User talk:1990'sguy/Archive 1

Hi 1990'sguy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1990'sguy, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Good edits so far, but one thing to keep in mind: if you change something that could be contested, be sure to include a source for the information. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really need reliable sources for this, have you read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY? And Constitutionalism isn't a political ideology in the sense I think you mean it, virtually all American parties are constitutionalist. No comment on the quality of the sources used, but see Democratic Party (United States) which is at least sourced. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your post and the links and I see your point with one exception: you question the reliability of my source, however my source was from the official CP website which is a very reliable source, so I don't see why you are questioning its reliability.1990'sguy (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SPS - I can't see that that blog meets the exceptions suggested there - besides the issue of whether he can actually be objective about a competing political party. You were also adding 'fiscal conservatism' without a source. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 'fiscal conservatism' link was previously added by another editor. I just reinserted what was already there. 1990'sguy (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've reverted this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Answers_in_Genesis&oldid=609332755) to the Answers In Genesis article. The wording of the current introduction reflects WP editor consensus; changes should be proposed on the Talk page. The introduction does not state that common descent is a reality (although it is, that's not relevant to the discussion); the phrase is "the scientific consensus on (i.e., the consensus concerning the topic of) the reality of common descent". Physicsandwhiskey (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the SA section in America. I reverted because such sections are for links not already in the text. See: WP:See also. – S. Rich (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you've been adding a column-number parameter to the reflist template in a few articles (e.g. diff). This parameter's been deprecated in favor of {{reflist|30em}}, which allows the browser to decide on the number of columns based on the screen width. There's more detailed information in the template documentation at Template:Reflist, section "Columns". I've fixed it in the Nebraska 2012 Senate election article, but haven't done any of the others. Ammodramus (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I was not aware of this. I will go ahead and fix the reflists for the other pages I edited. 1990'sguy (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's written "Lieutenant Governor-elect" as opposed to "Lieutenant Governor Elect". You can see that at this dictionary link here if you're interested. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be someone's successor, you have to succeed them; that is, you must successfully take their place. If for some reason you do not, even though everyone is expecting you to do so, then you are not the person's successor and you did not succeed them. Everyone is expecting that Rauner will succeed Quinn on January 12, 2015 as planned (and I'm 99.9% confident that will happen), but until it actually happens, Quinn hasn't actually been "succeeded" by anyone. Something could happen that might prevent Rauner from taking office (in which case the Lieutenant Governor-elect would step up). We don't have a crystal ball, so waiting till it happens is the right way to go. Do you disagree? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2015.

Please use the article talk page when your changes to an article are reverted. I don't see how your uncited claims that scientists are conspiring against Ham belongs in the article. Guettarda (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this has NOTHING to do with any "conspiracies" and I do not see why I have to cite any sources for my edit. I am simply portraying this situation accurately and with no bias, and I'm following WP:NPOV. I strongly suspect that you are letting your personal beliefs influence your editing. Your personal beliefs, no matter how accepted they are, do not belong to Wikipedia. 1990'sguy (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're inserting bias. So at the very least you should cite a source.

