User talk:DavidMCEddy

Archives

2011:2011 2012:2012

Electoral fraud.

Electoral fraud. There is an error in the calculations, some form of electoral fraud is allways present and approximates 100% certainty. Those figures you have placed are reversed, the cummulative probability of some electoral fraud being 1 minus the probability you mentioned. [unsigned comment 2020-11-11T20:54:24 by User:186.185.148.243]

Could you please be more specific? I don't understand. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Must Sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Because Cyprus Will Join Austria Ireland Liechtenstein Malta San Marino and the Vatican in a goal of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons and Here is a Note: Cyprus Have Voted in Favor of the Adoption of TPNW at the United Nations in 2017. (added 2020-12-24T08:15:32 by 2001:4454:2a8:a400:d8a1:30a7:e417:df09)

Hello User:2001:4454:2a8:a400:d8a1:30a7:e417:df09: There is only one official source for the signatories and parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW): That's the TPNW page on the website of the UN Treaty Collection. This has been discussed multiple times on Talk:Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

You might add a section to that article on "Under consideration", in which you could mention Cyprus and cite your source for that.

That would probably work, though I cannot guarantee it. I would support it, but other Wikipedia editors might object. You may know that Wikipedia works by consensus, asking contributors to:

• write from a neutral point of view,
• citing credible sources.
• Wikipedia also encourages contributors to Wikipedia:Be bold but not reckless.
• Another Wikipedia value is treating others with respect: Even if the behavior of others sometimes may seem abrasive, it's often better to respond calmly and politely; (Wiktionary:you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.)

Thanks for your attempted contribution to Wikipedia. Research has shown one of the main strengths of Wikipedia is its ability to get people with very diverse perspectives to collaborate in working out the details of articles. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You.

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.

Global financial system (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bretton Woods

List of banking crises (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bretton Woods

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Democracy Initiative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Counterpunch (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) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiknic 2013
Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland
Theme: Hyperlocal list-making

This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!

Location and Directions[edit]

• Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
  • Nearest BART: 19th Street
  • Nearest bus lines: NL/12/72
  • Street parking abounds

to two upcoming Bay Area events:

• Maker Faire 2013, Sat/Sun May 18-19, San Mateo -- there will have a booth about Wikimedia, and we need volunteers to talk to the public and ideas for the booth -- see the wiki page to sign up!
• Edit-a-Thon 5, Sat May 25, 10-2pm, WMF offices in San Francisco -- this will be a casual edit-a-thon open to both experienced and new editors alike! Please sign up if on the wiki page if you can make it so we know how much food to get.

I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Electoral reform in the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• united4thepeople.org/amendments.html "United for the People" lists of federal amendments] of the [[112th United States Congress|112th and [[113th United States Congress|113th congresses]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on MAIC (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, I'm not clear why you made this page--it consists only of external links to subjects about which we do not have articles. Are you intending to writer about any or all of them? (We sometimes do include mention of non-articles in a disam p. to avoid confusion when there are actual articles to be distinguished). DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which you cited as the criterion for speedy deletion? It begins, "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects to Wikimedia sister projects) consisting only of external links ... ." The page you deleted was a disambiguation page and was marked as such following the instructions on Template:Disambiguation.

The Wikipedia article on disambiguation pages encourages articles giving variant spellings of common terms. The MAIC (disambiguation) page I created did far more: It provided links to substantive web sites for each alternative listed.

Could you either please speedily restore said page or explain why not?

After creating that article, I then posted a link to it Talk:Mergers and acquisitions/Archives/2013#What's MAIC?. That link is now broken. Someone who wanted to respond to my request for help with disambiguation can not now do so.

I created that page for several reasons:

1. The Wikipedia article on Mergers and acquisitions contained the acronym MAIC without defining it.
2. A moderately extensive search failed to identify a plausible definition.
3. I've derived great value from other disambiguation pages in Wikipedia, and I thought others might benefit from a disambiguation page on MAIC (consistent with the Wikipedia policy on disambiguation pages).
4. I hoped to use that page to encourage someone who knows about MAIC in the mergers and acquisitions context to contribute that meaning to the disambiguation page that I had created.

I have over 1300 contributions to different Wikimedia projects in multiple languages. I have nearly always cited sources and written from a neutral point of view. To my knowledge, until today, only one of those 1300+ contributions has been quickly reverted; that was because I did not cite a source and violated NPOV ;-)

The rules against Wikipedia articles on subjects that are not notable make good sense to me.

Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter and for your support for Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As a (talk page stalker) from DGG's page ... it sounds as if the dab page was going about things in the wrong order. Dab pages disambiguate existing articles, or mentions of a topic in existing articles. They aren't just a list of possible meanings of a term. It might be better to add a "request for clarification" at the mentions of MAIC in this article ... have just done so (just the once, as it's mentioned twice in one section). Or add a note to the article talk page. Then, if there is some mention within Wikipedia which would be useful for someone looking for "MAIC" in that sense, either create a dab page at MAIC or, if you're happy that Center for International Stabilization and Recovery is still the primary topic, add a {{redirect}} hatnote there. ("MAIC redirects here, for ... see ..."). Though I haven't seen the contents of your dab page, I can't see that there was any valid content for it. A link to Maic Sema would be possible but unnecessary, as we don't usually link from given names. PamD 08:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. By "dab", I assume you mean a disambiguation page? DGG referred me to WP:CSD#A3 as the justification for speedy deletion. However, WP:CSD#A3 clearly states it does NOT apply to disambiguation pages. Also, have you read Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages? It clearly encourages the creation of disambiguation pages to clarify issues as trivial as alternative spelling without requiring notoriety, citations to credible sources, etc. It clearly does NOT require that the alternatives listed on a disambiguation page be other Wikipedia articles, though that appears to have been DGG's criterion. It sounds like I could have escaped DDG's speedy deletion by including a link to Mergers and acquisitions#Cross-border M&A with a note that MAIC was used there without definition. If you can recover for me the text that was speedily deleted, I can add that. (I have a few less than 1400 contributions to Wikimedia projects, and I don't know how to recover the text of the page speedily deleted.)

Could you please read (or reread) the policies cited? After doing so if you still agree with DGG's action, could you help me understand the problem, citing words that actually appear in the referenced Wikipedia policies? So far, I've seen DGG's actions explained in terms that appear to violate the rules DGG cited.

If after reading the policies you agree with me, I'd be pleased if you would leave a note on DGG's talk page supporting my request that the disambiguation page I created be speedily undeleted. Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the content of your disambiguation page, but I cannot see articles in the encyclopedia which would form the content of a valid dab page. CSD A3 may or may not have been the correct way to delete it: perhaps it came under G6, second bullet point, instead. "unnecessary disambiguation pages, such as those listing only one or zero links to existing Wikipedia articles. Note: per MOS:DABRL, redlinks are allowed in dab pages, if supported by a bluelink to an article that shows usage of the same redlink in reasonable context; the supporting bluelink counts as a valid link to an existing Wikipedia article." I don't think the link you propose would be helpful, as it doesn't lead the reader to any information about MAIC in the mergers context. I see that "MAIC" has been in that article, unexplained, since 2010 - let's hope that someone responds to the note on the talk page and elucidates it. If what they say is a useful explanation of it, then we can add a {{redirect}} hatnote to help the reader find it. PamD 18:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, technically I should have used G6. Pam has made some good suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!

File:Csaky madonna.jpg

Hi DavidMCEddy! The first Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 in San Francisco. Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Wikipedians of all experience levels are invited! Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors. Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here! SarahStierch (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additions to Zoster vaccine! By the way, don't add "~~~~" to your edit summaries, but only to your posts on talk pages. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip re. "~~~~". If I had understood that from the start, it would have saved me 4 keystrokes for each of the over 1400 contributions I've made so far ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sino-Japanese war (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) 09:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This was unintended. Your report moved me to change the offending link to the Second Sino-Japanese war. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday, April 5 - WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited!

The University of California, Berkeley's Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend. Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history! The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library. You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DavidMCEddy, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Debt: The First 5000 Years, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jubilee and Credit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DavidMCEddy,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Talk like TED for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Trivialist (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Talk like TED, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Accountability page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited! → Litquake Edit-a-thon → See you there!

In the area? You're invited to    San Francisco Meetup # 22   Date: October 11, 2014   Time: 1-5 pm   Place: 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105   prev: Meetup 21 - next: Meetup 23 | All SF meetups & events The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meetup and create/translate/expand/improve articles about literature and writers. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. RSVP →here←. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArtAndFeminism (3/7) and International Women's Day (3/8)!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, In celebration of WikiWomen's History Month, the SF Bay Area Wikipedia community has two events in early March -- please consider attending! First, we have an ArtAndFeminism edit-a-thon, which will take place at the Kadist Art Foundation from 12 noon to 6pm on Saturday, March 7. We'll be one of many sites worldwide participating in this edit-a-thon on March 7th. So join us as we help improve Wikipedia's coverage of women artists and their works! Second, we will be celebrating International Women's Day with the International Women's Day edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 8 from 1pm to 5pm at the Wikimedia Foundation. Our editing focus will be on women, of course! I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] To opt out of future mailings about SF meetups, please remove your name from this list.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Trans-Pacific Trade Negotiations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. ^{(talk to me) (contributions)} @ 21:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Beheading video page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadley Wickham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Chambers. 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) 11:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings David. You recently made changes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likelihood_function . In particular, you wrote "In measure-theoretic probability theory, the density function is defined as the Radon-Nikodym derivative of the probability distribution relative to a dominating measure. This provides a likelihood function for any probability model, whether discrete, absolutely continuous, a mixture or something else." Do you have a reference for this? I've been looking for a reference which defines the likelihood function of an arbitrary random variable for a long time. Any hint would help. Thanks.

