User talk:Aoidh/Archives/2015

This is an archive of past discussions with User talk:Aoidh/Archives. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Speechless (1994 film)#Reeve/Keaton relevance. Thanks. Dismas|^(talk) 23:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello . I was interested in joining WikiProject User warnings. I added the template to my user page, thinking this would add to the project in the fashion of how the category system works. Alas I don't see my name listed in the participants. Relatively new to Wikipedia, noticed you thanked me for an edit, went to your user page and noticed you were a member. Prior to this I didn't know of the existence of the project, and I noted that it was something I would like to be a part of, hence the pursuit I've described above. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to be listed as a participant here to participate, but if you'd like your name there you just add it by adding {{User|Lightgodsy}} at the appropriate spot. Just add Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings to your watchlist and read over the subpages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout and this and go from there, and if you have any questions feel free to ask, either me or on the WikiProject talk page if it's relevant to that page. - Aoidh (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

My reference to my co-authored book, The Enigmatic Academy, has been removed from the Job Corps Wikipedia web page several times. The reason I posted the link is because the book is a scholarly, not commercial, publication. It provides an in-depth case study of a Job Corps center. To my knowledge, no other such study exists. It would be of value to scholars as well as potential Job Corps enrollees to know of and have reference to this kind of research into the institution. As there is no commercial advantage to my posting this link but rather a general scholarly advantage to others to know it exists, I do not quite grasp how this is "promotional material" nor a " a soapbox|a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion". Readers of this Wikipedia page could easily obtain a copy of the book from a library at no cost to themselves. I was posting the link in the interest of a free exchange of information on a site which is otherwise itself promotional as it offers no critical perspective on Job Corps. Give this rationale, is it possible to keep the link to the book up? I do no agree with the rationale for taking it down. Please reply.Sociology7834 (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to say that not every edit needs a consencus, and the edit isn't unsessesary. Please stop reverting a edit that doesn't need to be reverted. If redliks aren't allowed, than just remove the redlinks instead of the entire edit. Thank you.Seqqis (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If an edit has been contested and reverted, it does need a consensus, else the status-quo stands. It isn't just the redlink, the entire template duplicates other templates and is entirely unnecessary. If you disagree you are welcome to start a discussion and get a consensus for your edit, but simply reverting is not appropriate. Aoidh (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Aoidh. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted the information because I am a GNS alum and I have a radio show. all was cool. Whoopster

Not everyone who graduates from a school belongs on a list of notable alumni. An individual on such a list needs to have a Wikipedia article that meets the criteria listed at WP:BIO. - Aoidh (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Who made you the judge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.216.100 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Famous birthday contacted me directly and I told them when it is. Please put it back up, thank you, Mrskosters (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The consensus on Wikipedia is that famousbirthdays is not a reliable source for biographical information. This has been discussed multiple times at WP:RSN, where the reliability of sources is discussed. Because biographical articles are about living people, they must be held to a high standard. A birthday, like all personal details, needs a reliable source verifying that information. - Aoidh (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi can tv shows, magazines articles ,cnn , aol articles be used as citations ? you are trying to delete winnertwins page because you dont like the citations . We are getting contacted and asked ( by third parties for citation to avoid deletion if that works). There is 100s of things ofver 7 years written and been on tv. I think the people who have contributed to the page dont know if this works . Can you please help:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinmom13 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being pleasant and constructive in reverting those potassium edits right now. Apparently my 8-year-old has just discovered that wikipedia has an edit button, so it's time to have some discussions about how that works :) I appreciate that I can share the revert message with her as a springboard for those discussions and it won't make her feel bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.250.14.94 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if you gave a better explanation of why you're deleting an external link on this page. The link in question is a 5 minute ground and aerial tour of Centralia as it appears in 2014, and it's absolutely relevant to the page. It's similar to what other links on the page are providing in photo form - like the offroaders.net links. The link in question has been featured on the "official" Centralia webpage that maintains a history of the town and links to all known news articles on the town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.98.79 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because something is appropriate for the "official" Centralia website (which I'm skeptical of) doesn't mean it's appropriate for an encyclopedia, which has a different scope. The site fails WP:ELNO #1, 8, and 11. A shaky video from the inside of a vehicle is hardly informative and therefore inappropriate to include in an encyclopedia article. - Aoidh (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Aoidh, While I appreciate your effort in trying to keep Wikipedia clean by removing the link AUCS Linux from List of Linux distributions,kindly stop as it is a Linux distribution and should be on the page. If you have any concerns, please contact me on my talk page. -Smokey2022 (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Simply being a linux distribution and existing is insufficient. It has to meet certain criteria, namely Wikipedia's notability criteria (such as WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT). As such, I have nominated the article for deletion as the only sources for it come from the distro's Google Sites page. - Aoidh (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am confused to why you are removing the information about his parents when it is stated in other sources listed in the article. Your edits do not make sense what exactly are you disputing?Wikshepeda (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also since when does date of birth need citations to be listed? if that was the case every single biography would have a citation? Wikshepeda (talk)

