User Talk: Guest2625

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

'''Welcome!'''

Hello, Guest2625, and welcome ↗ to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions ↗. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia ↗

Tutorial ↗

How to edit a page ↗ and How to develop articles ↗

How to create your first article ↗ (using the Article Wizard ↗ if you wish)

Manual of Style ↗

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian ↗! Please sign ↗ your messages on discussion page ↗s using four tilde ↗s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions ↗, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{help me}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome!  Tim PF (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Albinobeach ↗

left|48px|alt=|link= ↗
{{Quote box
| quote = You may want to consider using the Article Wizard ↗ to help you create articles.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article ↗.
| width = 20%
| align = right
}}
A tag has been placed on :Albinobeach ↗ requesting that it be speedily deleted ↗ from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable ↗.

If you can assert the ''importance'' of the subject, link={{fullurl:{{TALKPAGENAME:Albinobeach}}|action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload_A7&preloadtitle=This+{{pagetype|subjectspace=yes}}+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+}} ↗. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit '''the article's talk page directly ↗''' to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies ↗, websites ↗, bands ↗, or companies ↗. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|TParis|ts=15:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)}}
v/r - T P ↗ 15:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Free Syrian Army Green Logo.jpg

'''35px|left|⚠ ↗''' Thanks for uploading ''':File:Free Syrian Army Green Logo.jpg ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use ↗. However, the image is currently orphaned ↗, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back ↗ if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ↗).

'''PLEASE NOTE:'''

I am a bot ↗, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{tlp|helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

If you receive this notice ''after'' the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click Syrian Army Green Logo.jpg}}&section=new&title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests&create=Request here ↗ to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add <code><nowiki>{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}</nowiki></code> to your talk page.

If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you.  DASHBot (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Free Syrian Army ↗, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Arms ↗ (check to confirm ↗ | fix with Dab solver ↗). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Free Syrian Army ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rastan ↗ (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) 10:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Free Syrian Army ↗, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Qusayr ↗ and Air raids ↗ (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) 10:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages ↗. 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 ↗.

:Siege of Rastan and Talbiseh ↗ (check to confirm ↗ | fix with Dab solver ↗)
::added a link pointing to Baath ↗

:Syria ↗ (check to confirm ↗ | fix with Dab solver ↗)
::added a link pointing to Circassian ↗

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Message for you

I left a message for you at the Template_talk:Campaignbox_Syrian_uprising#Why_the_divisions.3F ↗.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Syria ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canaanite ↗ (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) 10:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia ↗. Please make sure to include an edit summary ↗. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Jojalozzo 23:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks for using edit summaries!! Jojalozzo 16:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. When you recently edited Air Force Intelligence Directorate ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syrian uprising ↗ (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) 10:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

FSA

Please try to explain you edits on the take page. There is an ongoing discussion there.--''''''R''''''a''''''f''''''y''' ↗''' talk ↗ 22:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Homs map

You created this map with the bombardment of Homs. More districts since have been under shelling or are under shelling per article. (Example: Jeb Jandali, Bab Dreib, Old Homs, Hamidiea, Ghouta, Jobar, Rifaat, Arabis, and Juret al-Shaya. The last two have got the brunt lately: and somewhat Ghouta.) If you can update this mpa it would be nice. Jacob102699 (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And Inshaat too. Jacob102699 (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

:Sorry, I didn't create that map. I got it from the Voice of America website. The VOA is a US government organization so all the work they specifically create is in the public domain. If I have time I might be able to use Adobe photoshop and shade in additional neighborhoods although it's not a top priority. I'm also not that sure how beneficial it's to shade in more neighborhoods, because it's starting to sound like most the neighborhoods in Homs are being bombarded.--Guest2625 (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the major edit mess ups on idlib governorate. The page must be messed up, because it only happens on that page to me. It keeps saying Wikimedia Error and I have to reload while editing. Maybe the server is down on this page. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

:No problem. It sucks when the editor/server messes up. I've lost a bunch of work that way.--Guest2625 (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited Buffett Rule ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup ↗ (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) 10:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your more than 1,000 edits to articles! Pages like Buffett Rule ↗ are much improved with your help. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
|}

Wikipedia policy prohibits original research, including syntheses or analysis

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Please do not add original research ↗ or novel syntheses ↗ of published material to articles as you apparently did to :multiple articles ↗. Please cite a reliable source ↗ for all of your contributions. See discussion and examples below.

Dear Guest2625,

Please discontinue posting charts, graphs, and/or data of your own creation except where the data and conclusions are clear, unambiguous, and published by reliable sources. If a graph is merely the presentation of items from a reliable source and does not involve any analysis, such graph MAY be permitted. If such graph, chart, or data requires ANY analysis, or is based on results or conclusions not fully published in a reliable source, then it constitutes original research ↗ (OR), which is prohibited under Wikipedia policies. The policy states that "each statement in the article [should be] attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. … Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." It has been widely discussed what deviation can be made from this, with a concensus that very little deviation is permitted. For example, it is OK to add two numbers in a source together. Going even a tiny bit beyond this likely is not OK.

Examples:
Your chart at Estate tax in the United States ↗ appears to accurately present data from IRS Statistics on Income by year for about 30 years. Without addition, that should be acceptable. You also overlayed names of Presidents in those years. This is public record, and thus the combination might be acceptable. However, you also added data for 2009 and 2010 which was not in the main source IRS data, and for which the denominator of the fraction presented (total number of deaths) was not shown in the secondary data. In addition, the data apparently used as the source for your 2009 and 2010 items states clearly that it is by year of tax return not year of death, and thus not comparable to the main data. The 2009 and 2010 columns are OR and not permitted. Further, they are not even consistent with the 1982-2008 columns, according to the IRS second data file.

Your chart at Excise tax in the United States ↗ is based on data presented in a 2007 CBO report. The chart presents the CBO report table accurately in chart form. As such, it may not be considered not OR. However, the chart title and descriptions differ materially from the CBO descriptions. Therefore, even though the chart itself is not OR, the captions are OR. Further, the captions used indicate the material is presented in a manner not intended by the source. This renders the entire table OR.

Your chart at Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax ↗ cites no sources. Though the data presented might be accurate and calculated from the IRC, it is OR and is not permitted. To quote WP:OR ↗, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

I will delete charts that appear to be OR. If you believe a chart is not OR, please provide justification and sources in the article discussion and/or file information.

I can relate to frustration that the media does not adequately or accurately cover many tax topics, particularly those involving incidence of tax. WP, however, is NOT the forum for redressing this problem.

Continued publication of original research is disruptive editing, and may result in sanctions. Oldtaxguy (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

: Thank you for your suggested improvements to the graphs mentioned above. It's more constructive if these suggested improvements were given on the specific article talk pages so that other editors could contribute their thoughts. The wikipedia project very much appreciates image files for articles, because these help to advance and improve the content of the project. It should be noted that essentially all featured articles on wikipedia contain images, so it is great that you are helping to improve the images of the articles that you are following. I look forward to any suggested improvements you have on the relevant talk pages. Guest2625 (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Zabadani

I saw the situation developing at the article on the Battle of Zabadani. And I think we have to look at the time-frame and what the sources really do say. So I have carefully worded the article per the sources. First, I agree that it seems that a large part of the town is not under the control of the government, with the military only focusing on guarding government buildings in the town and the roads into and out of Zabadani. However, the sources are clear that the FSA itself doesn't have any control of Zabadani, with them holding positions outside the city (not being able to enter due to the checkpoints) while the ones who are actually on the streets of Zabadani are civilian opposition members who are organising the protests. Second, I do not agree the battle is ongoing because too much time has passed since the last phase. Three months, and the sources themselves state that battle ended with the military regaining control of Zabadani. So the event that the article covers is done. If there is a new event create a new article. However, as it seems, there is no actual ''battle'' for the city. The Army won the battle. Now it seems more of a situation where the military controls the critical points of the city, while they are letting the opposition protesters roam free on the streets. Again...three months, too much time has passed. All this now is for the aftermath section of the battle. EkoGraf (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