Cheers, Ian

Do you have any thoughts on my suggestion that the Himmler quote praising Ford should either be removed or have a better source for it in the Henry Ford article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Ford#Heinrich_Himmler_quote I did a google search and couldn't find any other sources for the quote, although I'll look some more. RandomScholar30 (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the German-language Wikipedia article on Henry Ford. In addition to the book by Armin Pfal-Traughber, it also cited a 2003 article in Graswurzelrevolution, which unfortunately cites the book by Armin Pfal-Traughber as its source. I added the Graswurzelrevolution cite to the English-language citation of that book.

I also sent an email to Pfal-Traughber asking your question. Before I did that, I asked for it on Interlibrary Loan. If we can't get a better source for that Himmler quote, I agree it should be deleted. With luck, Herr Professor Doktor Armin Pfal-Traughber will produce a solid reference for us available on the web, and I can confirm that it says what the earlier editor claimed. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it seems like the Henry Ford article has a Henry Ford=Hitler agenda. For example, it points out correctly that Ford is the only American mentioned by Hitler in My Struggle but fails to mention that Ford is only mentioned one time, in one sentence, a sentence that was removed from future editions. It also quotes Heinrich Himmler praising Ford, " In a letter written in 1924, Heinrich Himmler described Ford as "one of our most valuable, important, and witty fighters."" but I looked up the source, Pfal-Traughber, Armin (1993). Der antisemitisch-antifreimaurerische Verschwörungsmythos in der Weimarer Republik und im NS-Staat. Vienna: Braumüller. p. 39., [1] I have discussed it on the Ford talk page, and the source is in the German language even though wikipedia policy says it is best to avoid foreign language sources, and its also a very obscure book, there was only a snippet view of it. I do not doubt that the source says Himmer said that, because I saw Ford's name on the part of the book in the snippet view referenced in the article, page 39, but because the book is not in English and is obscure it will be difficult for wikipedia readers to verify the quote. I have searched for it online but no reliable source other than that book (which I don't know how reliable it is but I'm assuming its reliable for sake of argument) mentions the quote, although I see some a few books without sources and internet blogs quoting. We already have the sourced quote from Baldur von Schirach about Ford's influence on Nazi Anti-Judaism, which I added to the International Jew article myself when it had not been there previously, [2], so I have not acted in a way to try to cover up Ford's links with Nazis. I think that quote, because it is reliably sourced, is much more appropriate for discussing Ford's influence on Nazi Anti-Judaism than the Himmler quote. Another reason it is better is that Himmler did not mention Jews in his quote, whereas Schirach stated directly Ford's hate campaign against Jews was the reason he was influenced by Ford. There were a lot of influences on Hitler's and the Nazis' Anti-Judaism besides Ford, such as General Erich Ludendorff and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, the simplistic no Ford no Holocaust reasoning that has been popular among some scholars like Edwin Black in my view is a mistake. RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One section out of 10 (not counting 5 reference sections) is devoted to this. The section could doubtless be trimmed, perhaps substantially, by transferring material that could be in the articles on The Dearborn Independent and The International Jew but currently is not, and by otherwise reducing the redundancy with those articles. However, I'm reluctant to cut the Himmler reference, because Himmler is almost as well known as Hitler, and it helps illustrate the reach of Ford's reputation within the Nazi government. The quote from Baldur von Schirach's testimony at Nuremberg is valuable in this context in showing that Ford's reputation was not restricted to just the top echelons of the Nazi party. However, if we can validate that quote from Himmler, I think we should keep it.

Regarding citing foreign-language sources, if I understand Wikipedia:Attribution, it says we should worry first about having credible sources and second about having something in English. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a better source for the quote, but my internet is slow so I cannot turn to the citation note at the back of the book, it is in this book on page 14, which is included in the preview, [3]. RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another google books edition of the book included the citation in the preview [4] but the citation 37 didn't seem to say anything sourcing Himmler's quote. I guess this source would be an improvement over the previous one though. The title is The Business of Genocide: The SS, Slave Labor and the Concentration Camps by Michael Thad Allen. The quote from Himmler, in a slightly different version, is on page 14, the citation is numbered 37. The quote is in the first preview, but not the second, the citation is in the second but not the first. Maybe you could buy or check out the book though. RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"So you're reading Henry Ford...one of the most worthwhile, weighty, and most spirited predecessors in our fight" is the version Allen gives of the Himmler quote. RandomScholar30 (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forget what I said about the footnote not supporting the Himmler quote, the note I was looking at was number 37 but it was for a page in the 70s range, the quote was on page 14, so I have not seen the note for the quote from Himmler, that footnote must not be part of the preview. I guess citing the Himmler quote to Allen would be enough of an improvement that it can be kept in the article, although ideally I'd like to see Allen's source. RandomScholar30 (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This book is available from Amazon for under $16 plus shipping. My local library does not have it, but they should be able to get it via interlibrary loan; I think I'll try that before I buy it. (I have more books than space ;-) Both quotes are probably correct, but it would help to find an original source. With luck, the German professor will reply. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Both quotes are probably correct" but these are the quotes"So you're reading Henry Ford...one of the most worthwhile, weighty, and most spirited predecessors in our fight" "one of our most valuable, important, and witty fighters." Those are clearly different translations of the same quote. Now that I've seen the other source I agree that Himmler probably said it, but its only one quote, not two quotes. Calling it "both quotes" would be like calling James Strachey's and AA Brill's translations of Sigmund Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams "both books", it would not be correct, they're just different translations of the same quote. I'm cautioning about this so that we don't end up listing that Himmler praised Ford twice when these are actually just different translations of the same quote. RandomScholar30 (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He also could have written similar but different things to different people. In any event, we should use only one, preferably one we can find in English but trace to the original German. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got both Pfal-Graughber and Allen in interlibrary loan. Both cite Ackermann. Heinrich Himmler als Ideologe. p. 37. as their source.