More importantly,, you edited a version that was the product of discussion and consensus. Yes, you are free to do so. But when someone reverted your change, the onus is on you to discuss it. NOT to edit war. So please, self-revert and build consensus for your change. Guettarda (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And use the article talk page. Guettarda (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am simply portraying the situation accurately and without bias. I see absolutely no need to cite any sources because I think my edit is so obvious. You are the one inserting bias as you are violating WP:NPOV since your edits are passing on a judgment about the creationism/evolution debate. It does not matter that evolution is accepted by the majority of people, the fact that a large minority of people believe creationism is itself a reason why my edit is more accurate and fair. It is true that the creationism/evolution debate is more controversial and less one-sided than one may think. Just look at how expansive the articles Young Earth creationism and Creationism are. If the debate really were one-sided, these articles would be significantly smaller in content. I repeat once again, by my edits I am portraying this situation accurately and fairly. It appears that most other editors are against my edit so I will not revert this any longer. However, it is sad that experienced editors are violating WP:NPOV because of they are letting their personal views get in the way of their editing. Have a nice day. 1990'sguy (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite familiar with the creation-evolution issue. I've read extensively on it, over quite a few years. But that's not the issue here. The problem with your edit is that it invents some sort of "scientific consensus" that "cites evidence" against Ham. It creates the misconception that scientists are busy making a case against Ham. The reality is that few of the scientists who are busy researching these topics are likely to have even heard of Ham. They aren't citing evidence against him - he's making claims that contradict many decades of work that have been argued over, revised and refined by new experiments and new data. Your edit is factually inaccurate, but it's also POV - it creates an inflated sense on Ham's importance. Guettarda (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, per WP:DUE, science isn't adjudicated by what the general public thinks. Guettarda (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely true. When science and religion mix together as with the creation/evolution issue (and this is the case with creation/evolution) public opinion plays a large role. Just look at the history of creation/evolution and see how much public and scientific opinion influenced the debate. You can see this in many other situations in history. Because religion, which is very sensitive, plays a large role, I think there should be more fairness when describing the creationism/evolution debate, but that's just my opinion. I had absolutely no intention of creating any "inflated sense on Ham's importance" or any "misconception that scientists are busy making a case against Ham" even if I did so inadvertently. Also, my edit did not "invent" any "scientific consensus". The simple fact is that there is a consensus among the scientific community that evolution is real and that creationism isn't. I was simply describing that fact. However I do see that I am in the minority on this matter, so even though I strongly disagree with the current version on Ken Ham, I will not interfere with your consensus, at least for the time being. Have a nice day. 1990'sguy (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there 1990'sguy, I noticed that you'd made an edit to update the article for Reince Priebus, adding in details of his recent re-election for a third term as RNC chair, and wonder if you might be interested in helping with some additional updates for the article? In particular, I'm hoping to update the article with more information on his legal career and political roles prior to becoming RNC chair, and also adding more detail on key achievements during his tenure. I should mention, I'm working as a consultant to the RNC and due to my financial conflict of interest, I won't make any direct edits to this article. Instead, I'm looking for editors to to review and make any changes that I propose. On the Talk page, I've proposed some draft material to expand the article's discussion of his early career, would you be able to take a look? Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message! Unfortunately, I will not have a lot of time in the coming weeks, so I don't think that I will be able to contribute extensively to Priebus, but I am interested in improving his article, so I will try to contribute in the time that I do have. 1990'sguy (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate it! Let me know if you have any questions as and when you get to it. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary here [1] is problematic - there is NO serious scientific debate on this subject - creationism as a scientific proposition (rather than a religious belief) is a pseudo-scientific position and is covered under the Arb com's Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions from the Pseudoscience case . Please stop edit warring and promoting fringe views. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:114th United States Congress#What is a "Major" event?. Thanks. —GoldRingChip 01:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored (note the edit summary) some spacings after you deleted them. Nothing personal. To understand how this works, try using your "edit this page" tab. Make a heading and a few letters of content. Then save it and view the code. You'll see what I mean. For older, and especially visually handicapped, editors, these spacings make it much easier to find headings and avoid misunderstandings. When you find these in the future, please just leave them alone. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit on Reince Priebus: for categorization in Wikipedia, it's not relevant whether a person is or was Orthodox. Relevant is only whether it is a defining characteristic of the article, per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_characteristics. After all, the purpose of categorization is that readers of Wikipedia find more information about the category subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this category on Reince Priebus should be kept. I have seen many numerous other articles with many similar categories that are seemingly non-defining, like, for example, Category:American Presbyterians for Ronald Reagan. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a hand with User Talk:Lvpapa? Thank You.Naraht (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will soon set to work! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Ken Ham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) consistently fail to achieve consensus and are being reverted by multiple editors. Please stop making contentious revisions and instead seek consensus on the Talk page in advance. If you continue as you are, you may be blocked for tendentious editing. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you that I did try to achieve consensus on the talk page by explaining my posititon. I did not revise the article to what I thought was the better version after I started the discussion. I have not editied Ken Ham's article for days already. I would advise you to check the dates that I made the edits to Ham's article rather than to write to me immediately. I think I can say that in this case, you are very uninformed about my actions. Have a good day. Respectfully, 1990'sguy (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sarah Palin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sarah Palin you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Sarah Palin for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paul Ryan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Paul Ryan you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Paul Ryan for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel naming a specific section "criticism" isn't an improvement to the article. I feel it should just be put in the article itself in a neutral way. I would have pointed this out before, but I haven't read his article until I needed a reference I put in his article for another article. I felt I should come to you before changing it.

