User talk:1990'sguy/Archive 2

Thank you

1990's Guy,

I would like to thank you for your support about the Ken Ham article. Unfortunately, the skeptics that own/rule this website are accusing me of inciting a riot. But it means a lot that you care enough to thank me for the changes.

—Zachary Snell

Zsnell443 (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zsnell443: I do appreciate your edits to the article. :) Unfortunately, it is essentially impossible to remove their bias -- I've tried for a while unsuccessfully. If you are unable to make your changes there, I recommend CreationWiki or Conservapedia, which offer a different point of view on creation. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: Thank you, I will be sure to look into that. I appreciate the alternative source.

Zsnell443 (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zsnell443: CreationWiki and Conservapedia do not meet our standards for reliable sourcing. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thompson: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that anything conservative/Christian was not valid on Wikipedia. Zsnell443 (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zsnell443: That's not it at all. Conservative and Christian are not identical, so the slash is not entirely accurate. There are conservative atheists, conservative Jews (who may or may not be Conservative Jews), conservative Buddhists, conservative Hindus... Likewise, Young Earth Creationism was not crucified for humanity's sake, so that is not what defines a Christian. If you think that popularity matters so much, most Christians outside of America (and a significant portion in America) accept Theistic evolution.

When it comes to politics or religion, all Wikipedia does is neutrally summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources (as is relevant, journalistic sources generally more relevant to current and local events than to history or science). Wikipedia sticks to mainstream science. There is no denying that mainstream science has found evolution to be the surest explanation for how life started on earth. "Why" is still left up to the reader to decide. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I think Zsnell 443 is referring to theologically conservative Christians (I prefer the term "orthodox" over "conservative", but it is the same thing). However, it is also true that WP has a bias against political conservatism. Even Wikipedia admits this: Criticism of Wikipedia#Partisanship and Reliability of Wikipedia#Liberal bias. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not that's true, it has nothing to do with evolution and creationism. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia using mainstream sources, so of course it presents the scientific view as the main view. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the Cookies

I've been intrigued with Wikipedia for a while. Thanks for your help/advice. I was trying to add some clarifying information, but it seems it sometimes gets canceled/reverted. Impressed with your comments on your home page. Is there a way to talk offline in Wikipedia, or is everything public?

Again, thanks for the welcome. (And am I doing this right?) Boeldieu (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Boeldieu: You're welcome, and I do appreciate your edits. Most Wikipedia editors (along with the wider culture) are biased against YEC-related topics, and that is the main reason why your edits are reverted -- I've tried a lot to make the content more neutral, but it is very difficult. I do have an email address that I use for my accounts: 1990sguysdg@gmail.com Feel free to contact me there. :) --1990'sguy (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Boeldieu: As the person who reverted most of your edits, I'd like to clarify that I didn't do so because I'm "biased against YEC-related topics", I did so largely because they weren't in line with our manual of style. This is a set of conventions that Wikipedia, like any publication, uses to maintain internal consistency. For example, we usually don't use academic titles ("Dr.") and post-nominals ("PhD") when referring to people, because this clutters up the prose with no other purpose than to aggrandise the person they're attached to. We also don't link to external websites in prose; relevant links are instead collected together into an "External links" section. Two other important Wikipedia policies are verifiability and neutral point of view, and some of your edits have fallen afoul of them too. You should never add information that can't be verified by a reliable source.

NPOV is especially important in articles about a fringe viewpoint like YECism. Regardless of your personal views on creationism, you must take care that anything you add to Wikipedia conforms to a neutral point of view, i.e. it reflects the fact that the vast majority of reliable sources consider YECism a pseudoscientific, fundamentalist religious idea with no basis in reality. Going out of your way to emphasise the educational credentials and supposed scientific expertise of the people who appear in a creationist film looks a lot like you are trying to editorialise in favour of creationism, which is not consistent with a neutral point of view. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

More silly templating. I marked it out. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Controversies in Genesis

I've apparently started a controversy on Answers in Genesis when I tried to remove bias from the page. While I have been on Wikipedia for years, I am a mere "casual Wikipedian"; I do not wish to make the Answers in Genesis article refute or deny Evolution in its POV, I merely wish to make it accurately describe AiG. I myself am a Christian, but I realize that certain things that I do not believe must be written as fact on Wikipedia. (due to reporting from "reliable" sources like CNN, NBC News, Salon, Associated Press, etc.... * rolls eyes *)