I've posted my latest comment in this thread back to Talk:Henry Ford#Heinrich Himmler quote. Others might be interested in it and would look there but not here. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've complained on the eugenics talk page about the fact Edwin Black is used as a source for the article. If it is correct the Holocaust was influenced by eugenics, then a different source should be found. Black is not a mainstream source. He has blamed everyone from IBM to the Rockefeller family to Henry Ford to even Zionists for Nazism. Commentary magazine stated about Black "In various appearances before and since the publication of The Transfer Agreement, Black has hinted at a conspiracy against him by “extremist Jews” who might think—wrongly, of course—that he has endangered the future of Israel by “exposing” the story of Zionist negotiations with the Nazis. In fact the story has been told before, and often, and with infinitely greater sophistication. To the historical record Black has added conspiracy-mongering, innuendo, and sensationalism, but nothing new, and much that is both factually wrong and morally shabby."https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-transfer-agreement-by-edwin-black/ I don't think its appropriate to use Edwin Black as a source on wikipedia. I would consider him WP:FRINGE. RandomScholar30 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about eugenics to get involved with this. I know that some of Ronald Fisher's most famous papers appeared in the Annals of Eugenics, and I know the eugenics movement was real and substantial. I know that before the Nazis went after Jews, they went after mentally handicapped -- shell shocked World War I veterans, etc. I don't know if the logic for that was eugenics or just economic: Hitler complained about "parasites", sucking the life blood of good hard working Germans.

How would it affect the article if you cut all the comments citing Black? It looks to me like that might reduce the size of the article by roughly 10 percent. It could require a bit more work to make sure the verbiage flowed without the comments you propose removing. If what you say about Black is accurate, the result would improve the article.

I suggest you allow your comments on Talk:Eugenics#Mistaken linking of eugenics with Nazi Holocaust to age a couple of days to see if anyone else replies before proceeding with changes.

Thanks for your support of Wikipedia -- and humanity, through making Wikipedia more reflective of reality. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Defamation League is cited as a source for Patrick Buchanan's Anti-Judaism. I think at the very least the fact that it is a group with an ideological agenda should be pointed out in the article. I'm not saying Buchanan isn't Anti-Jewish, but the ADL has labeled a lot of people Anti-Jewish who are not. So if they are used as a source I think their bias should be noted at least. They also are leftist while Buchanan is a conservative, which is a reason for them to be biased against him. RandomScholar30 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What article(s) are you talking about? DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Patrick Buchanan for the ADL the one about eugenics for the Edwin Black complaint.RandomScholar30 (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not eager to get involved with the article on Pat Buchanan. I wouldn't worry about the ADL. I don't see how that part of that section is inappropriate. If I were concerned about that section, I'd want to find a better source for claims like, "Buchanan wrote that it was impossible for 850,000 Jews to be killed by diesel exhaust fed into the gas chamber at Treblinka.": Statements like that should be quoted from Buchanan himself. If Shapiro and Lichtblau do not say where Buchanan said the things they claim -- and you can't find those statements in anything Buchanan wrote -- those comments should be removed.

However, as I indicated before, I don't have more time to spend on this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Poisson regression page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I did in that edit was to assess the progress of the article on our quality scale. See WP:ASSESS for more information about our quality assessment. I assessed the article as C class so that means it has considerable editing to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.

So what we should be working for on the voter suppression article is to address cleanup tags at the top of the page. Then we need to address each of the criteria listed on WP:BCLASS. When (and if) that happens it can be reassessed to B class and the process continues towards Good Article and better. The Good Article nomination is more stricter and keeps a high standard for articles. It is determined by consensus not by one person as I did. The process is outlined at WP:GAN.