:Sounds fine with me. I was just going along with the wording in the Economist that "much of the town is again under opposition control." From the sources it appears that the Syrian army has control of the entrances to the town, but does not control the town, perhaps because the army fears attacks if they station throughout the town, or perhaps because they are physically not able to. The Guardian source also appears to say that there's a truce or fragile peace in Zabadani with the civilian opposition in control of the town, and the armed opposition and loyalist forces stationed outside the town. But describing it as part of an aftermath section rather than a third phase is fine with me, since the exact details of what is happening in Zabadani is not clear. I think a more accurate heading or subheading for the last paragraph, however, would be either stalemate or truce as stated in the Economist and Guardian. Guest2625 (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

::Yes the sources clearly say that ''much'' of the town is again under opposition control. But they are not under rebel fighter control. They are under opposition civilian control. Also, the military still has a small presence in Zabadani itself at the several government buildings in the town and on the approaches to the town. The FSA is outside the city. So, ok, we agree on that. But, the last edit you made now on the heading and subheading is inaccurate. The article is on the '''battle for the city''' from back in January-February. And per the sources you are quoting yourself the Army won that battle and regained control, so there was no truce or stalemate at the time the battle ended. What you call renewed fighting is not a renewed battle for the city, its standard guerilla warfare. There is no fighting for control of Zabadani, only occasional rebel hit-and-run attacks. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Ok I reworded it a bit again. The headings and subheadings. EkoGraf (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. When you recently edited Fawaz Akhras ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syrian uprising ↗ (check to confirm ↗ | fix with Dab solver ↗). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army

Please don't remove POV tags until the dispute is resolved. Next time, read entire the talk page before assuming that said POV isn't mentioned. Thanks. Armins (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It is done. Sorry if the previous post sounds a bit rude. In my opinion, after reading the numerous disputes on the talk page I did not feel like the previous POV dispute was resolved despite the tag having been previously removed. Armins (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hafez al-Asad

This thing about his gradfather being a Turkish wrestler, I believe it's in Zahler's book. I'll fix the citation after the article gets a peer review, then I believe it could pass as a good article, with few additional informations. I just need to make a good prose. --Wustenfuchs 14:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

:The information about the Turkish wrestler is in Seale's book. It's in the first paragraph of the book see this link http://books.google.com/books?id=6D9EiJKRTHcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=assad+seale&source=bl&ots=Ro_Wo8UR5s&sig=xCc_jsmh98ENx-3Q65fywPtljzs&hl=en&src=bmrr&sa=X&ei=j3MpUNL-AobgiwKHpYCACw&ved=0CDgQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=assad%20seale&f=false ↗. The paragraph states that his grandfather fought a Turkish wrestler that was going through his village and then beat him. It was because of his strength and fighting ability that he subsequently got the nickname Wahhish. I haven't read all the other new material, but I checked this paragraph, since it was added to the Assad family article. The additional material is good, but I agree that the prose needs some work to have a more encyclopedic tone, especially, the material that comes from Seale's book. Guest2625 (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

::Crap... yes, I haven't saw that. I'll revert my self. About the prose, I gave the article for the peer review. The "Presidency" section is mixed up. Iraq-Iran war is at the bottom, while it should be at the top of the "After dissolution of the FAR" subsection, other paragraphs also need to be moved somewhere else etc. --Wustenfuchs 00:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

FSA War crimes

I never said they were the FSA, I only said ''rebels'' but noted, with proper sources, that the towns in which the killings happened are FSA-controlled (sources don't mention any mujahideen presence). So there is no OR, everything is written per the sources, please refrain from unfounded accusations and assuming bad faith, that is not per Wikipedia rules on civility. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

:This discussion should be carried out on the FSA article's talk page. There are a number of other editors who disagree with you. Guest2625 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

::I will also tell you here what I told you over at the talk pages. It can be stated that your removal of the sourced info at the FSA article, on the basis that maybe they were mujahedeen, can be considered OR or POV, due to the fact that all of the provided sources state that the towns in which the killings took place are FSA-controlled, no mention of mujahedeen or SLA presence. As for the separation line, like I said at the talk page, there is no rule that the infobox combatants in the Battle of Aleppo article must be a copy-paste from the main war article. Besides, sources have been provided that during this battle the jihadists have been cooperating and coordinating with the FSA and viceversa (already provided you with one source), thus they are allies during this battle. The separation line was proposed as a compromise solution for the Kurds exclusivly due to their ambiguous loyalties in a previous discussion from a few weeks ago. EkoGraf (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Providing three sources confirming that the rebels throwing postal workers of the roof were FSA. Hope that satisfies you. One source is the LA times, which quoted a report by an opposition activist. While another is a report by the Al Monitor, which is considered reliable and notable (read the Wiki page on them). EkoGraf (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as the military.com source goes, fine, remove it. However, the report by the opposition activist can be used by all means. We have used reports by hundreds of opposition activists on all the Syria civil war articles without question when they reported on potential killings by government forces. There is no reason to exclude this one when the FSA is identified as the killer. Also, provided sources that identify the killers of that government soldier, who was executed by his own grave, as members of an FSA brigade. I have even named the brigade per the sources. Hope that also satisfies you. EkoGraf (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read the new sources I added? The reuters source I added identifies the fighters that killed the soldier as being members of the Amr bin al-Aas brigade, while the other source identifies them being a FSA brigade. What is there not to understand there? What is OR there? Please, stop edit warring. I have been trying to be as compromising as I can by adding sources upon sources to identify them as FSA, but you have not shown even an ounce of good faith or attempts at trying to reach a compromise. Instead you are just removing the information again and again even when sources have been presented, on the basis that the sources themselves might be OR and thus wrong, which is OR in on itself. Other editors would have accused you of pov-pushing on this issue a long time ago, instead I have been trying to provide you with sources and am still trying to find a compromise. Please show at least some good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I added yet another source from Al Jazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/08/2012814152542741795.html ↗ in which an FSA commander semi-admits to the possibility of the postal killers being FSA fighters. You want me to continue adding sources? You got the LA times, al-Monitor and al-Jazeera now, all reliable and notable sources. EkoGraf (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Mohammed Saeed Bekheitan ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syrian uprising ↗ (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) 03:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Abdul Razzaq Tlas

I apologize! I should not have warned you. The edits were happening so fast, I was confused who was adding "playboy". Again my apology. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Refugees of the Syrian civil war ↗, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kurdish ↗ and Hatay ↗ (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) 17:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages ↗. 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 ↗.