Thoughts?

Signed, User:Mpen320 (talk)

Agreed. I will remove the criticism heading and try to incorporate the statement into the article. Thanks for pointing that out for me.--1990'sguy (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Illinois's 18th congressional district special election, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rodney Davis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to gently remind you good article best practices: "While anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, it is highly preferable that nominators have contributed significantly and are familiar with the article's subject and its cited sources. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Herman Cain you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Herman Cain you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Herman Cain for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take so long to review this, but it's finally done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United Kingdom general election, 2015 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Electoral history of Ronald Reagan into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate that!1990'sguy (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aaron Schock you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scottish independence referendum, 2014 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Scottish independence referendum, 2014 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Scottish independence referendum, 2014 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there's only one bare url, I think it might be a more productive use of your time if you simply formatted it rather than tag the page. Cheers, Number 57 14:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Today I reviewed the good article nomination of Reince Priebus. I'm sorry that it took so long. I have decided to decline your request. My reasons for doing so can be found on the review page. Thank you and I encourage you to resubmit the article after making the suggested improvements or if you do not believe that my review was fair. Display name 99 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of members of the Swiss Council of States (2015–19), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philipp Müller. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there: just wanted to let you know I'm watching Kyle McCarter and agree with your assessment that the article has significant WP:NPOV issues. I just made a few edits, trying to tackle some of the most egregious stuff. I'd like to work together to improve the article if you're game! Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you! There has been an editor who has been making edits on that article that I think violate WP:NPOV, as well as WP:UNDUE. It would be great if I could have help improving that article. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I'm having problems with a user named LesbianAdvocate who's trying to add all the negative material she can to an article about the American Council for Capital Formation. I saw in her history that you seem to have had a similar encounter with her at the article Kyle McCarter. I've opened a discussion at the administrator board if you're interested in participating. Thanks, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was an excellent catch on the Shimkus connection. As soon as I Googled who handled his digital media, I found LA's likely employer. Thanks so much! I'm new to Wikipedia, and this has been driving me crazy. Even if she stays on the article, now at least her agenda is in the open. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has now been moved to WP:COI/N if you want to chime in. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get into this in a longer discussion on my user page, but simply put, using a tag to complain about an article is the height of laziness. I take the opposite stance, there is nothing wrong with a bare url. Fine. If you disagree with that and want the complex formatting of a reference, then fix it--spend the time to use reffill, but do not deface the article, wikipedia's credibility and the public face of the article for other users to see, because you have a complaint. Trackinfo (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this all ready to go? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acdixon, I made some minor edits just now, and I think its ready to go. The only thing is it would be nice to get an image of the Ark Encounter, either now or after opening day. Other than that, its ready! --1990'sguy (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1990'sguy. Ark Encounter, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

End of story. Do not continue to pretend that this is not true on Wikipedia.

Thanks.