You have quite a resume, and I am quite sure that you are much better in this line of work than I am. Can you please join the conversation regarding my proposed edits here (Talk:Answers_in_Genesis#Bias.3F)? AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 21:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@AKA Casey Rollins: I will. I have tried a lot in the past to improve the wording in the AiG, Creation Museum, and Ken Ham articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@AKA Casey Rollins: Would you please contact me at "1990sguysdg@gmail.com"? --1990'sguy (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: Sorry, I don't give my email address to Wikipedia users. If you read my user page at User:AKA Casey Rollins I say that I'm paranoid as far as identify theft is concerned. Feel free to PM me on my talk page, though. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 14:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@AKA Casey Rollins: OK, that's fair. I don't blame you -- that's why I created an email address solely for my wiki accounts (here and on the several other websites I edit on). I asked because sometimes it is better to keep conversations confidential, rather than have the entire wiki community see them. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello 1990'sguy. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih^Talk 16:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Alex Shih^Talk 16:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Template removal

Hey. Do not remove templates placed by another contributor until the issue has been resolved; this instruction is even in the template itself [1]. Thanks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Thomas Hughes

As far as I can tell, you didn't do anything wrong with your review here, and I hope the bot's edit didn't give the impression you did. Just remember in the future to keep the |ts= param when declining (it makes sure things go into the right categories). There is a user script that makes reviewing much less painless so you don't need to mess with template magic. — Earwig ^talk 07:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Earwig: Thank you for your help. I am still learning how to do this, and I first learned about the user script yesterday. I will resume with the reviews today. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Idea

I have an Idea Now for the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security we should make a page called Military appointments by Donald Trump. Becuse the President can make Military appointments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security

here are some more jobs the President can appoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cardillo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geospatial-Intelligence_Agency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_J._Sapp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Reconnaissance_Office

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_Defense_Intelligence_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Intelligence_Agency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Robinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Northern_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_W._Tidd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Southern_Command

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Votel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Central_Command

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_W._McDew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Transportation_Command

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense

If we could get this done that will be so great if we can work on this togaver quitly and then show the other Users maybe some of them can help and like it so are you with me on this or not? Afther this we will Make Wikipedia Great Again! And about my Spelling I am a Spical Needs person so ya. ADHD.

Thank you for your request, and I understand with the spelling. However, if you want to split DoD and DHS appointments into a new article, a better place for such a request is at Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump. I think you made such a request already, and if there is no consensus for such a move, I don't want to interfere. However, I think that the president also makes military appointments separate from political DoD and DHS appointments. If you want to make a military appointments page with those appointments without splitting the DoD and DHS sections, I'm all in and will help where I can. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User LacrimosaDiesIlla

Hi 1990'sguy this user LacrimosaDiesIlla is Undoing my usefull edits on this page I made the White House Chief of Staff Gray and Added John Kelly to that section becuse he is the new White House Chief of Staff and user LacrimosaDiesIlla is saying Gray has no meaning and it has Gray listed as

Individual took office with no Senate consent needed And The Job is not Senate doing

Its in this table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_Donald_Trump%27s_Cabinet#The_Cabinet

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your edits. While I want to help, I think it is better if you go to the talk page and explain your position to LacrimosaDiesIlla. That way we can solve this dispute and come to an understanding without an edit war. Either way, I think the article could be clarified so readers are not confused. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Genesis History?

I've been biting my tongue about Jytdog's behaviour at Is Genesis History? since the AfD closed, and now others are piling on with threats and "warnings", I just wanted to say I for one think your handling of things there has been exemplary. I certainly wouldn't have been able to keep my cool as well as you have. – Joe (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment -- I appreciate it. I must admit, it is hard for me to put up with Jytdog, so it's good to hear that I'm handling things right. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Political appointments... RFC

Looks like this RFC is actually this RFC from August 7, 2017. I've removed the ID and a new one will be placed for the new RFC by a bot. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 20:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: The bot removed the template for the ambassador/career diplomat RfC again. Though the consensus is clear, I would like someone to close the RfC, but since nobody has done this, I'm not sure why the bot did what it did. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, guy, I forgot about this and got busy with school work. I don't think there is any policy against one of us closing it – unless someone specifically said they want an uninvolved editor to close it. The RFC expired (regardless of whether or not it's been closed as they only last a certain time) so it's time we close it. If you don't want to since you created the RFC, I can do it. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 13:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I took care of it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Steve King