:Income tax in the United States ↗ (check to confirm ↗ | fix with Dab solver ↗)
::added links pointing to Medicare ↗ and Social Security ↗

:Taxation in the United States ↗ (check to confirm ↗ | fix with Dab solver ↗)
::added links pointing to Medicare ↗ and Social Security ↗

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Graph idea

thumb|Hard to read even at 300px ↗
Since you have so much better graphical talent than I do, I wonder if you might be interested in fixing this one? Its fonts are too small to read. Please let me know what you think. —'''''Cupco''''' 19:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thumb|U.S. mean family net worth by percentile of net worth (1989–2010). ↗
:I recropped the image and moved around the legend making it a little bigger. I also added a larger title which allows the graph to be readable at 200px. If I had the original data set, I could create a new graph that had more visible lines, larger axis font and color. Guest2625 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
::That looks fantastic! Thank you! —'''''Cupco''''' 04:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you think you can make :File:MeanNetWorth2007.png ↗ any better? Apparently there is raw data for it, three years newer, somewhere under http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scf_2010.htm ↗ but I haven't found it yet. —'''''Cupco''''' 03:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

:Here's a version of the graph. I might change it in the future. Guest2625 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
::Again, fantastic! Many thanks. —'''''Cupco''''' 15:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Damascus (2012)

Please see the Battle of Damascus (2012) ↗. the battle is clearly ongoing as numerous sources make clear (see the article and the article talk page for the sources), but User:EkoGraf is insisting the battle is over, simply because the regime claimed it was over. بروليتاريا (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

:I am not insisting. Multiple sources have been provided, including a few that are not coming from the regime. And it is not just me, several other editors have also edited the article in a way that the battle is over. The article Battle of Damascus (2012) covers the rebel offensive back from July, which ultimately failed to capture the metropolitan area of Damascus. That was a highly notable event which deserved its own article. The rebel operational name of the battle ''Damascus volcano'' was also agreed to after a discussion on the talk page. We already have an article on the current fighting, it is called Rif Dimashq offensive ↗ (which covers fighting in and around Damascus). If we try and reopen an old battle than it would be simply content forking, which is not according to Wikipedia rules. It has already been pointed out in the result section of the Battle of Damascus (2012) that the fighting later continued with the offensive. Your sources point to rebel attacks and clashes, which were happening long before the July Battle of Damascus, nothing in the sources about further rebel attempts to capture the metropolitan area of Damascus, which was the stated aim of their operation Damascus Volcano from July. EkoGraf (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Closing remarks on splitting procedure for "Battle of Al-Qusayr"

Dear user, you have participated in the splitting procedure for the article "Battle of Al-Qusayr". Please check the talk page of this article for closing remarks at Talk:Battle_of_Al-Qusayr#Split ↗. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts are requested

I’ve started a move request ↗ to change the title of the article Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant ↗ to Al-Nusra, per WP:commonname ↗. Your input is appreciated. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Libor scandal ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bond ↗ (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) 10:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

A Tax-deductible barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Tax-deductible Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I award you this tax-deductible Barnstar for your tax related contributions. Morphh (talk) ↗ 14:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
|}

Correlation does not imply causation, even in economics

Regarding your last statement {{diff|File talk:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg|521664102|521648885|here}}, there are lots of results in economics (such as the laws of supply and demand ↗) where a causal relation has been established, but not by simply observing a correlation between two variables. In economics, as in other sciences, establishing that A ''causes'' B is different from establishing that there is a ''correlation'' between A and B.

:Supply and demand I don't think is some sort of great correlative/causation result. A supply/demand curve is simply a graphing technique for data be it hypothetical or real -- nothing more nothing less. It's a way to display observed or hypothesised results of demand, supply and prices. The more interesting result is that people usually assume with supply/demand that greater demand leads to greater prices and that vice versa lower demand leads to lower prices. This result obviously does not need to be the case, and the actual relationship depends completely on what, when, where, how, why the product was being sold and bought in a market of real humans not a hypothetical market where individuals are rational profit maximisers.

For example, mankind has known for millennia that there's a correlation between foul smells and certain kinds of disease. For most of that time it was thought that foul smells caused disease ↗. It is only in the last couple of centuries that we've known that both bad smells and many diseases have a common origin in bad hygiene. The fallacy of ''cum hoc ergo propter hoc ↗'' is as relevant in economics as it is in medicine. Gabbe (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:I'm not questioning that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. I'm sure we can name an endless list of examples and have a great laugh. I'm just saying that in the social sciences it is pretty easy to use this argument, especially bolstered in strength when stated in Latin, to brush off a number of conclusions. What's important in the scientific method is the degree of correlation and reproducibility. In the social sciences reproducibility is the problem because you're studying a fixed set of real world macro data which you're not able to increase upon by doing experiments. I feel that instead of using Latin phrases people should attempt to articulate nuanced explanations of why they think or do not think a conclusion for a set of data is true or not true. Catch phrases are a dime a dozen. hmm and that's a catch phrase itself. Guest2625 (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

::Precisely. That's my whole point about that graph. In itself, it says nothing about whether one of these variables causes the other or not. Just like this one ↗. That doesn't mean that the graph should be expunged from every article on Wikipedia. But it does mean that it should be accompanied by a commentary discussing whether these two things are connected or not. A commentary that is properly attributed (preferably to academic sources instead of political advocacy groups). Where such a commentary is lacking, inclusion of this image can be misleading. Gabbe (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Talk:Financial crisis of 2007–2008|Requested move: Recession of 2007–2009|ts=00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)}}
Can you comment on this? FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on the ''New New proposal''. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nav box fixes

Thanks for fixing the Economics navbox to make it Wikipedia 'standards compliant'. I wonder if you could also have a look at and maybe comment on these two? Thanks, LK (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Renewable energy sources ↗

Template:History of China ↗

:To change the renewable energy source sidebar to a collapsible list wouldn't be difficult; the history of China one would take longer. I don't want to change them at the moment because I don't follow these two topics and I'm not sure what kind of formatting that the other editors want on the affected pages. Take a look at the following Template:Taxation ↗, Template:US_taxation ↗, and Template:Economics sidebar ↗ to get an idea of how to make a sidebar list on your own. Guest2625 (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I've just looked at Libor Scandal ↗ and it seems like you've done some exceptional work on that article! Thanks! LukeSurl t ↗ c ↗ 01:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
|}

Thanks, for the Barnstar. Guest2625 (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Harish Rawat Trophy

April 2013

In a 2008 arbitration case ↗, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict ↗, broadly construed. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are put on notice of the decision. You can read the full decision here ↗. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. -- Director (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
:Guest is not engaging in inappropriate behavior. You are by accusing bad faith where none exists. Sopher99 (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
::How strange, the lobby members covering their backs mutually...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of "civil war"

Hey, can you comment on this ↗?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Data source for PPP conversion in "List of minimum wages by country"

An anonymous user has asked me ↗ to use the IMF data for PPP conversion in the article template ↗ for the article List of minimum wages by country ↗. The person's interest is in Argentina, and their argument is that, as Argentina has a high rate of inflation, using the World Bank's 2011 data makes the Argentine minimum wage in international dollars highly inaccurate. World Bank does have 2012 figures for most countries now. In Argentina's case, the IMF 2012 figure is 36% less than the WB 2012 figure, and the IMF 2013 figure is about 14% higher than the IMF 2012 figure. So it seems that there is greater variation due to a change in source than due to inflation when it comes to Argentia. I compared the completeness of PPP data for 2012 between the two up to Cuba. WB lacked data on 7 countries covered by the article, and IMF lacked 2. However, the IMF data is shaded, indicating it is a staff estimate.

I like the IMF data for its completeness and up-to-dateness, but I suspect the older WB data is more accurate for its time. If I were deciding on my own, I'd keep the WB data in place, at least for now, just because I'd rather spend my time getting all the countries templatized, and I could worry about data sources after. I'd be interested in any feedback you may have on the issue, though. --Greenbreen (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sales tax graph

Guest2625, you restored :File:Average Effective Sales Tax of the 50 States (2007).gif ↗ on Taxation in the United States ↗ saying "Nothing wrong with this graph. It helps to illustrate this part of the article with relevant sales tax information." But does it? Who pays a 2.1 effective sales tax rate? It's a mismash of 50 states and doesn't seem to make much sense at all. If we're going to include one, I much prefer the graph you uploaded here :File:Average_State_and_Local_Taxes_for_All_States,_2007.jpg ↗, which is supposedly attributed to the same ITEP research. Or better, we could use your graph here :File:19237_TaxFoundation_v2.gif ↗ which shows how the revenue of each state is divided and include something with regard to the overall burdens of each state. That would be more relevant than mashing 50 states, some with high sales taxes and some with none, into a single graph statistic that is not meaningful to anyone. Morphh (talk) ↗ 14:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
:If you want to go with the :File:Average_State_and_Local_Taxes_for_All_States,_2007.jpg ↗ graph instead I'm fine with that. It's important to remember that the article that is being illustrated is Taxation in the United States, therefore, it's important that an equal balance is placed on federal, state, and local taxes. The average state incidence bar chart serves that purpose. For a pedagogical idea of how to present information for this article have a look at Paul Krugman's Microeconomics book on page 188 and the section called 'Taxes in the United States'. Paul Krugman a Nobel prize winner has nothing against using ITEP's average incidence data for the States' taxes. The specific title and information of the textbook is: Paul Krugman, Robin Wells, Microeconomics, Edition 2, revised, Macmillan, 2008 {{ISBN|0716771594}}, 9780716771593, Page: 188. Guest2625 (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Feedback needed on using special characters

Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor ↗! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla ↗ in the "VisualEditor" product ↗ ''or'' drop your feedback on the central feedback page ↗ on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥ ↗, IPA pronunciation symbols ↗, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics ↗). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.