jps (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I know that you strongly dislike Ken Ham and AiG (should I use the word "hate"?). But just because you feel strongly on this issue does not mean you can just come in and edit the wording so it makes you happy. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I LOVE Ken Ham. Not sure why you got a different impression. jps (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Electoral history of Ronald Reagan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Electoral history of Ronald Reagan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Electoral history of Ronald Reagan for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ark Encounter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the July 7 opening date for the Ark Encounter theme park was chosen to correspond with Genesis 7:7? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ark Encounter. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ark Encounter), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @1990'sguy for your feedback on bold text. I'd never though of it it as SHOUTING or a form of editorializing. I had considered it only as a means of clarifying the organization of three paragraphs with three topics. Working on WP has been the best feedback I've gotten on the quality of my written work in years. Thank you for this side benefit. It is a pleasure to work with you. Rhadow (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhadow: You're welcome, and I'm happy to help! Editing Wikipedia and becoming experienced with its guidelines do help people become better writers -- same for me. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Electoral history of Ronald Reagan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Electoral history of Ronald Reagan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential election, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Flynn. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edits to Ark Encounter today where you added several bare URL references, and then tagged them for someone else to fix. (Here: [2]) Are you aware there's a nice little tool called reFill that will do all the work of fixing these, instead of deferring it to someone else? Just pop over to https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/ and fill in the name of the article, set the options the way you like and it will build you beautiful CITE templates all filled in. A couple of clicks later and you're done. FYI I've done this for your bare URLs as well as the other bare URLs on Ark Encounter. Cheers. --Krelnik (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds easy. I've never tried it before, but I will in the future. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ken Ham shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the link for Creation_geophysics#Radiohaloes because it is broken. Could you please fix the link and point it to Radiohaloes and creationism somewhere? I was probably overzealous on changing it to pseudoscience. Best! Lipsquid (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lipsquid: When reverting, I didn't know that the link was broken. I assumed that is wasn't. Interesting that it redirected to OEC, even though Gentry was a YECer. I couldn't relocate the material, so I will not oppose you changing it again. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can fix it. Lipsquid (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it Lipsquid (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed that this category be deleted: [3]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me! --1990'sguy (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Please explain why you feel my edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:_The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party is unnecessary. Does it not give more of a balanced view of John Fund's opinion?

I also felt like the Trump comment was out of place at the end of that paragraph (different topic altogether).

P.S. On seeing your User page, I say you and I have a lot in common! Bravo.

Scott (scottlovessue) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottlovessue (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottlovessue: Thanks for contributing and for notifying me! The reason why I removed the quote was mainly because I was worried that it made the paragraph too wordy and not very concise. However, I will take another look at it because I do think it was a good quote. As for Trump's comment, I originally placed it after the John Fund review because both of them were positive reactions to the film. What I had in mind was grouping all the negative reactions in a paragraph, the mixed reactions in the next paragraph, and then the psotive reactions in the last paragraph. However, I do not mind changing this, as it does make sense.

P.S. Thanks for the complement! :) On Wikipedia, it is not very often that I meet someone with similar views as myself. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Institute for Creation Research, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You are adding material that is unsourced. The Ham articles references for this, fail verification. I don't know which other refs you are referring to but there are none in the Institute for Creation Research article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source clearly states that Ham worked as a science teacher. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies my view didn't show that. Theroadislong (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It happens to the best of us :) --1990'sguy (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Senate election in Illinois, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Stewart. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm wondering if you could elaborate on this edit, since this is the second time you've reverted. I'm not understanding the reasoning here. As I noted, a person who is neither in office nor running for office is not a politician, so it's factually incorrect to call him one. His apparent intent to possibly run again in the future doesn't make him a politician now. In any case, I've restored the change while we talk about this. Per WP:EW, please do not keep reverting. We should reach consensus on what ought to be a fairly easy-to-resolve point. Regards - Hux (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hux: Walsh has declared that if Hillary Clinton wins the presidential election he will run for president in 2020. He is a semi-declared candidate for U.S. president right now. He is also listed as such on United States presidential election, 2020#Republican Party. I say we should wait until after the election and see what Walsh ultimately does. If he ultimately chooses not to run for whatever reason, then I will support inserting "former", but I think it is too early to do it now, and it is possibly a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to your citing of WP:CRYSTAL. You're saying we don't know whether he'll run or not, so therefore we should call him a politician anyway. In other words, you're advocating that we should call him a politician on the basis not of verifiable information but on speculation regarding a future event that may or may not happen. That literally argues dead against what the policy is specifically about.