Here is the link to the Steve King vote https://www.c-span.org/video/?435203-1/us-senate-debates-federal-reserve-board-nomination&start=29550 this is the time it's on 08:12:30 https://www.c-span.org/video/?435203-1/us-senate-debates-federal-reserve-board-nomination&start=29550#

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

And here is Barbara Lee https://lee.house.gov/news/press-releases/congresswoman-lee-appointed-democratic-congressional-representative-to-the-united-nations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right -- and now that the U.S. Senate website has updated the list of confirmed nominations, I can see that it also affirms this. Thanks!. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I have noticed your consistent desire and effort to make Wikipedia a great place for information. Here's a link to my draft I'm waiting for approval maybe you can help with that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dwight_Williams I am creating this page for the Army All-American Football Athlete Dwight Williams Nflpa (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nflpa: Thank you for the barnstar! I will look over your AfC, to see if it is something I would feel comfortable reviewing. I skip over many AfCs that I look at because I don't feel I will be able to make a good judgment on them. --12:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Miller RFC

Consensus for the RfC seems to be remove. Would you go ahead and remove it? If you don't want to do it, I would do it myself.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Certified Gangsta: As much as I really want to remove that biased mention, an administrator (or at least a non-involved editor) probably should close the RfC. The !vote tally is 9 (remove) to 6 (remove), which means that 60% is to remove. It's a clear majority, but probably not enough for a speedy close. Hopefully, more "remove" !voters will take part in the RfC, which would help achieve a consensus to remove. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Pssst...

Here's a fine addition in your collection of userboxes, which I accidently found at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/humour: User:Conservapedia Slightlymad 10:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: Thanks for the suggestion, and yes, I do think CP is a great site (obviously, since you probably know that I edit it; I keep my activities and behavior on both sites separate). However, the fact that this userbox was found in the "humor" section makes me very reluctant to put it on my user page. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I believe it was just misplaced, considering there's a separate user box for those who find this site horrendous: Slightlymad 04:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This user finds Conservapedia hilarious.

That could be true -- many WP editors, however, hate CP and might see the infobox as sarcasm. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

in what world

is this "unimportant info"? Also, I went and put your punctuation correction back in with subsequent edit so that part of your edit summary is false as well. Volunteer Marek  13:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Yes it is unimportant (if I and other people on the Right think Obama is a socialist, does that belong in the intro of his article?), and you only fixed the quotation marks, while I fixed the placement of all the periods and commas in the paragraph, so my edit summary is correct. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: By the way, you're obviously invited to participate at the RfC I started on Bannon's talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

False equivalence. If you had lots of reliable sources calling him "socialist" we could say that. But you don't. Here we do have reliable sources, and even Republicans calling him that, not to mention the contacts between Bannon, Yiannopolous and neo-Nazis. So please try this apples and oranges somewhere else.  Volunteer Marek  13:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and it's great that you started an RfC. Except that 1) the wording doesn't say "white supremacist". 2) While RfC is ongoing the appropriate version is the status quo version which is this one. So please self-revert. An RfC isn't magical "protect my edit warring" dust you sprinkle on your reverts. Volunteer Marek  13:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Mmmm, nm, I see that the info was added right before that by another editor. But then the whole paragraph should be removed. Volunteer Marek  13:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• I see your RFC was hatted because it was, in fact, malformed. Also, please review WP:RFC. You really should have some sort of discussion on the matter before resorting to RFC. I was looking for a talk page discussion, and there was absolutely nothing. This could be construed as gaming the system, because you essentially prevent all editing on the topic for the 30 days or so that the RFC is going on. Please start a discussion on the article's TP. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

That was the purpose of the RfC -- getting a talk page consensus discussion. I have no underlying motives for an RfC and enjoy using it because it is the easiest and clearest way of gaining a consensus. The two editors who opposed the very existence of the RfC are Leftists, based on their edit and talk page comment histories. I take their comments about my RfC with even less than a grain of salt. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert : post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people

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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

