as already aware that a specific topic is a contentious topic.

Editnotices

{{Contentious topics/editnotice}} is used to inform editors that a page is covered by the contentious topics system using an editnotice. Use the one below if the page has restrictions placed on the page.
{{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is used to inform editors that the page they are editing is subject to contentious topics restrictions using an editnotice. Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.

Talk page notices

{{Contentious topics/talk notice}} is used to provide additional communication, using a talk page messagebox (tmbox), to editors that they are editing a page that is covered by the contentious topics system. The template standardises the format and wording of such notices. Use the below if there are restrictions placed on the page.
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to inform editors that page restrictions are active on the page using a talk page messagebox (tmbox). Use the above if there are no restrictions placed on the page.
If a user who has been alerted goes on to disruptively edit the affected topic area, they can be reported to the arbitration enforcement (AE) noticeboard, where an administrator will investigate their conduct and issue a sanction if appropriate. {{AE sanction}} is used by administrators to inform a user that they have been sanctioned.

Miscellaneous

{{Contentious topics/list}} and {{Contentious topics/table}} show which topics are currently designated as contentious topics. They are used by a number of templates and pages on Wikipedia.). Whats the rationale for this, just so I know in future if I do a page move whether or not I should drop the "team" sort of thing. Thanks, XyZAn (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing "team" from the title so the squads can appear in alphabetical order. Also a "-" most be placed between the sponsor names; per Template:Ct. Thanks, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts..

Hi Buzzards,

I'd appreciate your input and thoughts here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling#UCI Point system/rankings change (if you have the time)

Cheers, XyZAn (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Country pages for the UCI Road World Championships

Hi Buzzards, if you have time can you comment on the discussion about the notability of the country pages for the UCI Road World Championships. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling#Country pages for the UCI Road World championships. Cheers, Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 13:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Museum hacks and museum edits

Hello there!

Upcoming events:

February 6–8: The third annual ArtBytes Hackathon at the Walters Art Museum! This year Wikimedia DC is partnering with the Walters for a hack-a-thon at the intersection of art and technology, and I would like to see Wikimedia well represented.
February 11: The monthly WikiSalon, same place as usual. RSVP on Meetup or just show up!
February 15: Wiki Loves Small Museums in Ocean City. Mary Mark Ockerbloom, with support from Wikimedia DC, will be leading a workshop at the Small Museum Association Conference on how they can contribute to Wikipedia. Tons of representatives from GLAM institutions will be present, and we are looking for volunteers. If you would like to help out, check out "Information for Volunteers".

I am also pleased to announce events for Wikimedia DC Black History Month with Howard University and NPR. Details on those events soon.

If you have any questions or have any requests, please email me at james.harewikimediadc.org.

See you there! – James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 03:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Elon Musk

Please stop your disruptive editing on the Elon Musk page. Specifically you are continuously removing Queen's University from Musk's Alma Mater, wiping the fact that he studied at Queen's for two years, and then transferred to University of Pennsylvania, from the record. This is not the first time this has happened. Most recently you have tried to disguise the edit within another edit. If you think I have made a mistake, then you can message me on my talk page. In the future, please refrain from disruptive editing. Thank you. DocHeuh (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand what an Alma Mater is: it's the highest degree achieved. Transferring doesn't matter, e.g. if you went to a Junior College and transferred into a university, you wouldn't list the former. The end result matters.

Your extreme rudeness doesn't belong here. In the future, read talkpage instructions before commenting... Also consider WP:Civility. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia DC celebrates Black History Month, and more!

Hello again!

Not even a week ago I sent out a message talking about upcoming events in DC. Guess what? There are more events coming up in February.

First, as a reminder, there is a WikiSalon on February 11 (RSVP here or just show up) and Wiki Loves Small Museums at the Small Museum Association Conference on February 15 (more information here).

Now, I am very pleased to announce:

Tuesday, February 17 from 10 AM to 3 PM there will be #WikiTurgy at the University of Maryland. Join fellow theatre enthusiasts for a “mass act of public dramaturgy!”
Thursday, February 19 from 10 AM to 4 PM we are hosting the Howard University Black History Edit-a-Thon. We are working in partnership with the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of African-American and African diasporic history.
Tuesday, February 24 from 6 PM to 8 PM we have the Black History Month “First Edit” at NPR. Help improve Wikipedia and help others make their first edit to Wikipedia!
Finally, our monthly dinner meetup is on Saturday, February 28.

There is going to be a lot going on, and I hope you can come to some of the events!

If you have any questions or need any special accommodations, please let me know.