The bottom line remains unchanged: if he's neither in office nor running for office, he's not a politician. That being the case, I can't support calling him one until that situation verifiably changes. (And please note that if Walsh says after this election that he plans to run for president in 2020, that would not be sufficient to call him a politician either. He would need to officially declare his candidacy for that to be the case, which he likely would not do until 2019.) -- Hux (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hux: Walsh is already listed as a "declared candidate" on the 2020 election page. I cited WP:CRYSTAL because it is too early to say that his political career is over. If we call him a "former" politician, we are speculating that his political career is over, when in fact it likely is not. My position is entirely in line with WP:CRYSTAL. I would support changing "politician" to "congressman", though, as that is something we should both agree on. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which 2020 election page are you referring to? I looked at United States presidential election, 2020, but there's no mention of Walsh. There's no mention of any declared Republican candidates at all, as far as I can see. Regardless, as I already said, if he declares - and if that is reliably sourced - then I will support him being described as a 'politician' at that point. Until then, I don't. If that's not something you feel you can live with then I guess the next step is for you to seek consensus on the talk page, a debate in which I'll be happy to participate. Up to you. -- Hux (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Formerly" does not automatically imply that his political career is over. It literally means "at one time in the past". Is this misunderstanding perhaps the sticking point here? For example, if this were 1890, it would be correct to describe Grover Cleveland as a "former U.S. president". Famously, of course, he subsequently won the 1892 election and become president again - the only president thus far to serve non-contiguous terms of office. -- Hux (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hux: You checked too late. Trump won the election, so Walsh is not running in 2020. He stated he would run only if Clinton wins. See this version from before the election. Walsh's picture is in the "Declared candidates" section in the "Republican Party" section. In case you didn't see, I changed "politician" to "congressman" on Walsh's article. One doesn't have to hold political office to necessarily be a politician. Donald Trump's article called him a politician long before he was elected president. There is a difference, to use your example, in calling Cleveland a "former U.S. president" and a "former politician" in 1890. His first tenure as president was over, but he was still active in politics and would eventually be re-elected. I don't support calling Walsh a "former politician" in these circumstances, but rather a "former congressman". --1990'sguy (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Former congressman' is fine. That is equally factually accurate. -- Hux (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that we have a consensus on that. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you nominated it several weeks ago, due to low participation Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Skillicorn (2nd nomination) remained open as of election day and he indeed appears to have won his seat — so we now need to keep the article, and merely flag it for content and referencing repair through the normal editing process. Would you be willing to withdraw your nomination, so that the discussion can be closed? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Republican Party (United States), you may be blocked from editing. You admitted to writing the ref yourself, in Conservapedia, an unreliable source. Thank you.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodone121: This is simply ridiculous. You are plainly overreacting. Did you even see my edit? I cited three reliable sources (U.S. News & World Report, The New York Times, and Governing), and I did not cite right wing blogs or anything like that. The fact that I originally added this material to Conservapedia and then added it here, making sure that I did not violate any Wikipedia standards is irrelevant. Please see the talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodone121: Thank you for accepting my reversion and, presumably, my explanation. I see now that your reversion was, apparently, an honest oversight. If that's the case, I apologize for my very harsh language. Mistakes happen to everyone, including myself. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1990'sguy. 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]