I hope that explains it clearly. If you have any other questions, please just ask me and I will reply here. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That helps.

It leaves one question hanging: What if anything can be done to make it easier for people like me to get answers to such questions without finding someone like you to write to?

I searched for "wp:class", "Wikipedia template:{{wiki | class =" and variants and got nothing that seemed relevant to this.

It was a great boon to me when I discovered I could find documentation on many things in the Mediawiki markup language via a web search for "wikipedia template:math" or "wikipedia template:citation", etc. That trick failed utterly for me for this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To search for things in the Wikipedia name space add wp: at the start of your search. wp:assess would of helped in this case. Many times when I make similar edits I add a link to the criteria in the edit summary. I will try to do that more often. Leaving a note on someone's talk page is not something bad you should avoid. I understand there is a lot to learn and like many experienced editors are happy to help out in any way. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kris Kobach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Materiality. 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) 10:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is three years late. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that it had been almost three years since the earlier comment. However, I couldn't find "block" used with that meaning in the article. So I asked. I just now edited that section of the article to use the word "block" in that sense.

If someone watching thinks those edits were inappropriate, we'll find out ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OCD explains a lot, so thanks for mentioning it. I worked and for many years with people with serious substance abuse issues and psychosis, and enjoyed it, but OCD wasn't something I did well with, though it was in living and working situations, rather than professional ones. My own personality is oil and water with the condition, unfortunately. I went to the May '05 conference in St. Louis and enjoyed the hell out of it. I drove and picked up 3-4 other attendees en route, and shared a Motel 6 room with a couple of them. I had a very funny conversation with Maurice Hinchey about a backward colleague of his whom I'd had confrontations with, and later couldn't resist (successfully) putting on Medea Benjamin. I think it was a bit later that year that I testified at a national commission meeting at Washington U. It was a very long drive to the conference, but I got my air fare paid for the second trip, and they put me up at the commission hotel, the Sheraton. A bit posh for my plebeian tastes. Activist (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a pretty good eye, are not afraid to be critical, and you've been observant of the KK article. I just added a travel section. If you have time, would you mind taking a look at it? That would be much appreciated. Thanks! Activist (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Activist: If someone else deletes your new "Travel" section as biased editing, I would support the deletion. Similar to your quote from Ward, I'm concerned that it seems to straddle the line, if it doesn't cross it. You seem to have reasonable citations and acceptable language for the subject matter. I'm concerned that it may seem like carping on something close to trivial, similar to Trump's private sexist remarks to other males: If we weren't worried about the other things Kobach is doing, we would not likely worry about that -- AND it weakens our case to even mention it. Only yesterday a collaborator convinced me to remove 10 percent of what I'd written about something else, because that 10 percent raised issues that were not needed for the main points we wanted to make: We'd more likely lose more than we gained from that extra verbiage. Some in the ultra-right already believe that Wikipedia is a communist plot and can not be trusted. I'm concerned that too much carping about matters like this that might seem fairly minor could feed into that mindset. (For my comments regarding Wikipedia as a communist plot, search for "fact checking" in v:Winning the War on Terror to find especially a comment that, "Three groups of people are generally more careful about checking their facts than the public at large: Investigative journalists, University professors, and Wikipedians. All three have been under attack.")

I don't know the right answer. You asked what I thought.

Thanks for your work on this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll answer on my own Talk page, and I'll see if I can't whittle it down a bit. Activist (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hugely busy, but have pecked away at the KK article until this morning, when I finally got on it a bit. I answered the notice placed by one editor who wanted abbreviations (i.e., the ACLU or LWV) spelled out. I also supplied some cites and removed that notice too, and will add more as I have time. The article has 144 cites. As far as the neutrality issue, I think the article is solid. Wikipedia editors are not required to be fan club members or Panglossian. I'm going to make it better and I hope I don't try your patience until I'm finished. Thanks for your advice so far. It's been very helpful. I don't know how you tell how many hits an article has received, but I expect it has ramped up considerably in the past eight months, for obvious reasons. I've been editing it for over three years. Activist (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry about trying my patience as long as you (a) seem to be making an effort to understand what others write and respond with respect, and (b) don't repeat your talking points in ways that suggest you have not read what others wrote.

Some people may be honestly evil and deceitful, but I think it's unwise to assume that unless there seems no other way to explain a pattern of behavior that clearly indicates they repeat a set of standard talking points that suggest that they don't read what others wrote. The behaviors I've seen in challenging your edits, for example, have not yet convinced me that the person was not making a good faith effort to understand and support the rules. As long as we can keep them engaged in honest dialogue that does not become repetitious, I think we can make progress. Yes, it can take more time than you or I may think should be necessary. However, the product will likely be better, less likely to offend people who may be concerned about the issues Kobach raises but still are willing to listen.