Doug Weller talk 18:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

01:34:28, 26 October 2017 review of submission by Mursimon

• Mursimon (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tom Palazzolo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I investigated your comments and don't quite know how to distinguish a resume from an encyclopedic entry. I see many artists pages that are filled with exhibition, art exhibitions, publications, awards and grants. It appears to be rather non-specific as to how much info is permitted or not. All I could gather is that I have listed too many of Tom's accomplishments and that reducing the number of entries would make it more acceptable to you (which, at this point, is what this is all about). I have increased the number of sources and hope that this will make the sourcing less weak. When commenting on some artists having many references, I'm referring to people such as "Roger Brown", Chicago artist who has an incredibly long list of credits. Thanks for any advice you may have. Murray Mursimon (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mursimon: Overall, your draft needs more prose. Having only bullet points makes it look like a resume, and since this is an encyclopedia article and not a resume or simple profile or list, the draft should be in prose, discussing Palazzolo's life and career. It's the prose that really shows how be is notable. While the Roger Brown (artist) has a list that is ridiculously long, it also has a lot of prose that discusses his life and career. Readers are generally more interested in that part of the biography. You probably don't have to remove much, if any, of the bullet points (though I question the "grants" section), since they are his works. But the prose should definitely be expanded a lot.

While not my reason for declining the draft, I also recommend adding more in-line citations to the article, particularly the bullet points. I see that only some of them are cited (I'm sure that all the information is in the external links section, and that's fine, but it's always good to know where exactly everything came from). When you add more prose, I also recommend adding the in-line citations. I hope my advice helps. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC

There's an RFC you may wish to comment on here: Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump#Request for comment on tracking progress of nominations. Marquardtika (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain these comments on a Conservapedia article you edit?

I don't expect "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia"[2] to be fair, but don't you guys have anything like our BLP policy? Eg "Another user called User:Grayfell, was accused of abusing his power for also deleting and blocking any user who disagreed with his views. He has also been confirmed to be a sockpuppet, as he made other accounts which agreed with his edits, and attacked those who did not. Those fraudulent accounts are User:Eden5, User:Nasty, and User:I am One of Many." I added the links. This is nonsense. Grayfell isn't an Admin, the other accounts aren't socks. "A user who is from Serbia called User:Vanjagenije, is inappropriately editing pages that are related to the United States, even though he has never lived in America." Is there some sort of Conservapedia policy that you can't edit an article about a country unless you've lived there? "Another user named Doug Weller and his brother User:C.Fred both Canadian, have been going to any anti-trump pages and prohibiting anyone from editing anything pro-trump. They both have admin privileges. User User:Bakilas and User Doug Weller have removed edit summaries, so that people cannot see the history of edits. They both have removed verified information that did not agree with their far-left political beliefs." I'm not Canadian, C.Fred isn't Canadian (like me, he's from the American South) or my brother. I don't haunt anti-Trump pages, in fact as a matter of practice I generally stay away from anything specifically about him. Bakilas can't remove edit summaries and although I can, you know I'd get caught if I did it for political reasons. I'm also not far-left and it doesn't look as though Bakilas is. I don't know who is responsible for these lies - they're so blatantly false it's hard to call them anything else. About the only accurate thing is the statement that C.Fred and I are Admins. I know you didn't write them but you did edit 2 hours after the edit about Grayfell and Vanjagenije.[3] I'll be interested in your comments. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Here are the diffs of the info being added:[4][5] Two accounts added this info, and these were the only edits they ever made (thus, they're inactive). I believe these two accounts are socks with each other, based on a comment by an admin with checkuser rights.

I did edit the section right after the person made the first edit, in order to add permalinks. I had no interest in the content when the guy added the info -- what concerned me was the fact that he didn't add permalinks -- but I assumed this person had a bad experience here (which does happen, and sometimes it's not the fault of those people) and created an account on CP to add it. But since you brought it up, I looked at the content in question and since you appear to be right, I removed it. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Your explanation doesn't make much sense when you linked the page to your user page because you thought it had relevant content.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@I am One of Many: What do you mean? If you're referring to my CP user page (which D.W.) linked above for some reason, I only linked to it once in order to remind myself to eventually get around to adding additional info and improving it. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And no, CP doesn't have any policies about editing articles about countries. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that they were one off edits and checked to see if the usernames matched any here. They don’t. Thanks for removing it, but the edits were there 7 and 5 months. Who knows how long they’d be there if I hadn’t noticed them? What I’ve learned from this is that Conservapedia doesn’t seem to care much about BLPs and certainly not at all about sources. Doug Weller talk 20:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding it. CP has no effective policies for BLPs or for sourcing anything, but reliably providing information is not their goal, but rather promoting right-wing-religious propaganda.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn’t mean to link to your user page. I’ve got s program that stores clips and selected the wrong one. Doug Weller talk 21:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring warning Nov 2017

I am very, very close to bringing you to AE.