I looked at every other source in the article and not one of them shows his DOB, which is what I removed and what I am disputing, because not a single reliable source has been given that verifies that information. A date of birth has always needed a citation, and yes, every single biography does require a such a citation. Any fact that you present on Wikipedia needs a reliable source verifying it, especially on biographies of living persons. If there's no reliable source showing the date of birth, Wikipedia cannot list a date of birth. Sites like famousbirthdays are not reliable sources, neither is IMDB for biographical information such as this. - Aoidh (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not true, because tf that's the case then you should go and remove the information listed on Tom Cruises and Oprah Winfrey page as well as the millions of others like who do not have citations listed for date of birth because it is not need. Also on Wikipedia if information is missing you add a ^{[citation needed]} tag not remove it entirely. Birthdays do not need to be citated before it can be listed! So get familiar with Wikipedia policies and stop before disrupting a page with false claims. Wikshepeda (talk)

I am not engaged in an edit war. I am fixing the sources and working on it which you keep on interrupting. Wikshepeda (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Not quite, because this is one of the first references in the Oprah Winfrey article: "Oprah Gail Winfrey was born on January 29 1954". That DOB is sourced, otherwise it would be removed. You must add a reliable source for biographical information, this is not optional. If you disagree, you are welcome to cite the Wikipedia policy you're referring to, but WP:V and WP:BLP say otherwise: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." You have to add a reliable source before you can add the DOB. If you continue to ignore this, you will be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to the article. - Aoidh (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

To further clarify, citing Wikipedia policy: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." The idea that the DOB doesn't need a reliable source is directly and unambiguously contradicted by Wikipedia policy. It must have a reliable source. - Aoidh (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. May I ask why did you revert the change I made to the meditation article ? There is no such thing as a life force, qi, ki or whatever. That's just a claim by eastern philosophies/religions. The way the sentence is phrased, makes it appear as if it were a mere fact, which it isn't.

"The term meditation refers to a broad variety of practices that includes techniques designed to promote relaxation, build internal energy or life force (qi, ki, prana, etc.) and develop compassion,[3] love, patience, generosity and forgiveness"

what if that was

"The term meditation refers to a broad variety of practices that includes techniques designed to promote relaxation superpowers, x-ray vision and develop compassion,[3] love, patience, generosity and forgiveness".

Among actual existing things - like patience, love and generosity, they have thrown in between something non-existent (scientifically proven).

That will make an end user think that life force is real.

As I explained in my edit summary, adding alleged there doesn't make sense. It says "designed to promote relaxation, build internal energy or life force and develop compassion". The sentence doesn't claim that these things occur as a result, or that the Qi is real, only that it's designed to build Qi. Being designed to do something, and actually doing the thing, are vastly different. Adding alleged there doesn't help the sentence and doesn't correct anything, because the sentence is accurate and based on fact, and would only confuse someone who doesn't read the actual sentence. - Aoidh (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Deathmatch Village, Aoidh!

Wikipedia editor Winner 42 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Just a minor note: Are those reference retrieved dates accurate, or do they need to be changed?

To reply, leave a comment on Winner 42's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

The dates are accurate, they are from my sandbox. - Aoidh (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, just checking. Happy editing! Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Aoidh

I see you removed the update that I posted on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlanta due to the promotional tone. Can you assist me on providing this information in an acceptable format. The College Football hall of Fame is a great new Attraction in the Atlanta area that I feel tourist would love if they were aware of it. It just opened in late 2014 and is in the downtown area right next to the Georgia Aquarium, World of Coca Cola, Centennial Park and the CNN Center. You can find out about them at www.cfbhall.com.

I understand that Wikipedia is a resource for factual information and wish to contribute some value to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmarketology (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello member of Category:Wikipedians who use IRC! You are invited to join an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help aimed at defining a policy for prerequisites to being a helper in the "#wikipedia-en-help ^connect" channel in a section titled "New helper policy".