To get page views, click on "View History"; if your window is narrow, it will be under the "More" tab. Then click on "Page view statistics". That will give you the page views by day over the past 20 days. To see more, click on the button "Latest 20" and select, e.g., "90". When I did this just now, I got 47,474 (522/day) for the Kobach article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recently reviewed your (once upon a time) new article Julia Cagé. I just wanted to pop in and say "Good job": Good job.

The only comment I have is that in the future if you translate an article, I might recommend adding the {{translated}} template to the talk page, for attribution reasons. menaechmi (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for adding new materials to the article. However, it's expected that you add citations to reliable sources to maintain the verifiablity policy. Thanks again. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I provided links to the original on Wikisource. I can put that as a footnote. Will that be adequate?

For sure, the original should be considered the ultimate. (The Wikipedia rule about "No original research" "is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Clearly there is nothing more reliable in this case than the original.)

To be precise, I use the Wikisource copy, both the Wikisource transcription and the pdf images of the original. The official copy from "https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/declasspart4.pdf" has never come up for me when I've tried it. That almost certainly is an effort of the Deep state in the United States to muddy the record and limit the dissemination of this information.

Please let me know if you see a better way to cite this.

I plan to copy this to Talk:The 28 Pages, because I believe it would be more appropriate there. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DavidMCEddy! We talked at Wikimania about this limitation on the pageview stats tools. I think that FDans_ would likely have some insights about why this limitation exists and maybe how you can get around it. He's here too so maybe he'll notice the ping and respond :) --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 07:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Xevus11. DavidMCEddy, thanks for creating AmaBhungane!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I dont mean the advertisement tag too seriously, the page could use some balance work is all.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Xevus11 (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please include the source of your information. deisenbe (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe: Thanks. Done. I also posted a photo of a memorial plaque to Wikimedia Commons: File:Lynching of Levi Harrington1882-04-03.jpg. I have fantasies of creating a Wikipedia article about this also, but I don't know if I'll be able to create time for that. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasa review the formatting I have done on your references. deisenbe (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe: Sure. That's fine.

I tend to use Wikidata for citations, e.g., {{cite Q|Q59420225}} = Ray Raphael (2002), The First American Revolution, The New Press, Wikidata Q59420225.

Now before I cite something, I look for it in Wikidata. If I don't find it, it often invites me to create it, which I do. If it doesn't invite me to create it, I click "Create a new item" on the left. For a book with a subtitle, I enter the main title then the "title: subtitle" as an "alias". Then "Create". Then "add statement", and it suggests "properties", e.g., "instance of". I click "add statement" until it doesn't suggest anything that I want to add.

I did not do that with these references, because I was short of time. I may do it later.

I did not start doing this until I was at a Wikiconference and could ask someone for help. If you want to try it, feel free to ask me questions. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You probably noticed the new page Likelihoodist statistics, but if not, I figured you'd be interested (and may have something to contribute!). Enjoy!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

props for clearing out that article puggo (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First I want to thank you for your contributions to wikipedia and helping us maintain a neutral pov.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_discrimination&oldid=903968918

I recently made these edits. They are cited by this article (though you can find others):

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/are-jews-white/509453/

On the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racial_discrimination

some seem to disagree that the Jews were discriminated against. These seem to be the same people who believe that the holocaust never existed. Nick is just a really bad person. At this point, I believe I need administrative help.

Nick has a track record of stalking and disruptively reverting my contributions to wikipedia. I was hoping Nick could be blocked from editing, or that a report be submitted against him, at the very least. His abusive behavior is getting out of hand.

People like him also launched several smear-campaigns, simply because I wrote about some things that are well-sourced and well-documented that does not fit their chauvinistic point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Xinjiang_Pages_and_User%3AAlexkyoung Alexkyoung (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input on this urgent issue. Wikipedia has no space for such bullying and abuse.

[posted 2019-06-29T05:13:14‎ by Alexkyoung]

@Alexkyoung: Have you tried Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (see also v:Wikipedia arbitration committee)?

I'm overwhelmed with other projects and really can't spare the time required to do anything more useful than just this. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Fish v. Kobach into Voter impersonation (United States). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this.

1. I provided a link from "Voter impersonation (United States)" to "Fish v. Kobach". I gather from your comments that's not adequate.
2. I added a condensation of that other article, including the first sentence and just over half of the section on "Findings of fact and conclusions of law", including some of the key references.
3. I was the primary author of that other article, as can be verified by checking the "History".

Thanks for providing links to these other policy pages. I will check them if I feel a need to do something similar in the future. DavidMCEddy (talk)

Hi, David: I just noticed via the community radio station list's Talk page that you reinstated KJAC. IMO, this is not a community station but more along the lines of University of Pennsylvania's WXPN, another public, AAA station. The difference is that stations like WXPN and KJAC may be owned by non-profits but they're staffed by professionals. By contrast, the people on the air staffs at community radio stations are largely if not entirely volunteers. What then qualifies KJAC as a community station? I searched their website for the word "volunteer" and found nothing to indicate a direct connection between KJAC and volunteerism. Allreet (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Allreet: Thanks for the correction.