Regards,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 18:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Monaco

Buzzards-Watch Me Work, please do us all a favor and explain to Montekarloh and the rest of us why you reverted all their edits. I see no edit summaries, no notices on their talk page, nothing on the article talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were sloppy; poor grammar, too many images, and misleading maps. Considering the volume, I reverted instead of doing it manually... I was planning on leaving a message, but work interfered. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing for Women's History in March

Hello,

I am very excited to announce this month’s events, focused on Women’s History Month:

Sunday, March 8: Women in the Arts 2015 Edit-a-thon – 10 AM to 4 PM
Women in the Arts and ArtAndFeminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Free coffee and lunch served!

More information • RSVP on Meetup
Wednesday, March 11: March WikiSalon – 7 PM to 9 PM
An evening gathering with free-flowing conversation and free pizza.

More information • RSVP on Meetup (or just show up!)
Friday, March 13: NIH Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon – 9 AM to 4 PM
In honor of Women’s History Month, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is organizing and hosting an edit-a-thon to improve coverage of women in science in Wikipedia. Free coffee and lunch served!

More information • RSVP on Meetup
Saturday, March 21: Women in STEM Edit-a-Thon at DCPL – 12 PM
Celebrate Women's History Month by building, editing, and expanding articles about women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields during DC Public Library's first full-day edit-a-thon.

More information • RSVP on Meetup
Friday, March 27: She Blinded Me with Science, Part III – 10 AM to 4 PM
Smithsonian Institution Archives Groundbreaking Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. Free lunch courtesy of Wikimedia DC!

More information • RSVP on Meetup
Saturday, March 28: March Dinner Meetup – 6 PM
Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!

More information • RSVP on Meetup

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

Thanks,

James Hare

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. 02:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buzzards-Watch Me Work

I'm closing this SPI with no action against you other than this warning. Taking you at your word, your interaction with the IP constitutes meat puppetry (according to you, "If persuading someone’s vote is wrong, then I deserve sanctions"). In the future, do not try to persuade any other person to adopt your position, whether it be at an AfD or in some other context. If there is evidence that you have, you risk much harsher sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming attractions in DC

Hello!

Here are some upcoming DC meetups in April and May:

Tuesday, April 14: National Archives Hackathon on Wikipedia Space with American University – 2:30-5pm
See the latest work on the Wikipedia Space exhibit in the new NARA Innovation Hub and brainstorm on new ideas for a public exhibit about Wikipedia
Friday, April 17: Women in Tech Edit-a-thon with Tech LadyMafia – 5-9pm
Team up with Tech LadyMafia to improve Wikipedia content on women in the history of technology.
Saturday, April 25: April Dinner Meetup – 6 PM
Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!
Friday, May 1: International Labour Day Edit-a-Thon – 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM
An edit-a-thon at the University of Maryland

Hope to see you at these events! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Cheers,

James Hare

To remove yourself from this mailing list, remove your name from this list. 22:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the problem with

"On 12 May 2015, Formolo signed his first professional victory on stage four of the Giro d'Italia. He attacked his breakaway companions on the final climb to drop them and kept his advantage until the line in La Spezia" What is not encyclopedic with that? It certainly is better than: He won Stage 4 of the Giro d'Italia. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 16:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you, but kept your reference and took the "in style" I had written out. I only used 'epic' in the edit summary. I hope all is OK. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word, singed, was used twice in the prior sentences; 3 in 30 words is redundant. The following sentence, "He attacked...," is incomplete; it omits group size or winning margin. This sums everything: "On 12 May 2015, at the Giro d'Italia, Formolo escaped with twenty riders, and successfully soloed, 15 km (9.3 mi), to the finish. He finished twenty-two seconds ahead of the peloton." Also, reverting is for vandalism not disputes... On a personal note, it was an amazing stage to watch; hope you saw it. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm perfectly fine with the new wording you gave it, I agree "signed" was a repetition. I'm taking note about reverting, thanks, I didn't know. And yes, the stage was awesome and furious! I'm glad everything is sorted out. :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 18:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, you're one the most reasonable and levelheaded users I've seen. You always express yourself in a constructive manner. Keep it up! Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Very nice barnstar :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 19:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guam

Your copyedit had unclear benefits, but clear drawbacks: 17 was Ok; reference doi=10.1080/00223340120049424 was truncated; "Guam weathered .. hostilities" reads odd (to me). Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the citation issue. I changed weathered to endured. Thanks, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monaco