To prevent future mailings about IRC, you may remove your user page from Category:Wikipedians who use IRC.
Assistance is available upon request if you can't figure out where it is being added to your user page.
This message has been sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the list of derivatives at the Arch Linux wiki page, I do not understand you deletions. The stated derivatives do exist which can be easily verfied through Google. Furthermore WP:WTAF does not apply because I never put those distros in brackets, they were not marked red. Some of them are only used by a small number of developers and therefore have no own wikipedia entry, however this should not prevent those distributions from being listed.

However I do understand you point that a proof of existance is desirable for this kind of list. Therefore I would suggest adding those entries again, but this time with references to their project home page.

I hope I did not disrupt your discussion page in any way! Best regards G.Edenhofer (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine commenting here, that's what the talk pages are for. :) But the issue with the distros you added isn't that they don't exist, but because they have to be shown to be worth mentioning. That's not to say that the distros are worthless by any means, but that they are relevant enough to the topic and noted by someone other than Wikipedia. I don't doubt that they exist, but everyone in the world exists, that doesn't mean they automatically get added to some list on Wikipedia just because their existence is verified. I don't doubt that they are useful or important to the people that use them, but are they important to every one else, and more importantly to the topic at hand? Are they relevant enough that part of the article on Arch Linux needs to be set aside to talk about this other distro? Sources dictate content, so if there are no third-party sources that show that they are relevant, they probably don't need to be mentioned because that puts a disproportionate amount of focus on these other distros. That's why I removed them, not because they don't exist, but because the article shouldn't be a list of derivatives that exist just because they exist any more than the article needs a list of available AUR packages that exist; they exist, they can be verified, but that doesn't necessarily mean they need to be mentioned. - Aoidh (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi - Per your request, I believe all content resembling advertising and puffery has been removed. Would you consider removing that tag at the top of the page for Peachtree Corners, GA or advise on how I can get that tag removed?

Also, please note, Leisure related content was structured following the format used for Santa Barbara, CA.

Thanks!Areinert85 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. The problem is that there's still a good bit of puffery in the article, and since the article has been heavily edited by members of the Peachtree Corners Business Association, it creates a conflict of interest which shows heavily in the content of the article itself, which was (and still is) highly promotional in tone. The issue with the structure being taken from the other city's article is that the article the structure was taken from is also in need of cleanup; Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline gives a good overview of how the article should be structured. - Aoidh (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I was not the original author of the "History" content in Peachtree Corners, GA page. However, I believe the History is accurate and have added citations, per your request, to support that content.

Would you please remove the Note saying that additional citation is needed for that section or let me know what additional citation is needed to remove that classification?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peachtree_Corners,_Georgia

Thanks, Areinert85 Areinert85 (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue with that section is that the majority of the section is supported by a single author on a single source, patch.com, which is a source of dubious reliability at best, especially for historical content dating back to the 1800s. Other than that source, everything up to the 1993 sentence is completely unsourced, which is almost the end of the third paragraph, which is about 80% of the entire section. I think it needs either a better source, or the unsourced and poorly sourced content needs to be removed entirely because it wouldn't be the first city article I've seen with a history section that was completely inaccurate. - Aoidh (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance with the Randy Gage article. There are several reliable, secondary sourced articles about him - Entrpreneur, Inc., Success, The Chicago Tribune, and more. They were previously in the article under VIEWPOINTS since the articles were about his views on various issues. Another user removed this entire section. Thus, the notability references are now gone. You can see them in this link: http://www.randygage.com/in-the-media/

How can I work these into the article without appearing to be promotional? Do you have an example I could follow. The other user suggested I create a PUBLICATIONS section. However, since these are not his creations, I don't understand how that would work.

Also, it has now been linked to from another Wikipedia page. Can you please remove the ORPHAN note? TriJenn (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you please help me with these questions, Aoidh? Thanks. TriJenn (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian states. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Why did you choose to remove my edit? The link to the document worked here is another copy of that link https://medium.com/virtual-reality/virtual-reality-1993-and-2013-1f503273e24a I subsequently added another link to Parametric Technology Corporation who bought Division group in 1999 X-mass (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all my edit was not vandalism, so please do not accuse me of vandalism. Secondly, what you wikilinked was Division, which is a disambiguation page. Ideally, article namespace pages should not link to disambiguation pages. Wikilinking to Division doesn't help anyone nor does it aid in the understanding of what that company is. Third, if the company is notable enough to warrant mentioning it in the HUD article, then you should write the article for that company first. This is why I have reverted the edit, because there are a number of issues with the edit that need to be addressed first, notably the lack of an article showing that the company is notable enough to mention in that list. - Aoidh (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