The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.

{| style="margin: 0 auto;"
| thumb|upright|alt=Screenshot of the Insert menu in VisualEditor|The "insert" pulldown on the task bar of VisualEditor will lead you to the '{{int:visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title}}' tool. ↗
| thumb|upright|alt=Screenshot of Special Characters tool|This is the {{int:visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title}} inserter as it appears on many wikis. (Some may have customized it.) Your feedback on this tool is particularly important. ↗
|}

Issues you might consider:

How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters?

Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?

How many special characters would you like to see at one time?

* Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?

* How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?

* How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?

The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ ↗ and ♀ ↗. Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?

Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?

Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. '''Please leave your views on the central feedback page ↗''', or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.

Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.

P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations ↗, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:International dollars/data/2012

Hello. I removed the CIA info for Andorra and Cuba, as it is impossible to calculate a PPP value for these countries with the information provided by the CIA site. Please tell me exactly how did you arrive to the present values. Thanks. Pristino (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

:Yes I guess I should have been more clear how I got the PPP values from the CIA Factbook. You can get them by doing the following:
::GDP($)/GDP(PPP) * Exchange rate (LCU/$) ==> PPP conversion factor (LCU/PPP)
::Therefore, for Andorra $4.8 billion($)/$3.163 billion(PPP) * 0.7185 (LCU/$) = 1.09 (LCU/PPP)
::and for Cuba $72.3 billion($)/$121 billion(PPP) * 25 (LCU/$) = 14.9 (LCU/PPP)
:The 25 (LCU/$) was calculated from the State Department information of 225 Cuban pesos / $9 or see the following link http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?From=CUP&To=USD ↗ Guest2625 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for The Work on The Wage Theft Article

Thanks for your reorganization of the article. I cleaned up that section on paystub violations because it didn't make a lot sense when I first found it and I wanted to do something more positive than just deleting it. I should have thought of putting it in the enforcement section myself. — Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by Sean C. Murphy (talk • contribs ↗) 23:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tommaso Buscetta ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In absentia ↗. 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) 08:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samia (play) ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samian ↗. 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) 12:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Minimum wage in the United States ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Territory ↗. 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) 08:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Uprising or massacre?

Talk:1982_Hama_Islamic_uprising#Requested_move_27_October_2015 ↗ Gizmocorot (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open! ↗

Hi, 
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election ↗. The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements ↗ and submit your choices on the voting page ↗. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cold fusion ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Miley ↗. 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) 10:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The Cold Fusion ↗ page and topic

{{Ivmbox|1=''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 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.|2=Commons-emblem-notice.svg}} Noren (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

:Please discuss issues involving the topic on the talk page of the article. It's fine to discuss the forking issue there. Guest2625 (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

::That is good advice, though I don't know for whom it was intended, as I had already done ↗ so ↗ there and did not do so here. I am not aware of any similar efforts you may have made to discuss the matter. --Noren (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Error in Hourly Minimum Wages chart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hourly_Minimum_Wages_in_Developed_Economies,_2013.png
This chart contains the annotation "Source: OCED". This should read "Source: OECD". — Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by 110.174.174.155 ↗ (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016 ↗: Voting now open!

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Guest2625. 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)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Guest2625. Voting in the '''2017 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''voting page ↗'''. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of minimum wages by country ↗, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Canton ↗ and Jura ↗ ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Guest2625. Voting in the '''2018 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''voting page ↗'''. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great Southwest railroad strike of 1886 ↗, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Strike ↗ and Texas Rangers ↗ ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Great_Southwest_railroad_strike_of_1886 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Great_Southwest_railroad_strike_of_1886?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steel strike of 1919 ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Fitzpatrick ↗ ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Steel_strike_of_1919 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Steel_strike_of_1919?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jeffrey Epstein ↗, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CDO ↗, MBS ↗ and Metropolitan Correctional Center ↗ ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Jeffrey_Epstein check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Jeffrey_Epstein?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your good work on ":Jeffrey Epstein ↗" as the top contributor of the page ↗ and keeping it in good shape when it was the top viewed page of Wikipedia ↗. ''DBigXrayᗙ'' 06:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
|}

Thanks, for the Barnstar. Guest2625 (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2019 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2019|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>

November 2019

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ You may be '''blocked from editing ↗ without further warning''' the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons ↗ policy by inserting unsourced ↗ or poorly sourced ↗ defamatory ↗ or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. --The Huhsz (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --The Huhsz (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''

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

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions ↗ and the Arbitration Committee's ↗ decision here ↗. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
}}
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''

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

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

Re Jeffrey Epstein

On Talk:Jeffrey Epstein ↗ you wrote "I will re-establish the old version of the article which had half a year of established consensus". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeffrey_Epstein&diff=927681691&oldid=927669621 ↗ I would most strongly advise you against doing this, given the Active Arbitration Remedies currently in place. Regardless of any blanket ban on the use of the ''Sunday Mail'' as a source, it is clear from the discussion elsewhere on that talk page (the one you started) that there is no consensus for the inclusion of the specific material being sourced to it in the Epstein biography. And I note that you have failed to even respond to the comments made concerning this matter. Trying to use past article history as 'consensus' for something currently disputed on the talk page, while not even getting involved in the discussion after starting it, would almost surely be seen as a violation of the imposed restrictions. 86.143.229.179 ↗ (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

:Thank you for your advise. Slowing down the dialogue on the talk page was good for establishing a constructive and cordial environment. You should think about making a user account. Your help editing on such semi-protected articles would be useful. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pieter Pourbus ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IR ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

left|link= ↗
:::::'''Hi Guest2625!''' We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
::::::* The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page ↗
::::::* The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge ↗
::::::* The Teahouse new editor help space ↗
::::::* Wikipedia Help pages ↗
-- 12:56, Thursday, October 8, 2020 (UTC ↗)
{{Wikipedia:TWA/Navigation2}}

Virus WikiProject

You edit a lot of virus articles, so why don't you join WikiProject Viruses? More participants are always welcome. Velayinosu (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2020 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2020|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cucurbit ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orthobunyavirus ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taxonomy ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding RaTG13 ↗

Do you think the second clost virus to SARS-COV-2, "the pangolin coronavirus" have enough noteable to create an article？--Htmlzycq (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
:I have not looked into the material on the pangolin coronavirus, so I cannot say. With the pangolin coronavirus you would need to be specific about the strain that the wikipedia article was discussing. The bat coronavirus RaTG13 is a well defined strain with an entry in the NIH taxonomy database ↗ and corresponding literature. --Guest2625 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It is {{NCBI taxid| 2708335| Pangolin coronavirus}}

referce:

{{cite journal |last1=Xiao |first1=K |last2=Zhai |first2=J |last3=Feng |first3=Y |last4=Zhou |first4=N |last5=Zhang |first5=X |last6=Zou |first6=JJ |last7=Li |first7=N |last8=Guo |first8=Y |last9=Li |first9=X |last10=Shen |first10=X |last11=Zhang |first11=Z |last12=Shu |first12=F |last13=Huang |first13=W |last14=Li |first14=Y |last15=Zhang |first15=Z |last16=Chen |first16=RA |last17=Wu |first17=YJ |last18=Peng |first18=SM |last19=Huang |first19=M |last20=Xie |first20=WJ |last21=Cai |first21=QH |last22=Hou |first22=FH |last23=Chen |first23=W |last24=Xiao |first24=L |last25=Shen |first25=Y |title=Isolation of SARS-CoV-2-related coronavirus from Malayan pangolins. |journal=Nature |date=July 2020 |volume=583 |issue=7815 |pages=286-289 |doi=10.1038/s41586-020-2313-x |pmid=32380510}}

{{cite journal |last1=Zhang |first1=T |last2=Wu |first2=Q |last3=Zhang |first3=Z |title=Probable Pangolin Origin of SARS-CoV-2 Associated with the COVID-19 Outbreak. |journal=Current biology : CB |date=6 April 2020 |volume=30 |issue=7 |pages=1346-1351.e2 |doi=10.1016/j.cub.2020.03.022 |pmid=32197085}}

--Htmlzycq (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

:I read some of the material on the pangolin coronavirus discovered by Ping Liu et al. in 2019 ↗. The group in 2020 ↗ further expanded on the phylogenetics of the pangolin coronavirus which was labeled pangolin-CoV-2020. There has been a lot mentioned about this pangolin coronavirus, so I think an article on it would pass wikipedia's notability. However, I do not have a strong opinion on this. Liu in the 2020 paper concluded that:
:: "In summary, we suggest that pangolins could be natural hosts of Betacoronaviruses with an unknown potential to infect humans. However, our study does not support that SARS-CoV-2 evolved directly from the pangolin-CoV."
:This is a similar conclusion given by Roger Frutos et al in 2020 ↗. Also the next closest SARS-related coronavirus to SARS-CoV-2 after bat coronavirus RaTG13 is bat coronavirus RmYN02 ↗ sampled from a ''Rhinolophus malayanus'' bat in Mengla County ↗, Yunnan Province in southern China. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I've cited RmYN02 ↗ in RaTG13 ↗. By the way, {{tl|Coronaviridae‎}}, I've translated it from Chinese to English. However, English is not my mother tongue, it is beyond my ability to translate article like RaTG13 ↗ thoroughly.--Htmlzycq (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

== Biosecurity incidents ==

I created a new entry here: List of accidents and incidents involving laboratory biosecurity ↗. Please can you provide feedback on naming and content? Thanks

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

:Here is an in depth paper on the topic ↗. If you want more sources on the topic, just follow the references in the paper. As far as the naming of the wikipedia article, it seems fine to me, but I don't have a strong opinion on it. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
:Here are some extra entries that you might think of adding: Original SARS related ones from the timeline ↗, Severe acute respiratory syndrome#Laboratory accidents ↗, Sverdlovsk anthrax leak ↗, 1971 Aral smallpox incident ↗, <s>Dugway sheep incident ↗</s>, 1966 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom ↗, Marburg virus#Recorded outbreaks ↗, List of Ebola outbreaks#Minor or single cases ↗, Marburg virus disease#1988 laboratory infection ↗, Plum Island Animal Disease Center#Diseases studied and outbreaks ↗, Malcolm Casadaban ↗, Dora Lush ↗. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice

<table class="messagebox" style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: #E5F8FF; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"><tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">50px ↗</td><td>This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''
You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 ↗). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions ↗—such as editing restrictions ↗, bans ↗, or blocks ↗—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies ↗, or the page-specific restrictions ↗, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions ↗. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.</td></tr></table>
Alexbrn (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Please check the links about the above in relation to COVID-19 topics: "Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page." I've now recently noticed this at two different articles I recently edited, without looking at your prior edit history (reintroducing a questionable source ↗, reintroducing newindianexpress after a previous discussion on the talk page where a better source was suggested instead by another editor ↗). Even on other topics, WP:RS ↗, WP:BRD ↗, WP:CONSENSUS ↗ are always important principles... —PaleoNeonate – 14:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

30px|link= ↗ You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war ↗ according to the reverts you have made on :Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ↗. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate ↗ with others, to avoid editing disruptively ↗, and to try to reach a consensus ↗, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;'''
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page ↗ to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection ↗. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be blocked ↗ from editing.''' ''Edit warring on one of the highest-profile articles in the Project is really ''not'' a good idea'' Alexbrn (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

:You have completely misunderstood my collaborative science editing. I clearly stated in the edit summary, if you wish to change the text to your preferred form, go ahead. I have no problem with whatever form the article takes. I have provided my suggestions. Cheers and happy editing. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
::To be clear: repeatedly changing to your preferred version of the text is edit warring. Alexbrn (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

30px|link= ↗ You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war ↗ according to the reverts you have made on :COVID-19 misinformation ↗. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate ↗ with others, to avoid editing disruptively ↗, and to try to reach a consensus ↗, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;'''
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page ↗ to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection ↗. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be blocked ↗ from editing.'''  Alexbrn (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
:Are we edit warring? I thought we were doing good work together improving the article. I think the edits you have been making are ok. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
::You keep put the slang word "lab" in wikivoice. It's trivial, but why? Alexbrn (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
:::Sorry. I misunderstood why you were placing quotes around "lab". I agree the informal word "lab" is not ideal and generally should have quotes around it or be changed to "laboratory" -- and that's without the quotation marks. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
::::Yes! Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

RaTG13

In this table, you add too much SARS-CoV-1 related coronavirus to compare to SARS-CoV-2, Rs672, HKU3, Rp3, Rf1, which similarity to SARS-CoV-2 is about 79%.

Maybe you can refer to the related viruses of this two viruses listed below
{{tl|SARS-CoV-1 related coronavirus}}
{{tl|SARS-CoV-2 related coronavirus}}
--Htmlzycq (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

:Thanks for the feedback. I'll adjust the strains in the table so that they correspond with the SARS2-like phylogenetic tree. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

{{User QAIbox
| image = Daisy, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
}}
... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk ↗, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</td><td>Hello! Voting in the '''2021 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2021|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Minamoto no Yoshitsune ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ainu ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Arginine codon

The argument made by some lab leak theorists is that the cggcgg is so unlikely because two arginines in a row like this would make a virus more susceptible to B cell activation, as CpG islands trigger this. But this is an explicitly human pathogen phenomenon. https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-020-01395-x ↗

You removed the CpG island part, because Wade makes the more explicit genetic engineering argument. And that's fair, I think that edit is warranted. But there is a ''reason'' why CGGCGG is "unlikely." It is the CpG methylation which makes CGG an uncommon codon in human-pathogenic coronaviruses, but not human non-pathogenic ones. So we lose that bit of the discussion. See also this discussion in the talk page archives: https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1028408240 ↗ — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕ ↗) 14:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
:I forgot to add, this is the secondary source where all these things are tied together: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7969828/ ↗ — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕ ↗) 14:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

amending comments

If you amend your comments more than a few minutes after leaving them, and after people have already responded to them, you should sign again or add another timestamp noting your edits. '''Andre'''🚐 ↗ 06:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
:Thank-you for the advice. Can you point me to the page which explains how to do this? --Guest2625 (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
:Placed an ad hoc note at the moment below the comment. If you find a page on the topic let me know. It would be nice to have such a link to read and show others in the future. --Guest2625 (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
::WP:TALK#REVISE ↗ '''Andre'''🚐 ↗ 22:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Lady of the Lake (poem) ↗, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gaelic ↗ and Glade ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2022 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2022|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

HB

Howdy. It might help the RFC closer, if you place your chosen option, at the top of your survey entry. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Opening of the mouth ceremony ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Set ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red pill and blue pill ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ignorance Is Bliss ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2023 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2023|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