Nice to see someone else interested in Monaco. Perhaps we could work together on a few more articles...Zigzig20s (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks for the massage... Initially, I focused on the primary page, however, I am moving into Wards and statistics. Monaco's government provides excellent information on issues, like income and education. The organization is Statistics Monaco. Personally, I think the main page looks decent, minus grammatical and citation errors. I guess the economy section needs work. If you have specific pages you'd like to collaborate on, please let me know. If you're looking for goals and/or viewpoints, see Wikipedia:MONACO. Thanks! Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States

I noticed your edits in the infobox regarding languages. I thought these edits were heavy-handed and unnecessary, but I won't revert them. In most stylebooks, percentages are rendered in figures (not spelled out). You also inserted a comma before "but," which is faulty unless "but" precedes a full subject-verb clause; another editor has (correctly) added another comma to make the sentence grammatical. Finally, you labeled your changes as "grammar," but they are anything but grammatical. They are stylistic and should be labeled either "style" or perhaps "copyedit." Mason.Jones (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing noteworthy in your analysis is a misplaced comma. I meant to place two commas around the phrase, but a typo ensued. Fortunately, someone corrected it. However, responding to every typo is extreme. It happens to everyone. Judging by your actions and tone, I think you need a beer or something. Generally, users hate confrontation, especially around their edits. Your demeanor is going to insight aggression. With that being said, your argument about "grammar" makes no sense. I used "grammar" in the correct context. Structure is the backbone of grammar. Using the same construction, removing "state," streamlined the content. Also, summaries are at your own discretion. Sincerely, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images in "Washington metropolitan area"

Hi Buzzards-Watch Me Work. Just wanted to let you know that the "flags" you've been adding to Washington metropolitan area are non-free images which means that each usage is required to apply to all 10 of the criteria listed in WP:NFCCP and not be any of the uses listed in WP:NFC#Unacceptable usage. Non-free content policy generally does not allow decorative usage (in lists) per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC#8. You may link to files for these images using the "colon trick", but they should not be displayed. It's a good idea to check the licensing of any flag, etc. you wish to add to an article to verify whether it's non-free. Freely licensed images, such as the ones found on Wikimedia Commons are generally fairly safe to use, but care needs to be taken with anything non-free due to copyright concerns. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them here or at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit a few minutes ago, and read the policies you cited. Didn't know that before... Anyway thanks for the message, nice courtesy. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Flag images are kind of weird. Some are freely licensed and some aren't, and it's not always clear why. Anyway, I was just going by how they were uploaded to Wikipedia. It's possible that they are not really "non-free" at all. You may discuss a particular file at WP:MCQ or WP:FFD if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February events and meetups in DC

Greetings from Wikimedia DC!

February is shaping up to be a record-breaking month for us, with nine scheduled edit-a-thons and several other events:

On Friday, February 12, NPR will host a Black History Month First Edit event.
On Saturday, February 13 and Sunday, February 14, we're working with the Wiki Education Foundation to hold a series of four edit-a-thons at the AAAS 2016 Annual Meeting.
On Tuesday, February 16, we're holding the Smithsonian American Art Museum and American University WikiWorkshop with Professor Andrew Lih's class.
On Saturday, February 20, the Smithsonian American Art Museum will host the African American Artists Edit-a-Thon.
On Friday, February 26, Howard University will host its second annual Black History Month Edit-a-Thon.
On Saturday, February 27, we have three different events. In the morning, we're holding an Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library. In the afternoon, we'll host our second February WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.

We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.

March events and meetups in DC

Greetings from Wikimedia DC!

Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:

On Wednesday, March 9, we'll host our first March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle.
On Friday, March 11, the National Archives will host the Women in the Civil War Edit-a-Thon.
On Saturday, March 19, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian will host the Color History with the Smithsonian! event, and we'll hold our second Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library.
On Sunday, March 20, the American Chemical Society will host the Computers in Chemistry Edit-a-Thon.
On Saturday, March 26, we'll host our second March WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.

Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for signing my Guestbook! And for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince William County, Virginia

I noticed you updated the demographic data at Prince William County, Virginia, but didn't add or update your source. Where did you get the information? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the population section. Data in the infobox comes from the page; thus, it doesn't need a citation. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the data in the demographic section has been updated in months, and data in the article does not randomly get added to the infobox. Please update the source for your edit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For an example, please see this edit made by @DemocraticLuntz: earlier today. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with my Prince William update? I ask because I did manage to make some screw-ups (which I've fixed) in some other articles in Virginia when using my semi-automated demographic table update script. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the problem is. I think it's just a misunderstanding. @DemocraticLuntz: your edits seem fine. Thanks for doing it! It helps with the densities! Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a problem. I contacted User:Buzzards-Watch Me Work because they have been adding unsourced demographic data to articles. I used an edit by @DemocraticLuntz: as an example of how to properly add a reference when updating demographic data. Buzzards-Watch Me Work's reply is disconcerting. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I used the edit to calculate PW's density. I don't see an issue with this. The information is sourced in the historical chart. This parallels state articles. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Buzzards-Watch Me Work. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.^{[survey 1]} The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.^{[survey 2]} The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

RfC on 5% threshold

You may want to participate in this RfC regarding the inclusion of candidates in election infoboxes. MB298 (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Buzzards-Watch Me Work. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Buzzards-Watch Me Work. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts

So why stop at '58? Why not show every gubernatorial result? Or would that be too much? AlexiusHoratius 06:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @AlexiusHoratius: good to see you here! I think your question has a couple of different components, so let me break them down into a few parts:

First, I've started with 1952 in presidential elections since it's the end of the FDR era and the start of post-War reconstruction in the USA; Eisenhower was the first R elected in 20 years. It's a couple of elections before Alaska and Hawaii participated so there's an amount of data from the 1952 and 1956 elections that can be garnered prior to their participation. It's also the first presidential election where tracking polls were used and media perception factored into the results far more than previous runs. The media was too intimidated by FDR personally -- particularly the power he held, he literally censured and terminated radio broadcasts he didn't like through the FCC, which he established for that purpose, but I digress -- and the ongoing threat abroad to poll him despite their ability to do so. While they started tracking Truman, Eisenhower became the first president to have consistent polling regarding his approval ratings. In other words, the 1950s were the start of modern American politics.

Second, in the 1950s we began witnessing political realignment in the North and South start to take shape, which arguably just finished in the late-2000s with AL cleaning its Ds from statewide office. Historically, the former supported corporate-backed Rs at the state level while segregation Ds controlled the latter.

Third, MA has an interesting background since it elected govs on two-year terms through 1966. In most states, the charts start with the 1952 presidential election and their 1950 or 1952 gubernatorial race (depending on how they stack their four-year terms). This allows people to compare recent presidential and gubernatorial elections results together since the timeframe are similar. In MA and RI, both states have moved from two-year terms to four-year terms so there's a few year difference in presidential election results in MA and a couple decade separation in results out of RI. Because MA has a history of picking D presidential nominees and R gubernatorial nominees, I think it contextualizes the political reality that Bay Staters like having checks-and-balances in government.

Fourth, when composing the charts, you've got to pick a date, and having both presidential and gubernatorial elections begin as close to the 1950s as possible helps buildout my case in points one, two, and three. The reality is I can't start with 1952 gov race since it would follow the 1954 and 1956 races. In other words, three more years would need to go down and that would wack up the formatting between the two data sets. Right now, as it currently stands, we're only going to see an additional gov result (it's presently 2018) for a two-year period. When we have the data for 2020 it'll balance out the tables until the 2022 gov race update. At that point, we'd plug the numbers and wait until the 2024 presidential election to balance it out for the following two years. Needless to say, every two years as it's currently set up, it's going to be balanced out; then for two years, it's not and that trend will repeat itself. If we put in the three other gov results that's going to always put another three years into the gov chart, and it'll be out-of-alignment permanently.

Fifth, at the moment, I'm putting in 2018 numbers, but I do think you could make a formatting argument to wait until 2020 numbers are compiled and then update 2018 retroactively with 2020 numbers. However, I've decided at present to list 2018 results down since it's another two years until we'll get 2020 numbers. But, I do think you could make a compelling formatting case to wait until 2020 and not put down 2018 results. Personally, I just like to see how the new results align with past performances. I've thought about continuing on four-year blocks and skipping a couple of the two-year elections so it flows together. Maybe, I should do that. Basically, go to the 1950 gov race and skip over the 1952 race and put the 1954 gov race down for instance. (Note: I just did this on the page, I think it makes comparing the presidential and gubernatorial returns more efficient.)

I hope this helps...

Btw, I was looking at a job in Sioux Falls, SD. It seems like a lovely place to live -- as do the Dakotas at-large. If you don't mind me asking, why did you move to the East Coast? The cost of living -- as you know -- is crazy high in MA compared to the Dakotas. I guess taxes aren't too bad in MA, but the Dakotas still win on that front. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying isn't wrong, and some people are probably interested or better informed by longer tables, but I think going back that far is too specific for an article that should be focused on giving a brief overview of every issue and moving on. In a lot of state articles (like Idaho) someone has gone by and added tables showing the monthly wind power generation totals for several years. Like election tables going back almost 70 years, this information isn't wrong or useless, but I would still argue that it is too specific and detailed for general state articles.What my version shows is what you were talking about earlier (the recent history of choosing almost all D for pres and many R for gov) and that's all it does, and in my opinion all it needs to do.