In the future, may I suggest you put these kinds of comments in the Talk page associated with the article in question, because your comments on this issue seem relevant to the general question of what should and should not be included in that article?

FYI, you may know that {{re|Allreet}} is supposed to notify user:Allreet that a message for them was posted in a certain page.

DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply...and the tip on talk procedures and messaging. Allreet (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wyandotte County map

This shows a map of the county. It’s mostly KCK but also has lake Quivira and Edwardsville and Bonner Springs. It shows you were KCK used to be. It was a tiny little spot on the East part. I don’t know the history as much as I know the current demographics. PanamanianBlanco (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping educate me. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the city was falling to pieces, so what they did is unified with the county to save their economy which gave them Open land In the west. Then They built the Kansas Speedway and the Legends Outlets Kansas City and Children's Mercy Park which made the economy rebound. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanamanianBlanco (talk • contribs) 13:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DavidMCEddy,

There was some irony in your recent comment at Talk:Non-binary gender where you took someone to task about the appicability of the NOTFORUM policy, thus:

The Wikipedia guidelines on "WP:NOTFORUM" apply to articles but not the associated "Talk" pages.

I think you may be confused about the WP:NOTFORUM guideline policy and how it relates to articles and Talk pages, as the quote above is not accurate. The relevant policy excerpt is this one:

[A]rticle talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article.

After scolding the other editor (erroneously) about their allusion to NOTFORUM, you then proceeded to violate it yourself, in your comments to the IP user. Another alert editor spotted this, removing your response as well as the original IP question from the Talk page as not appropriate per NOTFORUM. I was not involved in this removal, but support it as accurate per Wikipedia policy. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Understood.

You may further note that I did not contest the second deletion.

On the other hand, in general, I think deleting contributions to a Talk page to be a relatively hostile act, contrary to WP:AGF. With my previous deletion on that page, I accept that I erred in restoring the previous deletion. Your deletion of 2019-11-16T05:07:23 on Talk:Non-binary gender seems to me to err on the other side.

However, I do not wish to spend my time in an edit war over this.

During the Freedom Riders#Nashville Student Movement continuation, Bull Conner, Commissioner of Public Safety of Birmingham, Alabama, drove the protesters 'back up to the Tennessee line and dropped them off, saying, "I just couldn't stand their singing."'

Nonviolence is "A Force More Powerful" than violence, on average, as documented by the research of Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, who created an inventory of all the major violent and nonviolent governmental change efforts of the twentieth century. "Their data shows that 26 % of the violent revolutions were successful, while 53 % of the nonviolent campaigns succeeded. Moreover, looking at change in democracy (Polity IV scores) suggest that nonviolence promotes democracy while violence promotes tyranny."

This works, because violence tends to drive people off the sidelines to support one's opposition, while nonviolent acceptance of imposed suffering tends to attract sympathy and support. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Just a couple of thoughts:

I think deleting contributions to a Talk page to be a relatively hostile act.

Well, I suppose I can see why the person whose contribution was deleted might think so; but there was no ill will and malevolence, or a desire to thwart and injure behind it, so it wasn't at all hostile, despite how it might seem to you. The deletion was merely according to Wikipedia policy. There are some deletions that occur on Talk pages that are required by law, some that are mandated by policy, some that are recommended by guideline or policy, and some that are edge cases. This one probably fell in the "recommended by policy" category, afaict, but other editors might see it differently.

Your deletion of 2019-11-16T05:07:23 on Talk:Non-binary gender seems to me to err on the other side.

I did not delete anything from the page, as the history for that edit clearly shows. Please see WP:ARCHIVE.

It was nice to be reminded what a bozo Bull Connor was, but I really didn't understand the point of the second half of your comment. Unless it was intended as a back-handed swipe at people who delete comments from Talk pages, likening them to a racist, segregation-era southern-state sheriff who turned fire hoses and attack dogs on peaceful protesters. In which case, see passive-aggressive behavior. (P.S. I won't be back here, so you not only have the last word, but you can bring on the dogs without fear of reprisal or response; unless you specifically request one.) Have a great day! Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Literate programming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bash (check to confirm | 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) 09:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you thanked me for my coronavirus pandemic edit. Just wanted to say no problem. It was outdated by 3 days, and that is a lot regarding current pandemics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi=3.14(Nick) (talk • contribs) 23:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve created several articles from scratch, uploaded numerous photos for documentation, and made hundreds of edits, and this is the one thing I get thanked for on Wikipedia? 😂 Lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam&oldid=prev&diff=950430901
Stay safe and healthy, —PowerPCG5 (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johncdraper: Thanks for suggesting the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. A co-author suggested I submit an article on Wikiversity:Forecasting nuclear proliferation to the United States Naval Institute Proceedings. I've since learned about a journal called The Nonproliferation Review. However, that's on hold pending adequate progress on organization the October 3 virtual forum I mentioned on the Local Journalism Sustainability Act.