Hello, I'm JudgeRM. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Top 25 Report have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the editors in charge of that article would be so kind to at least tone down their bias. Calling Steve Bannon "racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic" is not only an extreme case of POV, but it is also slanderous and hurtful. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. But, it's outside the mainspace, which means their opinions can run wild there. The only thing we can do is leave suggestions that will probably be ignored. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @JudgeRM and 1990'sguy: I wasn't aware of this Top 25 page prior to noticing this talk page message, but holy goodness, if something is going to be that blatantly partisan, shouldn't it at least have a banner – something like {{essay}}, {{guideline}}, {{userpage}} or {{humor}} – that makes it clear that the page is not in the article space, not meant to be governed by WP:NPOV, and does not represent the consensus of the Wikipedia community at large? I mean, this is pretty egregious and could dissuade editors from joining the project if they think it is representative of the views of the larger Wikipedia community. (We are hoping this isn't representative of the views of the larger community, right?) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope not, and I completely agree with you, Acdixon. If the editors on that page are not even going to attempt to meet NPOV standards, then the page should have something to clarify that NPOV is not intended to apply. Not doing so is seriously damaging Wikipedia's reputation—I know I wasn't the first person to bring this up. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{humor}} might be the best of the existing banners to insert (that's what I tried to add), however, it probably is best to make a completely new banner or simply a written note at the top, like what we are discussing on Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@1990'sguy: You'll never make {{humor}} fly; although parts of it sound a bit tongue-in-cheek, overall, it is probably not all that humorous to those who created it, nor is it particularly humorous to me. I was suggesting, as you correctly discern, something new be created that is much like the proffered examples but more tailored to this particular situation (or broad enough to cover other similar situations, if they exist). Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Acdixon: Point taken. Yes, {{humor}} is not the best, and the POV is not humorous for me either. For many people, at least without a proper explanation, it's actually quite offensive. In the next few hours, I will try to create a new template for this situation. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems that a template should be added, but the best template appears to be a whole new template altogether. I can't wait to see what you have in mind (but please don't add it to the page until we have some sort of consensus for it). JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Template:NPOVexception. Feel free to expand and change it if necessary. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like it (though some things could be changed, I just don't know how. Just have that feeling). I'll also be the first to admit that it's unlikely this will be put onto the page. But we can try, right? JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One editor already voiced their opposition on the Top 25 talk page. I responded to the objection, but I guess we shouldn't add it until we have some consensus. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thanks. I'm still waiting to see if inserting the topic works. Usually, I see categories change almost immediately, but this one still seems to be stuck. I may need to go back and insert one of the "approved" abbreviations (although I copied this topic from another Elections article, so it should work).  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Asa Hutchinson Official Gubernatorial Photo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MB298 (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm an ip editor. I noticed that some of your fawning, sycophantic edits about Donald Trump could be construed as idolatrous, so I've removed them for now. If you'd like to try again, with a less awe-struck, worshipful tone, please go ahead. Thanks. 63.143.203.29 (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@63.143.203.29: I advise you not to engage in personal attacks. Removing blatantly out-of-place material which on top of that has a POV tone to it is not idolatry or worshipping. Your edits on International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016 were clearly POV. I've also recently removed pro-GOP POV edits as well and called them "garbage," by the way. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 January 2017, User 63.143.203.29 was appropriately blocked for block evasion. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your removal of the primary sources tag at Mon Calamari cruiser, this -- They and related works are the only reliable sources we can use to describe the ships -- strikes me as a bit off. While we rely on in-universe primary sources for details about e.g. the "workings" of the ship, its combat capabilities, etc. primary (i.e. in-universe) sources aren't sufficient for establishing a fictional topic's notability or for meeting the expectations of writing about an element of fiction. Secondary sources like e.g. commentary on the ship's symbolism, the popularity of a licensed toy, etc. are essential to meet both of those thresholds. Fortunately, the Mon Cal article now has a few cited tidbits about merchandising, hence the appropriateness of removing the tag -- but, an encyclopedic treatment of the subject at Wikipedia requires much more than just a "descri[ption of] the ships". --EEMIV (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EEMIV: That is a great point and thank you for reminding me of that. It was an oversight on my part, as I was only thinking of the in-universe information of this ship when I wrote that. Of course, as you noted, if secondary sources don't exist about the symbolism and etc., then the article probably shouldn't exist in the first place. I will keep that in mind. Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re [4]. The second paragraph you added. Please don't try to pull little stunts like that again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way was that a "stunt"? Also, your calling it "false" is just as POV (at the very best; I believe my edit was NPOV). --1990'sguy (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You blatantly and egregiously misrepresented a source. It's the kind of edit that can get you blocked very quick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The motives, though appearing to lean in one direction, are not set in stone, as the source shows.[5] No conclusion has been reached. It is still relatively early in the investigation, so calling these views "false," as you have, probably isn't best. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can simply tag an article or warn an editor for vandalism using the Twinkle app. You can enable it via "Gadget" menu in Preferences. It'll definitely decrease the burden of having to go back and forth the WP:WARNVAND just to paste those templates in an uncooperative editor's talk page. Bluesphere 11:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip! I will definitely start using that! --1990'sguy (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's my pleasure. After enabling it, you will see a "TW" at the top of the screen. Just hover on it and you're good to go. Best. Bluesphere 15:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! It's already enabled. :) --1990'sguy (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to participate in this RfC regarding the inclusion of candidates in election infoboxes. MB298 (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MB298, for the notification. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya!
-it is not a reliable source WP:RS
-the source does not support the claims made in the article
-those links have been spammed quite a bit