As to the layout and appearance issues, take a look at the History of Minnesota article, an FA. Few if any one-sentence paragraphs, and a limited amount of quality illustrations that actually appear in the sections they are supposed to - they don't get pushed down by overcrowding. This is, overall, how I'd love to have state articles look. Same thing for World War II. A few illustrations per section and like one or two tables. And the result looks really nice and clean. People wanting more detailed info can go to the section's main article links. (Your addition doesn't destroy the article or anything, but much of my time on this website has been arguing against people including what the want on general articles like this, whether it's wind generation stats or state quarters in the infobox or whatever.)

I could go on a long time about regional differences but to put it breifly while it is certainly more expensive here I also make a lot more money and I like the scenery (both urban and rural) in New England. Culturally there is a lot more to do and I like only being a weekend trip away from NYC. That said, if you want somewhere quiet to raise a young family, Sioux Falls is probably the best place in the country for it. Plenty of jobs, low taxes, low crime, no traffic (no real traffic anyway) and decent schools. Still not great culture-wise but it has come a long way since the 80s. AlexiusHoratius 14:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexiusHoratius: I've been meaning to get back to you, but I've had life come-up offline this past week. I've a couple additional thoughts:

I think your point of excessive chart usage does have some standing. As you know, we've got guidelines about not charting sections with just graphics, and I definitely agree that using too many charts is overbearing. However, I do think the MA section in question has enough content to justify it, and I'd like to expand state politics pages once I've got the political charts finished.

I also think adding political charts is akin to existing census graphs, I could spin the question and ask you why we don't cut them down or out. They typically flow to other sections and/or take-up excessive space in the demographic sections. I think the reason we don't remove them is their historical roots, it's really the backbone on demographic sections, and they're prolific on other pages such as American city, county, and state articles as well as other non-US counterparts. I do believe there is value in conveying political graphs since it depicts the political transformation in states.

Part of the problem moving the political charts to topic pages is a lot of them don't have almost any content. Basically, we'd just have the graphs and that's about it. I've only noticed a few state politics pages where there was enough content to put graphics (by policy, written content needs to come prior to charts/graphics). Also, I think it's good to uniform the state pages, so not adding political charts to some content pages and not to other I think poses overlap issues. We've got census graphs on almost every page where they matter for that reason.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about Sioux Falls, SD. It seems like a great place to raise a family but maybe not the best place to reside in your mid/late 20s without children. I'm guessing that's probably true for Rapid City, SD and Fargo, ND. It looks like the area has come along ways from the late-20th century with the advent of fracking and the low tax business environment causes firms to relocate from neighboring states like IA and MN. I'm kinda weighing moving out there so I can get another perspective of US culture since I've lived on the East Coast (mid-Atlantic and Deep South) and the West Coast doesn't really do it for me. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove closing tag formatting

Please don't create unbalanced markup by removing closing italic or other formatting markup. It causes Linter errors. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing talk

I take it you missed all the notifications everywhere....my bad also...should have notified you earlier.... but I didn't realize you were the creator of all these. Currently talked about moving them and a new format implemented on them. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#‎Federal election charts in State articles.--Moxy (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Hi Buzzards! Please don't just add details to a BLP infobox, as you did at Lucy Harris (politician). These details need a reference at the very least, and preferably also be added to the main text of the article too. An infobox is only supposed to be a summary of the main text. Do you have a ref for Harris' alma mater? Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 17:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Gaia Octavia Agrippa: it's available via multiple sources:1 2 3 Thank you, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored Lucy Harris (politician)'s alma mater as City, University of London - the University of London is a federal institution which awards degrees but doesn't do the teaching itself; therefore the alma mater should be the specific institution someone attended rather than the degree awarding body. Does that make sense? I'm not sure there is an American equivalent. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 10:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Gaia Octavia Agrippa: are you articulating that when you graduate from a constituent college inside the University of London, the diploma just states the University of London instead of the constituent college -- e.g. City, University of London? If so, why not include just the parent institution (University of London) as the alma mater? Also, are there other federal academic institutions structured like Lond? Thank you, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, a degree certificate from the University of London will state that the degree is awarded by the UoL but also lists the relevant institution that that person attended. In the UK, an alma mater is the institution attended (one doesn't even have to have graduated) and so just reducing it to the degree awarding institution is wrong. The University of Wales is another of a similar vein, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge teach their undergraduate degrees at college level (if the college is known, that is used rather than the university as their alma mater) and so could be considered semi-federal, and the Council for National Academic Awards was the degree awarding power for smaller, local, non-universities until 1993. Outside of the UK, I'd forgotten about the University of California: the alumni of Berkley wouldn't simply be referred to by the parent institution.