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

More of the same. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Your threats about discretionary sanctions and reporting behavior have become quite frequent. I am thinking it would be helpful if you could cite which aspect of the final decision you feel is being violated. Otherwise, we are kind of guessing at what you are taking exception to. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no "threat". We have DS to deal with persistent disruption driven by advocacy on contentious issues. I have already provided him with notice of the DS and am giving very, very fair warning that we actually apply them. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: So, you consider his reversions, even if they do not run afoul of 3RR, to be "persistent disruptions", then? Are you recommending that he note every edit he disagrees with on the talk page before/instead of reverting them? I'm honestly just trying to get to the crux of the biscuit here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not OK to use editing privileges for advocacy. We get people doing that anyway of course, but advocacy for pseudoscience got so bad that we have DS on that specifically. 1990s guy is establishing a very clear pattern of pseudoscience advocacy.

With this comment you are now INVOLVED on this matter. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not advocating for YEC (and don't use the word "pseudoscience", as I don't even access the articles of other topics) -- I think that your preferred wording is inaccurate, does not follow the source, and does not describe AiG's positions well. That's far from "advocacy", and I don't even edit YEC topics a lot compared to politics. Your response, Jytdog, shows a lack of WP:AGF. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I see. I was hoping that there was some procedural correction that could be effected that would alleviate your concerns, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Whether 1990'sguy's editing constitutes advocacy or not is a matter of opinion. I also find it interesting that you seem to have fired an unnecessary preemptive shot by citing WP:INVOLVED, as though you believe I was preparing to take some kind of admin action to which you would object. If you can cite evidence, beyond the fact that he and I happen to agree in our personal beliefs about YEC, that I have been preparing for such action, please do so. Otherwise, I second 1990'sguy's admonition about WP:AGF. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Acdixon. Its not about procedure but about where 1990s guy has been coming from. Whether someone's editing is advocacy is not just opinion, but rather is something that can be demonstrated with diffs, which I will be doing at AE if 1990s guy continues as they have been. It will not be the first time that I have demonstrated that someone has a very clear pattern of advocating for something in a way that disrupts the project.

With regard to the INVOLVED thing. Look at it from my perspective. DS are under discussion, and a person with admin rights steps in and asks questions..... I was actually surprised to see you go weigh in at the article. Clearly you didn't post here originally as an admin -- but that was not clear at first. Now it is. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh -- and thanks for saying that you share 1990s guys YEC beliefs. I was unaware of that (if I was aware of it before, I forgot). Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I'm not sure what you think is thankworthy about saying I share 1990'sguy's YEC beliefs. I would very much like to hear you elaborate on that. Further, the fact that I have been editing YEC-related articles since at least 2014 without your being able to discern my personal beliefs should tell you much about my ability and desire to edit neutrally and within policy.

Regarding INVOLVED, I think if you examine my history as an admin, you'll find that I use the tools very sparingly and usually only in very clear-cut cases. I generally dislike getting into the weeds of administrivia or the conflict that comes from seeking or imposing sanctions in any case beyond obvious, consistent vandalism.

Finally, I'm well aware of much of 1990'sguy's editing history in the YEC realm, and I do not believe it constitutes advocacy of YEC or any of the related topics. He and I are both keenly aware of the dismal view that most folks take on the topic, and I think both of our editing histories show that we're not afraid to add material that is critical. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It is thankworthy because you didn't have to say it, and you did. I appreciate people being transparent. You are correct that I could have perhaps discerned that by looking at your edits. I have not done that and even so, that might not tell me that you come from that position.

With regard to INVOLVED, I have not studied your history of using the tools. Good to know that you use them carefully.