the reason I have stopped writing articles is when I have put hours of work in creating articles about all sorts of stuff I have had senior editors walk into the space - delete the entire article on the grounds that in their cultural imperialist view - its not notable enough. This happens all the time to UK based articles whilst unbelievably obscure aspects of some state in the US are regarded as notable. So after numerous attempts to correct this and having US cultural Imperialism stuffed down my throat again and again and again I stopped bothering to write articles when they were just going to be vandalised by editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-mass (talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Now you're just excuses to justify the idea that your edits somehow don't have the meet the same standards as others. You can stop that right now, because I don't buy it nor does it have any bearing on what I've already said. I can't even find enough on this company to find out if they are in the US or UK, and what does that matter? It doesn't. If you want this content in the article, then you have to make the very minimal effort that is required. - Aoidh (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

it might be MINIMAL effort for you, its bloody huge effort for me - I am disabled and you are being a pedant. I keep adding link after link after link all of which you refuse to look at - if you want to be an editor - actually edit - show EVIDENCE of what you believe not just bullying and shouting NOT NOTABLE. X-mass (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This edit summary] is uncalled for and is is crossing into inappropriate territory. I'm asking of you no more than I ask of anyone, myself included. I'm not "bullying you" and if I am, please go to WP:ANI and let them take care of it, otherwise stop making these increasingly absurd accusations and address the actual content instead of grasping at straws. Regarding the PTC bit, I'm asking for nothing more than what is required, that you show, with sources, what you are claiming. The idea that I "refuse to look at" the sources you gave suggests that you aren't actually reading my replies, and are "talking at" me instead of discussing with me. Please show me where I made any claim that I refuse to look at this sources, because I can promise you that you can't. - Aoidh (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There's also an issue of verification; in this edit it shows that PTC bought a company called DIVISION Group, and the second source shows that there was a device called the Division dVisor, but there is nothing verifying that the DIVISION Group has anything to do with the dVisor. There's no verification at all that PTC bought the company that made this device, which creates an issue with this claim. That might be the same company and I'm still looking into that, but those sources are insufficient for that claim. This source says the dVisor was made by a company called "Division Inc", which is not the same as "DIVISION Group", which is what PTC acquired. Do you have a source that directly links the dVisor the acquisition of the DIVISION Group? - Aoidh (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

If you look on this page you will see a link to "PTC Announces Intent To Acquire Division Group plc" it also has a link to divison.com. https://web.archive.org/web/19990125091535/http://ptc.com/

If you look at this page you will see that it lists two divison companies: divison Ltd and division inc https://web.archive.org/web/19980203130714/http://www.division.com/

If you go to this page you will see exactly the same site https://web.archive.org/web/19970106224532/http://www.division.co.uk/

You could also seek confirmation from people who worked both worked at PTC and at Divison Ltd and at Division Inc

http://www.visualadvantage.co.uk/ see section: About Visual Advantage

- Chris Davis "Chris worked for over 15 years in the real-time visualisation and digital mock-up markets for PTC, Division Ltd, and Primary Image" and Andy Hamilton "Formerly at PTC, Division Inc, and Inmos".

Does that show a strong enough link? Because me just telling you that divsion ltd of Bristol and divsion inc of boston Mass obviously isn't good enough X-mass (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

None of that answers the question I asked. Do you have a source that directly links the dVisor to PTC? What you're showing me is WP:OR, because not a single source is showing that the company that made the dVisor was purchased by PTC. If such a source cannot be found, then this edit is WP:UNDUE because it's not something that any source merits mentioning, so why should the article? - Aoidh (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

no it gives what in a court of law is caused a CAUSAL LINK - a series of links that answer the question. PTC bought Divison group, Divison group is Divsion Inc and Dision LTD, Divison Inc and Divison Ltd made the dVisor - you know it, you can see it, and your using your position as an editor to bully others because you got it wrong. So either be honest and admit that you made a mistake or stop getting upset when you like all the other cultural imperalists decide that your truth is the only truth, no matter what wikipedia was actually supposed to be about and that gives you the right to VANDALISE what ever you like 14:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-mass (talk • contribs)