Looking again at Lucy Harris (politician), both the universities she attended (City and UCL) are part of the University of London, but are individual institutions that should be recognised as such. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa: I think the main difference between the UK and the US -- in this regard -- is that American institutions like the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) list their diplomas from the campus location such as UCB and don't include the University of California (UC) on it. The parent institution -- is this case UC -- exists to facilitate monetary equilibrium. For example, research grants from state monies are divided among the system based on a complex algorithm dictated by the parent institution. This applies to other states like Illinois and Massachusetts too. Basically, they only exist as a conduit for individual states to block grant them at large, so they -- the parent institutions like UC -- can divide the funding in an 'equitable' manner. Personally, I find this practice too bureaucratic in nature, and many states just grant each institution their monies directly from the state legislature. So, I think it's a bit different from the UK, but I do understand your broader point about listing the alma mater and placing the individual institution on there.

Btw, as someone who appears to be interested in Brexit, since you're editing a Brexiter's page, I'm curious, do you think y'all will leave the EU on Halloween? Boris Johnson appears inevitable, but I'm not sure he'll risk his premiership on it. Thoughts? Thank you, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding deprecated sources to Wikipedia

You may wish to revert this edit - the Epoch Times is a deprecated source, that should not be used for any purpose. See WP:RSP#The_Epoch_Times - David Gerard (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @David Gerard: ugh, I didn't realize that! I've immediately removed the reference and its sourced content. I'll look for a new reference when I've got time. Thank you for the message, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, sourcing, OR and other general stuff

Hi - I'm dropping a note here because I don't want to appear to be haranguing on you the AN thread, but I wanted to follow up with you on some of the stuff we discussed there. As we already covered, this is a BLP, so sources have to be reliable, and we have to be careful about how things are worded. You say you used the word 'assault' as a way to summarise his actions - please, never, ever do that again in a BLP, for the reasons we discussed - in areas like this, stick to the terms in the source, or very close synonyms, and stay very well away from any language that would imply criminality unless the subject has been convicted of a crime.

You suggested that you should have written 'Samirah poured water on Geraldo Rivera, a Fox News reporter, forcing him to flee while he was debating the Israeli–Palestinian conflict with a protester on camera at the 2016 Democratic National Convention'. I have taken a look at the Washingtonian article, and even at the Washington Free Beacon article, and neither of them talk about the journalist being forced to flee, or fleeing at all. So, your proposed rewrite of the sentence would also not work - I think the most that could potentially be supported would be something along the lines of 'In 2016, while still at dental college, Samirah poured water on Geraldo Rivera, a Fox News reporter, while he was interviewing protesters on camera at the Democratic National Convention.' I see that you linked to a legal definition of flee at the AN thread, but trying to justify the use of the word based on that would again be SYNTH - if sources don't say he was forced to flee, neither do we.

We could then have a discussion about whether the incident is covered in enough depth by RS to be worth mentioning at all - I don't have a view on that, but it could be discussed at the talk page. The main thing I want you to take away from this is that we don't write stuff you don't have reliable sources for in any article; that rule is particularly important in any BLP; and in the BLP we're talking about, which touches on issues such as American politics, race, religion etc - we must tread with the utmost care. Unless there is a very good source, we stay silent on any potentially controversial content.