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and I will not contest this issue. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your page on Switzerkand and weapons of mass destruction! Afernand74 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Afernand74: You're welcome! And thank you for your work on that article as well, especially by finding all those good sources! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:NPOVexception requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 02:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Swiss government made detailed plans to acquire and test nuclear weapons during the Cold War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the consensus here, acting officials are not listed. Until the consensus changes, I will continue to make those changes. SlitherySentinel (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been agreed to not list the acting officials, once the confirmed officials take office. Not something I agree with, but that's what the majority of editors wanted. Though, I find it strange that this wasn't adopted for other cabinets. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both of you for your explanations. @SlitherySentinel: Why didn't you just tell me in the edit summary in the first place? Without adding an edit summary or going to the talk page or something, your endless reversions really do look like immature vandalism. Seriously. Thank you for massaging me, but I would appreciate it if you left edit summaries in the future. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I came across Rob Sherman (activist) at the Wikicup reviews page, and thought about reviewing it: but then I noticed that a) it's very short, and b) you've made one grammar fix [6] to the page since the cup started, which means that it will not be eligible for Wikicup points at the moment in any case. So, might I suggest withdrawing the nomination for now, and expanding the article a little? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, I did not hear of that rule until now, even though I do believe you. I will withdraw the nomination. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, should I withdraw the entire nomination or just its association with the WikiCup? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest withdrawing it from the Wikicup (which is not really withdrawing, because you haven't submitted it yet, just removing it from that list of pending reviews) because of this "must have worked on it this year before the review" rule, which is a hard-and-fast rule. I suggest withdrawing altogether because of the length issue, but this is a recommendation only. However, if you are able to expand the article substantially, it would then become eligible for the Wikicup as well. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure where to start a discussion about the US repesentative articles so I started it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics#Does one consequence of a bill belong in the article of every politician that voted for the bill? ~ GB fan 14:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ken Ham shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, are you serious!? I revert you once, and then you send me this ridiculous notice as if I reverted you five times? I'm striking this garbage as it is clearly inappropriate. You may disagree with my edit, but please act professionally. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Talk it out, don't edit war. I went ahead and opened a discussion on the Talk page, which is what you should have done after you were reverted. This is Wikipedia 101. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, you should have opened the talk discussion without posting this ridiculous message. To say the least, it's an overreaction. How many times did I revert you? Only once. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read BRD. You clearly haven't. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I see nothing in WP:BRD saying editors can post templates that vastly over-exaggerate the situation on users talk pages. Your template made it sound like I reverted you several times when, in fact, I did not. This has nothing to do with BRD, as far as I'm aware. You could have posted a nicer message on my talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Key words "as far as I am aware." You first edit was bad editing. Your reverting to restore it was bad behavior. Your failure to open a talk discussion was bad behavior. Your comments here have been 100% drama. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I was given assurence by a well-respected editor that is was OK to add this info. When I reverted, I was acting off that assurance. You may disagree with my edit, but none of my behavior was "bad" (it was sanctioned by an editor who, like it or not, is respectable). With this in mind, my edits are not drama. You didn't prove anything regarding BRD. Have a great day! --1990'sguy (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: WP:DTR. Inappropriate. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two replies:

1. Warning someone they are edit warring, is required as a prior step when bring someone to EWN, which I would have done, should 90s guy have continued trying to force this content in. The notice was required.
2. I understand that some people embrace "DTR". I view DTR as both arrogant and clueless but if someone finds template notices offensive they should provide notice of that on their TP so that others can avoid offending them. Had there been such a notice I guess I could have hand-written something, but given that 3RR notice is required I probably would have used the template anyway.