Some baklava for you!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 135px ↗
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Congrats for entering List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–10000 ↗! Keep up your good work! Timothytyy (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
|}

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cleopatra ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thea ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Tim walz article

I noticed, that you deleted a paragraph in tim walz article. Though it's not me, who inserted that paragraph, but I want to know, why you deleted it, because to me it seems like that information doesn't fit your political views and you don't people to form a bad opinion about tim walz 62.217.185.86 ↗ (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Your recent edits to JD Vance

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#J.D. Vance Service Medals ↗. The DD-214 is an acceptable source for this purpose. If you disagree, please take it to the talk page. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Forest ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duff ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tammy Baldwin ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bush administration ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Dates of birth for members of Congress

Instead of tagging the dates of births for members of Congress as citation needed, can you look them up at https://bioguide.congress.gov/ and add them to the articles? Marquardtika (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks for the source. That is a good source. The birthdates are not that big of a WP:BLP ↗ violation problem. The bigger problem is the unsourced middle names. I have come across some middle names that have been inserted as crude hoaxes which is not good. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

Abraham Hamadeh photo

Hello! I didn't upload this file, but I think it should be included. The image comes from the Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, which is public domain, and was posted on Hamadeh's new official government account "@RepHamadeh". Additionally, Hamadeh is technically a federal employee as a member of the United States Army Reserve ↗, making him an officer of the United States ↗, but that's, obviously, less relevant. ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

:Correction: "@RepAbeHamadeh" ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Guest2625}} please see c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Abraham_Hamadeh_119th_congress.jpg_-_Copyrighted? ↗. A user contacted House Creative Services, who said that it was by them, meaning it is under PD-USGov-Congress. '''reppop'''talk 23:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank-you for providing me a link to the discussion on the Commons. -- Guest2625 (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Kristi Noem

Hello! Her rank is written below her name on the photo? Bottom left under Kristi L. Noem is the rank Lt. Col. She posted this information publicly a few months ago, however she deleted her entire social media account and this is the only source left. I happened to remember and found the only source available. ZebulonMorn (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{Ping|ZebulonMorn}} Do you think it's deceptive or due weight to have Kristi Noem ↗'s "state legislative membership" in this nonprofit organization ↗ (Civil Air Patrol ↗) and her "Lt. Col." rank in the infobox section for military service or in the article's lead sentence? And according to this source https://group2tx.cap.gov/join/legislative#:~:text=%E2%96%BA%20State%20Legislative%20Member&text=State%20Legislative%20members%20are%20assigned,the%20honorary%20grade%20of%20major. ↗ all "state legislative members" join at the honorary rank of "major ↗". --Guest2625 (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::As stated in the source,https://group2tx.cap.gov/join/legislative#:~:text=%E2%96%BA%20State%20Legislative%20Member&text=State%20Legislative%20members%20are%20assigned,the%20honorary%20grade%20of%20major. ↗ they are honorary members unless they choose to continue as a full member. As she hasn't been a state legislator in over a decade, and the expiration date on her CAC ↗ reads "31 December 2024", she is an active member of the Civil Air Patrol ↗. Additionally, "on Aug. 28, 2015, Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, Air Force chief of staff, announced CAP officially as a member of the U.S. Air Force’s Total Force, joining the regular, guard and reserve forces as American airmen." https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/about/history-of-civil-air-patrol ↗ This should absolutely be included under military service, as she is an officer ↗ in the United States Armed Forces ↗. ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::For the same reasons, and for similar usage in the article's lead sentence in fellow Cabinet ↗ nominated persons, e.g. Tulsi Gabbard ↗ and Lee Zeldin ↗. ZebulonMorn (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The source you are using for her being in this organization is https://www.tmz.com/photos/image_jpg_20240426_8ae99004479c40508a66dc1528c679ab/ ↗ which is a primary source. The source does not provide context as to whether it is due weight to include this information in the article. I have removed the information from the article's lead sentence and infobox which are summaries of the article body. You need to provide a secondary source which contains this information, so that the relevance of her membership in this organization can be evaluated. If you disagree with the removal from these two locations, you will need to open a discussion on the talk page to gain consensus of at least one other editor who agrees with your reasoning for inclusion. (See WP:BRD ↗ to understand the editing process on Wikipedia. Thanks) --Guest2625 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is a serious issue that should have been put on talk page before removal. It's the only source available at all. When no other source is an option, primary sources may be used. ZebulonMorn (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It is the other way around. The burden of adding material to a bibliography of a living person is on the editor who wishes to include the material. Just open the discussion on the talk page and the process will work out the way it should. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If the source was fine for the body section, why remove her rank? That's what I'm saying. ZebulonMorn (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::A primary source is really not good for the body of the article. However, if it is not reputationally damaging material then not urgent. I am concerned about Wikipedia implying that she has the military rank of lieutenant colonel. These politicians run into lots of trouble because of rank and "stolen valor" issues. The way that ranks are given out in the Civil Air Patrol concerns me (see Ranks of the Civil Air Patrol ↗). --Guest2625 (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I see that and it's totally understandable. I think a large source of confusion here is the "cadet" vs "honorary" vs standard rank. CAP has "cadet" programs for high schoolers, kind of like the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps ↗. "Senior members" are a different group ↗. The "honorary" ranking system unfortunately doesn't get any easier. The US, officially, does not maintain any "honorary ranks" anymore, unless bestowed by the CIC ↗. The US does maintain a few "honorary commands/positions", but that's a totally different thing. The US frequently used brevet ↗ in the past, but that ceased by WWII. The honorary rank comes from the fact she would "commission" at the elevated rank of Major ↗ as a "state legislative member", which is similar to how politicians were commissioned in the armed forces during WWII, however, the rank isn't actually honorary and this becomes more clear by her continuation as an active member in the CAP. I understand the need for more sources and I will continue to sear, but this clearly isn't fictitious and, if appropriately cited, should be included. ZebulonMorn (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::No problem. Just find the secondary source that mentions her military rank of lieutenant colonel. It seems as if she went around saying that she was a lieutenant colonel people in the military would not be impressed given that she was commissioned as a major. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Military service isn't about "being impressive". Less than 1% ↗ of Americans serve in the armed forces, and for many reason that number is lower for per-capita for women, so I'm just appreciative she's doing something. Additionally, the entire CAP was federalized during the COVID-19 pandemic ↗ for first time since 9/11, which was the first time since WWII. ZebulonMorn (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::There are few female veterans in position of high office, so I want to ensure they are represented to the best of our ability. ZebulonMorn (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I agree. We just need a secondary source like a newspaper to say that she is a lieutenant colonel in the military and then we are all set to go. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Here is the original post https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrFDga8r1ZnBwIA2gtXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzIEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1734943932/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.facebook.com%2fgovnoem%2fposts%2fwhat-ive-been-made-a-lt-col-in-the-civil-air-patrol-boom-day-made-%25EF%25B8%258F-thank-you-to%2f938828534265777%2f/RK=2/RS=cJ6UDV2yg.B9PODprQiPSz2yG54- ZebulonMorn (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I am unable to see the content. It is blocked with the message: "This content isn't available right now. When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it's been deleted." Perhaps you can share a screenshot link. Also, content on facebook is not a secondary source. It is a primary source. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::thumb|Kristi Noem deleted Facebook post ↗ The problem is it's deleted, so it comes up the same way. It does have her official @GovNoem, but I'm still searching. ZebulonMorn (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::If you want to get advise on if something should be added to a bibliography of a living person, you can always visit the WP:BLPN ↗ or WP:RSN ↗ boards. The editors watching those boards are well versed in the topic. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Why have you removed her rank? ZebulonMorn (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Open the discussion on the talk page and then all editors will be able to contribute and share their opinion on the topic. And, I'll also comment there. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Subprime mortgage crisis ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bush administration ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

February 2025

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Thank you for your contributions ↗. It seems that you may have added public domain ↗ content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as :Jim Costa ↗. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism ↗, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources ↗, including the usage of an attribution template ↗. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. ''https://wikimedia.turnitin.com/viewer/submissions/oid:3117:430482066?locale=en''  Peace, G4† (talk, ask questions, dispute a tagging) 19:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for providing a working link on your talk page to the Copypatrol issue: https://copypatrol.wmcloud.org/en?id=d3c6874b-631a-4907-81b2-8206e56bdbb7. I have checked my edit that only moved around text that was already in the article. The false-positive hit of a copyright violation with the webpage https://ca.onair.cc/category/representatives/us-house/us-house-districts-21-30/us-house-district-21/ occurred because the website mirrors the Wikipedia article. Go to the website and click on the "More information tab", then you'll see a tab show up that says "Wikipedia". When you click on that tab, a copy of the Jim Costa Wikipedia article appears. --Guest2625 (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eli Crane ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treasury Department ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Extraordinary rendition ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bush administration ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of :Gay Valimont ↗ for deletion

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Gay Valimont ↗, to which you have significantly contributed ↗, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or if it should be deleted ↗.