Just one last thing then I'm done. Your comments about the subject of the BLP on the talk page are a bit near the knuckle. BLP policy applies to the talk page (see WP:BLPTALK), and on that page you are outlining your own opinions about whether the subject holds antisemitic beliefs. Remember that the talk page is not there to discuss the subject - it is there to discuss the article. So, it might be appropriate to say something like 'This source discusses his beliefs, and suggests that he is antisemitic - could we use it to add some content to the article?'; your last comment to Mobushgo, however, is not about the article, it's about the subject, and your opinion of them. Please be more careful in what you say about identifiable living people anywhere on the site. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Girth Summit, I really appreciate you reaching out to me. I was looking for someone to objectively comment on them. When I first wrote the section, I was using the term "assault" in the dictionary sense, a violent physical or verbal attack according to Merriam-Webster, I didn't realize how it could be legally portrayed or an OR issue. I was coming from it more descriptively than legally in the article and more to summerize on the AN. The legal part came in, unfortunately, when I was accused of making it up. I've personally been assaulted in a similar manner, so it really ticked me off when that user insinuated that it's not a violent act. It certainly is. I've had to deal with the repercussions of it personally when I'm out in public. My mind always wonders to... will he or she throw something at me again too? It's not fun to live with, and I did press charges on that ass, but many don't in these cases of simple assault. I do understand your point on how it could be portrayed and used in a BLP circumstance, and that's why it's definitely better to write up an explanation of what occurred based on consensus obviously. I definitely had/have no desire to put SYNTH in the article. That's one of the many reasons why I wanted constructed feedback on how to proceed from y'all.

I think we could still potentially use Townhall (since it covered it much more comprehensively) although, to be honest, I'm leaning against it because of push back from all of you plus its potential reliability. They're actually three other sources that delve into it. Namely, the Washingtonian, the Washington Free Beacon, and The Virginia Mercury, so I'd like to at least work from them. I'll probably propose something like 'Samirah forcibly poured water on Geraldo Rivera, a Fox News reporter, while he was debating the Israeli–Palestinian conflict with a protester on camera at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.'

To be fair, he did apologize for a number of anti-semitic comments in the past, so it's not alleged, he actually excepts some of them. I wrote probably on the sock puppet charges since it's not certain, but he's admitted to making some anti-semitic comments and it appears that he's almost certainly behind one of the accounts so I don't think it's unfair to say it's him when he literally uses "me" in an author spot for a citation plus all of the other things his account has done. I do get how it could be perceived. I'll be a bit more cautious about that going forward. I normally don't bother with contentious issues, but this one drug me in because of what the subject was attempting to do.

Like I said, I do appreciate your comments and demeanor in them, which is what I was looking for. Best, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further my advice from below, but don't just say the Washingtonian is reliable, verify it with a link to previous consensus.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, I appreciate it. I would've asked for input on the article's talk page before going about it. However, you've made that much easier for me now, well, if the current page ban doesn't go through for me. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AN advice

Read that essay, and understand things a bit more I hope. Here's where you went wrong:

When users pointed out you can't say X is a fact without a Reliable source, you disagreed basically saying WP:BLUE. WP:BLPs work by citing the fact the sky is blue. When confronted with this fact, don't disagree. Say that you now know that for next time. The editors who tried explaining this to you are also the ones in a position to do something about your report; they're experienced admins.

Arguably, you shouldn't have even used that board for this report. Stuff like that is better suited for WP:COI/N or WP:AN/I.

Wikipedia doesn't work based on how you perceive things nor how they actually are; Wikipedia works in all aspects of the project by what can be easily verified. I sincerely hope this post was helpful for you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @MJL:, I appreciate the message. I actually thought about posting it in COI/N, but there's also an issue with sock puppetry lurking in the background of this one. I was trying to touch on both of them. I also thought about going to AN/I, but I thought the conflict of interest and potential sock puppetry double along with getting recommendations to address consensus worked better on AN. I might've been wrong about that looking back but I think it was more delivery than the location in my opinion.

I was in a sense arguing a BLUE case in the AN. I wasn't, however, arguing that it should be written up like that on the article page. I was trying to push back on the notion I was entirely lying about it. There are obviously different layers of verification, particularly on BLPs. If you look at my suggestions for writing it up, I did drop assault or flee from it since they're not directly attributed to it, plus there's an issue with that particular citation after all as mentioned above and other places. I did take feedback from that.

I should also clarify that I did take feedback from admins since I went to AN asking for it (note Girth Summit). It was a normal user who threw the whole process off for me, and that's certainly not to say I'm blameless. I'm definitely not. I completely messed up on charges (basically OR) and delivery of it, even though I still think there are massive issues with what's going on the page and users. I should note, I did provide context on assault in the page write up, which is still definitely wrong but not as completely ridiculous as the AN sounds with regards to a BLP case. I also removed a citation from the article when someone messaged me about it, and I appreciate you bring it up in my defense. It's really sad to me because there's downright self-promotion to borderline propaganda on that page and we're talking about me because of how I presented it (giant learning mistake—thank you for the link btw) instead of the page and user issues, and I've not wanted to touch the page over issues of potentially starting an edit war with the COI and SP individual.