90s guy you should really be careful with regard to who you take advice from. You will of course do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rob Sherman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Great scott -- Great scott (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rob Sherman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rob Sherman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Great scott -- Great scott (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may have an interest in the comment I just submitted at Talk:John Marshall Harlan. I initially tried to use {{ping}} to request your attention when submitting that, but the template seemed to choke on the apostrophe in your username. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: you're supposed to put at an article On Hold if the nomination is awaiting improvements. Bluesphere 16:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesphere: Have I not done this? I think the article can be promoted to GA status; it just needs some additional improvements, and I am giving the nominator a chance to make those improvements. Did I do something wrong? Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, a mistake; sorry about that. There's one more concern, however: it appears that the nominator is a sockpuppet of User:10W40, which has been indefinitely blocked by an admin. I don't think s/he will be able to address the concerns you raised on his/her GAC; the sock account has not edited since June 21, 2017. I'm sure you will have to fail it. Bluesphere 17:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I probably will have to. It's a pity, because I think the article could easily be improved. However, while the original sock account has been blocked, the account that re-nominated this one has not.[7] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You call the shots, 1990'sguy. But personally, I don't believe this person is eligible to make this nomination right now per those reasons above. Bluesphere 04:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to duplicate discussion (I don't think I have a particularly strong opinion on the matter anyway), it does look like you're past 3rr. You may want to self-rv (doesn't help discussion when one side of a good faith disagreement gets blocked). FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and saw that you have never been given formal notice of the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience in Wikipedia.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. That wording was supposed to be added to my comment, not to yours. A cut&paste slip-up. My apologies, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I've seen worse mistakes than that. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 1990'sguy everyone has Different Types Views on the Page. If you can please take time counting the green and the others on the other page and see what number you come up with and if the President or the White House names the person who ever they my be we got to add them all Ambassadors of the United States are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I am trying to be nice right now. Please give other people time to voice there Opion on the matter and if they have Different Views we should respect them. Thank you so much. If you need to reach me you can email me at [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, but I still stand by my position that we should follow the WaPo article and that career diplomats should not be added. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1990'sguy if you have a proplm with me please email me at [email protected] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1990'sguy here are the names of leaders that have a picture to be added to the Political appointments by Donald Trump page

David J. Glawe Under Secretary of Homeland Security (Intelligence): https://www.dhs.gov/person/david-j-glawe

Claire M. Grady Under Secretary of Homeland Security (Management): https://www.dhs.gov/person/claire-m-grady Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you already uploaded the images and added them to the page. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1990'sguy here are the names of leaders that have a picture to be added to the Political appointments by Donald Trump page

John Ullyot Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Public and Intergovernmental Affairs): https://www.va.gov/opa/bios/bio_ullyot.asp Heather L. MacDougall Member of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission: https://www.oshrc.gov/about/Commissioners_bios.html I don't really know how to put Pictures on the Page or Uploud them the person who did the last two was Corkythehornetfan and I know school is starting for some User's. So If you know how be my guest. I will try to send you and him Pictures to add on the page. thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1990'sguy here are the names of leaders that have a picture to be added to the Political appointments by Donald Trump page George Edward Glass Ambassador to Portugal: https://pt.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/our-ambassador/

Brooks Tucker Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Legislative Affairs) https://www.va.gov/opa/bios/bio_tucker.asp

Amy Thompson Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Public Affairs): https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/images/hudimg?id=Amy_Thompson.jpg

Anne Hazlett Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development: https://www.rd.usda.gov/about-rd/leadership/assistant-secretary-rural-developments/anne-hazlett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@96.36.68.29: If these files are not uploaded soon, I will do so, but I encourage you to try to upoad them yourself -- go to Wikipedia:Files for upload and make a request. Press the "Make a new request" button and indicate that you are not autoconfirmed and that your images are public domain as they are U.S. federal government images. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring and show a respect for the principle of consensus. 2600:1001:B12C:E1CF:B975:17F7:C003:5AB9 (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]