PTC is (as far as I can tell) an American company, so this "cultural imperalists" nonsense is not only ignorant, but has no ground to stand on and is a baseless accusation. Wikipedia is also not a court of law; if you say X, you must provide a source showing X. You have not. There are companies which have the same name, so this "casual link" doesn't cut it. - Aoidh (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"Overseas in Europe" is tautology in Green Day. --141.196.219.179 (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you referring to? - Aoidh (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

An article that you just edited and I can't. --141.196.219.179 (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have added a Viewpoints section which establishes notability with links to articles in Inc.com, Forbes.com, HuffingtonPost, Chicago Tribune, and Success Magazine. This is similar to a section in the Wikipedia article for Seth Godin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Godin. Could you please remove the Notability tag with this new information? Thanks. TriJenn (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, move my comment again and I'll report it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, you put your comment in the middle of mine, which was broken into two paragraphs for ease of reading, not because they were separate comments. Per WP:TPO: It is generally inappropriate to...add replies in the middle of another editor's post. Instead, add your reply at an appropriate point after the other editor's signature, using proper threading and indentation. Your comment was placed directly in the middle of my own, so that one half of my comment had no signature and took half the context away. You are welcome to report that at the appropriate noticeboard, but you are not welcome to break my comment up as you see fit. Sorry, but that's how it is. - Aoidh (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Aoidh, would you accept a revised red link guideline that requires a minimum of three blue links in a navbox to existing stand-alone articles or lists, with at least 50% of all included links withing the navbox being blue, coupled with a very explicit clarification of the existing "succession" and "complete set" exceptions for navboxes? Personally, I think that would be an extremely reasonable compromise. If I can get 10 committed supporters, I'm ready to start lobbying previous !voters (not a violation of WP:CANVASS) in favor of compromise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of European cities by population. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox building. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring is not one edit. It is standard to describe when a station's newscast airs, and what their local programming is, and you are out of line on these undiscussed reversions. Nate • (chatter) 06:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC) First of all this is not one edit:[1][2][3] Second, you are more than welcome to bring your proposed edits up on the article talk page, but editors have been indefinitely blocked for pushing to continuously add the exact type of content you're adding, so it is hardly accurate to accuse me of being "out of line". - Aoidh (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I brought it up on the talk page, but I definitely don't appreciate being chilled with threats of being blocked merely for saying they're adding a new newscast. I'm leaving it to other editors to decide this because I'm not a fan of 3RR disputes and life is too short, but I feel the information belongs. Nate • (chatter) 06:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If by "chilled" you mean as a way to get you to stop edit warring and discuss, then yes that's exactly the point. You wouldn't be blocked "merely for saying they're adding a new newscast", but for edit warring instead of discussion. I'm sorry that you find the use of a talk page to be absolutely ridiculous, but that mentality is why you were warned, not you block you, but to prevent you from being blocked so that discussion could take place. I'm still writing out my response on the article talk page, so it will be a few minutes more before I respond there, but I have no intention of editing the article further until discussion has played out. - Aoidh (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Olympic Games. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anglo-Saxons. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:California wildfires. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It's something that was posted in Game Informer posted on a forum. If that's not good enough fine. TypingInTheSky (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Unreferenced. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ceremonial pole. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeing your edits at Thomas Atkinson (actor), I expect you have a (common) misconception about WP:BLPROD. If you reread that procedure, it states "The requirements can be summed up as: Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added." The article had a source, before you deleted it. The restriction on removal is only on BLPRODs that were properly placed, and yours was not. As such, I am removing the BLPROD not because the requirements of BLPROD have been satisfied, but because the BLPROD was not properly placed; as an article that had a source that covered some of the information in the article, it is not subject to BLPROD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the BLPPROD, however, the reference used cannot be restored because it is not a reliable source, per multiple discussions at WP:RSN. As adamant as you are about following BLPPROD, I feel as strongly about BLP, and while there was an unreliable source in the article, nothing in WP:BLPPROD says that the unreliable sources cannot be removed from the article, only that the tag shouldn't be placed in that instance. An unreliable source should not be readded to an article just for the sake of procedure. - Aoidh (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aoidh: I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Green children of Woolpit. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder about your page Issues on the Data Lifesaver and on your deletion in the list of data recovery software. Please help me to improove the data Lifesaver page for example by comparing it with the page of getdataback, Mac Data recovery Guru . Eeasy recovery by Knoll is in my Option a pur advertizing by Knoll which you accept in the list of Data recovery software allthough it is not acceptable in Wiki . I'm disposed to misstrust your objektive editing.

Dirk4711 (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)