I'm also Secretary of PeaceWorks Kansas City, which is affiliated with the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. I don't have time to follow up on all these threads. So I make priorities and do first what I think is most important. Other things may not get done. If any of this might support your priorities, let's talk. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in helping you get that article published (preferably in a peer-reviewed or US DoD-related publication) Then, people at various international NGOs are more likely to sit up and take notice. BTW, I estimate there are only a dozen important nuclear conflict related pages on Wikipedia. Getting them rated into Top, High, and Mid might not take that long. Johncdraper (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johncdraper: The two journals I mentioned are both peer reviewed. My co-author on Wikiversity:Forecasting nuclear proliferation has extensive experience with the US DoD and recommended we publish in the United States Naval Institute Proceedings partly on that basis. I don't know if he had even heard of The Nonproliferation Review before I mentioned it to him. That suggests to me that The Nonproliferation Review may not be well known in the DoD. Your comments suggests to me that I might be best submitting the article to the United States Naval Institute Proceedings after making sure I've appropriately cited relevant material in recent issues of The Nonproliferation Review.  ???

If there are "a dozen important nuclear conflict related pages on Wikipedia", I think it's more important to make sure they are appropriately categorized and interlinked than getting them rated within Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations.  ??? Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk)

I know quite a few journals in this subject area and have been published in one of them. US DoD tends to be more pragmatic and stats focused. I would certainly be happy to proof it. On rating, I once worked in a rather large library; rating and categorizing are all part of the same Dewey logic-based system. Johncdraper (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. I'm currently over committed. I have a manuscript on Wikiversity:Forecasting nuclear proliferation that I had planned to submit to the United States Naval Institute Proceedings. After I complete a revision I have planned, I'll send you the link. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Voter caging into Voter suppression in the United States. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me of this policy. I'm sorry: I had completely forgotten your earlier note on this. I'm the lead author of the Fish v. Kobach as well as earlier mentions of the associated legal case, which (as you noted) I copied into this article. I hope I can remember to do this with any similar future copying. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to you again tomorrow. KarenJoyce (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Thx. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KarenJoyce: See:

Wikipedia articles on Julia Cagé (counts as of 2020-12-12)

language	views last 30 days	pageview link
fr	16,959	info
en	3,527	info
de	291	info
ca	17	info

Thanks again for your help. DavidMCEddy (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KarenJoyce: @Alelapenya: @Marcelo: @Taichi:

The following summarizes my understanding of the history of this article, including a couple of things I did not understand before just now:

• On 2019-07-03 an article on Cagé produced by someone else was deleted saying, "Relevance not demonstrated after 30 days".
• On 2020-11-28, I mistakenly pressed "Publish" with only 10-15% of the article completed. It was nominated for speedy deletion saying: 'G3' : promotion or self-promotional, advertising or containing much unnecessary praise that does not support a 'neutral wording' . 'A4' : Page without relevance ' encyclopedic '. I tried to respond, but I failed to do so effectively and in the space they wanted.
• On 2020-11-29 my premature publication of the first 10-15% of this article was deleted.
• On 2020-12-05, eight days after I had first created the article, I published the complete article. The majority of the time spent creating that article was entering 44 references into Wikidata, so they could be more easily used in other articles and better maintained.
• 2020-12-06T19:15 the complete article was deleted, almost certainly without any review of the content.
• 2020-12-06T19:41, 26 minutes later, the article was deleted a second time, and my account was blocked.

I didn't know until just now that the article had been deleted twice on 2020-12-06, with 26 minutes between the deletions. I only became aware of the problem after I was blocked.

I believe that the first deletion on 2020-12-06 occurred while I was actively updating that article, improving the presentation based on input from a Nicaraguan friend. I did not know it had been deleted. When I pressed "publish" of my changes, the article was apparently recreated. The administrator who had deleted the article at 2020-12-06T19:15 decided I was edit warring and blocked me while deleting the article for the second time in 26 minutes.

I don't know, but I suspect that the administrators of the Spanish-language Wikipedia see me as an editor who refuses to listen to reason. However, I did NOT intentionally recreate the article 26 minutes after it had been deleted. I think it happened, because I was actively editing the article when it was deleted, and I didn't even know the article had been deleted and I recreated it.

From my perspective, I've so far failed to find any means of getting a response from any administrator of the Spanish-language Wikipedia to any of my explanations, justifications of why I think this article is important and reasonable, and why I should be unblocked.

Any help with overcoming this misunderstanding will be appreciated. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you're looking for es:Usuario:Alelapenya and es:Usuario:Marcelo KarenJoyce (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:The Beacon (Kansas City), from its old location at User:DavidMCEddy/The Beacon (Kansas City). This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]