The discussion will take place at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Valimont (2nd nomination) ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by ''SDZeroBot'' (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you still active on wikipedia

. Shadow. 547 (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

Comment

Can you please stop trying to force a 1996 mention of a CCTV camera room? We know Epstein had CCTV. We know he had cameras. The section is about whether or not these cameras actually filmed sexual activity. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
:This belongs on the talk page of that article, where other editors can contribute their opinion. --Guest2625 (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Progressive Party (United States, 1948–1955) ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Wallace ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

30px|link= ↗ You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war ↗  according to the reverts you have made on Template:Progressivism US ↗. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate ↗ with others, to avoid editing disruptively ↗, and to try to reach a consensus ↗, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;'''
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page ↗ to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection ↗. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be blocked ↗ from editing.''' ''Edit warring repeatedly about the color purple on the progressivism template despite multiple editors having expressed support for it...let's consider the bigger picture here.''Aunger67 (talk) Aunger67 (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
:You must be confused. The last time I edited the Template:Progressivism US ↗ was on May 9, 2026. --Guest2625 (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
::You're doing a sneaky version of this by waiting outside the edit war window and changing the color to what you want (or repeatedly removing the sidebar from pages that other editors have agreed it works there). Aunger67 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
:::It's great to meet you. Please provide the specific diffs where this is happening, so I can understand and review your concern. Thank you. --Guest2625 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Mass-removal of the template & misapplication of policies and guidelines

Guest, please don't try to "soft delete" the sidebar template by mass removing it from every page that it's on or replacing every sidebar with the less visible footer just because there wasn't a consensus to make it green like you wanted. That is disruptive editing. This is admittedly one of the lamest conflicts ↗ I've found myself involved with, and I'm not blameless for participating and writing as many words as I have (including right now), but I have to say you've escalated it to a really unnecessary degree with your mass removal.

Part of the reason why I wanted to leave a message on your talk page is because I'm noticing it's a recurring problem that you've been misreading and misapplying policies, sometimes in deeply confusing ways.

You initially invoked WP:RS ↗, both in your edit summaries and in this comment ↗, as your rationale for changing the template. The only problem with that is that you never cited any sources, you cited Wikipedia pages that themselves contained no sources for the color ↗. That's not how RS works.

Then, once there was pushback to making it green, you suggested ↗ that WP:BANREVERT ↗ means it'd be okay to delete the template because the editor that initially created it was a sock. That's not how BANREVERT works. You also suggested that the fact that the template has to do with politics is necessarily "highly concerning" without elaborating, I'm not sure what the thought process there was. Likewise, you attempted to use BANREVERT to override the consensus of multiple editors and revert ''back to ↗'' a sock's version, and also tried to use BANREVERT to justify changing to a version that never existed before ↗ (and threw in a random "WP:UNDUE ↗" at the end)

You then went on a spree of removing '''all''' instances of the sidebar:

Some of these are repeats, removing the template from the same article two, three, sometimes more times. Multiple editors reverted you at multiple pages, and you repeatedly re-removed them, starting who knows how many edit wars at who knows how many pages. This has led to the sidebar being discussed on a case by case basis at individual talk pages, and absolutely no one has enough time on this earth to discuss the sidebar at over 100 different talk pages. I have a hard time imagining you would've done the same if you got to make the template look how you wanted it to.

You cited a whole grab bag of different reasons for the sidebar purge, everything from claiming the template's presence is "a WP:BLP ↗ violation" (how?) to arguing there isn't WP:DUE ↗ weight (WP:DUE is about WP:NPOV ↗, what does that have to do with removing the sidebar?) to claiming it violates WP:BLPBALANCE ↗ to include the progressivism template in the Bernie Sanders article (what?) You also repeatedly suggested that the sidebar ''itself'' violates MOS:DECORATION ↗, which just... isn't what MOS:DECORATION is about? That's a style guide on how to use icon images. Your strongest argument was that it "takes up too much visual space", but this is only true on a case-by-case basis where there's not enough room for the template, which simply was not the case for the vast majority of the removals. The most baffling argument was when you suggested that it's a BLP vio for Zohran Mamdani to have a purple/pink colored template because he is a male ↗.

Now, I can't force you to do anything, but I would like to politely ask two things of you:
# Please '''self-revert''' your sidebar purge. Again, no one has enough time to discuss this at over 100 different pages, not even weirdos like me who are willing to argue about something as trivial as colors, and demanding that editors get over 100 separate consensuses to use the sidebar version of the template would be a time-waster ↗ of historic proportions. I would legitimately feel immensely guilty even bringing this to a dispute resolution board because of how much time uninvolved editors would have to waste cleaning up this mess, or even reading through it all.
# Please be more careful in reading and using policies going forward. Nearly all of your applications of policies have been entirely unrelated to what the policies are even about. I recommend making a habit of citing specific complete sentences from policies and guidelines.

 Vanilla  Wizard ↗ 💙 ↗ 19:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi! It is good to meet you. I stand by those edits that I made.
# Material added to an article can be disputed. If you look at how the material that I questioned was added it was done with zero justification. In the case where there was a disagreement, I opened up talk page discussions, so editors can discuss the topic. The issue after reviewing all these additions which were mostly done by one editor is more than just about a color. In each of my edits, I have explained my concern. And the concerns are different for each article and the solution to the different concerns is not something that can be done uniformly for each article.
# You responding at the Zohran Mamdani ↗ article is the correct way to respond to changes that were made on that article. You will note on that article on the talk page that actually the two other editors agree with me that it is not clear whether placing a big blaring ideological label is the correct approach. With controversial edits involving questions of ideology, which I have seen often leading to edit wars on biographies of living people it is better to take a cautious approach and discuss additions on the talk page first.
# And also in terms of the color thing that will be taken care of by using a request for comment. Four editors are not going to control the "color theming issue" that is being implemented on "ideology sidebars" by themselves without outside input. There is plenty of time to get Wikipedia to its highest and best standard. I'm happy to be able to work with you on this volunteer project. --Guest2625 (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

{{od|# }}
You didn't assess each individual use of the template on a case-by-case basis, so why should uninvolved editors have to? The timeline of what led up to this is easy to understand: first you try to change the color, then you threaten to delete the template, then you remove 100% of its uses. Let's call a WP:SPADE ↗ a spade, you found a way to ''de facto'' delete the sidebar because you didn't get what you wanted. This isn't even assuming bad faith, you outright cited the color as a reason for removal on the Mamdani article and elsewhere. I'd also like to note that no, the additions were not all done by one editor. The formation, expansion, and curation of this template has been a gradual project that quite a few editors have contributed to over the last six months, most of them just drive-by editors making one or two changes once. It also was not added "with zero justification", we regularly discuss whether an article should be WP:BIDIRECTIONAL ↗ with the sidebar template and provide rationales for doing so in edit summaries, either when adding the article to the template, the template to the article, or both. The rationales you provided for removal are, as I've mentioned already, nonsensical misinterpretations of unrelated policies.