I'll probably get a page ban seeing how the comments are flooding in, but thank you for mildly supporting me on there. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please know that this comes from a place of mutual respect and care, but you need because you keep digging yourself into a bigger and bigger grave in that thread. You gotta learn to take the L instead of justifying your actions as much. Don't do this. Like ever. There's so many policy violations there I don't even know where to begin. Just say, "I'm sorry; I was wrong." or something if you don't want to risk a complete block. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have policies about WP:OUTING and such. You're open speculation about where another editor lives is a major bright line there. Please, give up and accept the page ban as for your own good at this point. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I never posted where he lives. I just found that said postal code holds unique value to said person. I do appreciate the constructive push back from you, but at this point, it's a case of the straw that broke the camel's back overall on Wikipedia, and it's not a case of ego. If I thought I was entirely wrong I would move on from it entirely and take the L. However, I do believe what I said has merit. As I noted above, the entire issue when you tally it all up looks very COI and socky. It's just sad. I'm like a lawyer on the prosecution side screwing up their case and the judge(s) letting the defendant walk (for lack of a better legal analogy). I've literally caused one of the most biased sets of user actions let slide because the focus has shifted to me instead of them, which was entirely my fault. I've very entrepreneurial and this bureaucratic system just doesn't vibe well with me. I've known that for some time. That's the main reason why I've avoided contested debate, but when I finally do weigh, this happens to me. It's like a confirmation of what I've know, and I've made the issue I wanted to address worse. So, there's really no point in me staying. Do what you love has been my motto, and I'm not loving this so time to permanently move on from here. I did it early on, but I think I really mean it this time.

Btw, this doesn't have anything to do with Girth Summit or you. I really appreciate your comments. It's a mix of this issue making it worse, and then just kinda falling out with all of the policies on here. Plus, the plain spite and vindictiveness people hold on here. I'd follow me around like a plague regardless of this outcome. Best of luck to you, MJL (talk · contribs) Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.

[2] Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

[survey 1]

[survey 2]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{retired|date=March 2020 (Due to loss of credibility and dissatisfaction with reporting system)}}
-[[Image:Bouncywikilogo.gif|right]]
-[[Image:Nuvola apps edu languages.png|left]]
-'''Hello, welcome to my talk page, please follow these steps:'''
-* Please sign your messages with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.
-* I'll respond here.
-* If I message you, I'll respond there.
-* Please enjoy yourself...
 == Geography of Monaco ==
@@ Line 1,384: / Line 1,371: @@
 :::We have policies about [[WP:OUTING]] and such. You're open speculation about where another editor lives is a major bright line there. Please, give up and accept the page ban as for your own good at this point. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:black">MJL</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[WP:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 01:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 ::::To be fair, I never posted where he lives. I just found that said postal code holds unique value to said person. I do appreciate the constructive push back from you, but at this point, it's a case of the straw that broke the camel's back overall on Wikipedia, and it's not a case of ego. If I thought I was entirely wrong I would move on from it entirely and take the L. However, I do believe what I said has merit. As I noted above, the entire issue when you tally it all up looks very COI and socky. It's just sad. I'm like a lawyer on the prosecution side screwing up their case and the judge(s) letting the defendant walk (for lack of a better legal analogy). I've literally caused one of the most biased sets of user actions let slide because the focus has shifted to me instead of them, which was entirely my fault. I've very entrepreneurial and this bureaucratic system just doesn't vibe well with me. I've known that for some time. That's the main reason why I've avoided contested debate, but when I finally do weigh, this happens to me. It's like a confirmation of what I've know, and I've made the issue I wanted to address worse. So, there's really no point in me staying. Do what you love has been my motto, and I'm not loving this so time to permanently move on from here. I did it early on, but I think I really mean it this time.
-::::Btw, this doesn't have anything to do with Girth Summit or you. I really appreciate your comments. It's a mix of this issue making it worse, and then just kinda falling out with all of the policies on here. Plus, the plain spite and vindictiveness people hold on here. I'd follow me around like a plague regardless of this outcome. Best of luck to you, {{reply|MJL}}
+::::Btw, this doesn't have anything to do with Girth Summit or you. I really appreciate your comments. It's a mix of this issue making it worse, and then just kinda falling out with all of the policies on here. Plus, the plain spite and vindictiveness people hold on here. I'd follow me around like a plague regardless of this outcome. Best of luck to you, {{user|MJL}} [[User:Buzzards-Watch Me Work|Buzzards-Watch Me Work]] ([[User talk:Buzzards-Watch Me Work#top|talk]]) 02:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)