I am not about to start 100+ RfCs, nor am I going to revert you 100+ times. But I want you to understand why this isn't okay. This template survived an actual deletion discussion, you don't get to delete it without deleting it by claiming you just happened to believe that it belongs on exactly zero pages and anyone who disagrees can start a separate talk discussion about its use on every single one of those pages. If this template didn't belong ''anywhere'' on Wikipedia, it would not have survived a well-attended deletion discussion ↗. If you believe it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, have a go at a second TfD discussion. But don't try to WP:GAME ↗ the system like this, don't try to find a way to unofficially delete it that would require so much time from so many people to undo that no one would find it worth the effort.

If four people aren't enough to decide how a template should look, then why is one person enough to decide whether the template should be allowed to exist at all? These sidebar templates are a niche editing area, there's at most only five or six of us who regularly curate the Progressivism US template. When you have that perspective in mind, four people is in fact enough. If you want more people to weigh in, go through dispute resolution channels, don't just repeatedly edit war in as many places as possible while asserting that it's okay, even though you're outnumbered, even though this topic has been discussed to death, just because there's not enough people participating for you to recognize the consensus as legitimate. It's hard to believe you would respect the 117 separate consensuses you're demanding to undo your mass removals if you don't respect the consensus we already have at the template talk page, or the outcome of the last deletion discussion for that matter.

 Vanilla  Wizard ↗ 💙 ↗ 21:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you that just providing the Manual of Style guideline or editing principle that the sidebar goes against in the edit summary is not the ideal situation, and that is why there is the talk page to discuss the issue in more detail. If you would read such basic guidelines, like WP:SIDEBAR ↗ and MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR ↗, you should be able to understand that in a number of articles this ideology sidebar does not work for reasons which I have stated in an abridged fashion in the edit summaries. Editors really do not enjoy wasting their time by just blindly having to accept WP:BIDIRECTIONAL ↗ as the reason that a blaringly loud ideology label sidebar is added to a bibliography of a living person. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

:*This is honestly a somewhat confusing reply, I didn't say the thing you're agreeing with and don't really know what you're saying in the second half. More importantly, I feel the point of what I'm trying to say has been missed entirely ↗, the point being that it is disruptive and anti-collaborative to take it upon yourself to remove the sidebar from ''every'' page as retaliation for not getting it to look how you wanted it to look.
::Since you mentioned them... WP:SIDEBAR ↗ and especially MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR ↗ don't help to explain the purge. While WP:SIDEBAR ↗ ''does'' note that sidebars occupy space that could be used for images instead, and this actually can be a perfectly legitimate rationale in specific circumstances, this argument should be applied on a case-by-case basis for articles that actually are crowded with images and sidebars competing for the same amount of limited space. Throwing WP:SIDEBAR ↗ out there alongside countless truly misapplied policies as part of a justification for opposing the sidebar being on ''any'' page feels more like throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.
::MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR ↗ makes even less sense here, especially when considering that the footer is the same color. MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR ↗ is about accessibility and using colors that are easy on the eyes, so I would like to remind you that the green color you kept changing it to was much brighter and more saturated with less contrast, whereas the color you kept removing was arrived at through a discussion about accessibility and how to choose a color that isn't too bright. As for {{tq|Editors really do not enjoying wasting their time by just blindly having to accept WP:BIDIRECTIONAL as the reason that a blaringly loud ideology label sidebar is added to a bibliography of a living person}} - I've reread this a few times, started typing and then deleted a few attempts at responding to what I thought you might be saying, and I still honestly don't really know what it means. I don't mean to come off as rude in saying that, but I am having trouble understanding you.
::Back on topic, we really need to talk about what venues make sense for which types of proposed changes. If the problem with a template is that its appearance isn't what you want it to be, discuss that at the template talk page - us & a few others already were doing exactly that before you took it upon yourself to mass-remove the sidebar. If you want to add or remove someone from the template (or the template from the article, since that's what WP:BIDIRECTIONAL ↗ is about), that's also a discussion for the template talk page. And if you believe the sidebar is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia and you want to remove all instances of it, that is the functional equivalent of deleting the template, that is what deletion discussions are for. There is ''no scenario'' where the correct approach is to create a situation where if an editor wants to revert your 1 sweeping change, their only recourse would be to start over one hundred separate discussions at over one hundred separate discussion venues, 1 for every article you removed it from - which no one has the time to do - while edit warring with several editors at several different articles when they disagree with the removal. That's disruptive. And I'd like to think you know that, but you still did it. I feel torn saying that because, whether I assume you know that's disruptive or I don't, it's going to sound uncivil; if I suggest you did something you know is wrong, that's assuming bad faith, and if I suggest you genuinely had no idea this could be disruptive then that's assuming incompetence, which would be even worse. But whether this was intentional or unintentional disruption, it's a mess ↗ and I feel the right thing to do would be to help clean it up.
::I'll leave you be, I've said my piece and I've got a busy weekend ahead of me anyways so I won't be available. But I'd really appreciate if you considered self-reverting your purge.
:: Vanilla  Wizard ↗ 💙 ↗ 03:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Please read policy and guidelines when they are provided as a link. WP: BIDIRECTIONAL ↗ states:

:"{{tq|The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Per the bidirectionality principle above, this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template. If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template (which may be watchlisted mostly only by template coders).}}"

Whether a sidebar is included in an article or whether an article is included in the sidebar should be done on the article's talk page. Do you want me to also now clearly bold the part of the above guideline where it states what I have said. Please use the talk page of the article to include any material which you feel should be in an article. Things are much more productive when other editors are involved and can provide an outside uninvolved perspective. Have a great weekend. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Paige Cognetti ↗

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Paige Cognetti ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A URL ↗ error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paige_Cognetti&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1359802307%7CPaige%20Cognetti%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Guest2625&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Paige Cognetti}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1359802307 report it to my operator].
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Paige Cognetti ↗

A URL ↗ error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paige_Cognetti&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1359816539%7CPaige%20Cognetti%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Guest2625&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Paige Cognetti}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1359816539 report it to my operator].
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

User Talk: Guest2625

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Albinobeach ↗

Talkback

Orphaned non-free image File:Free Syrian Army Green Logo.jpg

Disambiguation link notification

Disambiguation link notification

Disambiguation link notification

Disambiguation link notification

Message for you

Disambiguation link notification

March 2012

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

FSA

Siege of Homs map

Sorry

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

A barnstar for you!

Wikipedia policy prohibits original research, including syntheses or analysis

Battle of Zabadani

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Free Syrian Army

Hafez al-Asad

FSA War crimes

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Abdul Razzaq Tlas

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Graph idea

Battle of Damascus (2012)

Closing remarks on splitting procedure for "Battle of Al-Qusayr"

Your thoughts are requested

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

A Tax-deductible barnstar for you!

Correlation does not imply causation, even in economics

Talkback

Nav box fixes

A barnstar for you!

Harish Rawat Trophy

April 2013

Capitalization of "civil war"

More NSA PRISM slides and Boundless Informant slides

Data source for PPP conversion in "List of minimum wages by country"

Sales tax graph

Feedback needed on using special characters

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Template:International dollars/data/2012

Thanks for The Work on The Wage Theft Article

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Uprising or massacre?

ArbCom elections are now open! ↗

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

The Cold Fusion ↗ page and topic

Error in Hourly Minimum Wages chart

ArbCom Elections 2016 ↗: Voting now open!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

A barnstar for you!

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

November 2019

Discretionary sanctions

Re Jeffrey Epstein

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Virus WikiProject

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Thank you for expanding RaTG13 ↗

Notice

May 2021

RaTG13

Thank you

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message