I do understand that you do not believe that 1990s guy is not establishing a pattern of advocacy.Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no COIs with AiG or other YEC organizations. Also, I try to adhere to NPOV when I edit YEC topics. What appears to be "advocacy" for you is simply differing opinions between us. Your (false) claims that I am an "advocate" for YEC (when that's not even the main topic I edit) say more about yourself than me. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have raised no concerns about COI. This is a pure advocacy issue as far as I can see. This is not about any bit of content but a long term pattern you are establishing of promoting YEC in Wikipedia. The best way to avoid advocacy is to reach for high quality, independent, and ideally scholarly sources and summarize what they say. If you find yourself constantly citing low quality sources or SPS, it probably means that the thing you are passionate about is driving your editing, instead of high quality sources driving your editing. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

When in the world have I cited bad sources? This dispute revolved around me conforming the wording to represent the source better. And if you're talking about IGH, the consensus was that the sources were just fine. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not about me throwing up arguments and you trying to knock them down, nor is this the actual AE, nor did I come here for dramah. I gave you something to consider about how we work here, and you can heed that or not. There are all kinds of things that advocates do and have always done here over the past 16 years. I think I have pointed you to these before, but please do read WP:ADVOCACY, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and all of NPOV, especially WP:YESPOV and of course WP:PSCI which is the locus of the DS. (and not just their letter, but try to hear their spirit). Please also review the comments of two uninvolved admins in the section above, here. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

IRS chief

He was appointed by Trump on October 26 and is effective as of Monday. Also an Assist. Secretary of Treasury. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 00:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Thanks. I didn't know that. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem! In the future, I think it'd be best to look up the person in question before removing so we don't have to revert all the time. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 13:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: If you're referring to an internet search, yes, I'll keep that in mind for the next time I see something like this. I usually look at the WP articles of the people in the acting position, but there was no article linked to Kautter's name, and I didn't know he was elsewhere in the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That's why I had inserted the comment <!-- Per WP:OVERLINK, we don't link his name due to it being listed above -->! But I see your point as well! Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 15:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops! My apologies, I didn't bother looking at the code when removing the comment, so it seemed to me that Kautter was just another career official appointed because he was next in line. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A User

Hi 1990'sguy as you know a user has been makeing changes to the Political appointments by Donald Trump. and that user been yelled at by all of us I think its time for someone to get a administrator. To send a werning to the User if you can please find one to like Worn not block the User that will be great. Thanks96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, 1990'sguy. 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)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy Holidays

This user wishes you a very Happy Holiday season.

Marquardtika (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: Thanks, and same to you! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Advertising

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Is Genesis History?. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Advertizing? I'm not surprised, considering these charges are coming from you, but I don't see how even fanatic zealots would see my edits as "advertizing." --1990'sguy (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:DTR. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Request on 09:03:01, 26 December 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by WeilSH

• WeilSH (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Shanghai Institute of American Studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article the Shanghai Institute of American Studies is rejected and your comment is that it should be neutral and refer to a wide range of reliable sources. I want to make improvements so I take articles in same category such like Chinese Academy of Sciences and Shanghai Academy of Social Science as reference.These articles are quite simple with few external links. I am a little confused and I wish you could help me improve it. First, am I right the reason why you think my article appearing to be advertisement is that I list too many publications without reference? Is that ok if I delete some items and make this part more concise. Second, since this insititute is located in China, the sources I refer to are mainly Chinese website, would that be ok if I don't refer to English websites? Thank you very much.

WeilSH (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@WeilSH: For the first point, you are correct. Essentially, (without plageriing) the draft should say whatever reliable sources also say about it. If no reliable sources (reputable publications, independent from article topic) discuss a certain part of the Shanghai Institute, that part should not be included in the article, or at the very least, only a very passing mention should be made about it. Otherwise, the draft looks like you're advertising for it. But when you add sources for the article, the sources generally should not have any connection with the Academy.

For the second point, using Mandarin-language websites (or any non-English website in general) is OK -- just as long as the sources meet WP:RS, the language doesn't matter. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello 1990'sguy: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Corky 02:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Hope you had a good Christmas, as well! Corky 02:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Thanks! I had a great Christmas, and I wish all the same to you as well! --1990'sguy (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning, again

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Your attitude is ridiculous. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully request you stop reverting my changes in the article of Greg Abbott. Your claim that my wording is POV is inaccurate. My statement does not dismiss her title of the first Latin First Lady of Texas. It simply clarifies that she has other lineages. Thanks. Julio P. 20:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Puentes (talk • contribs)

Claudia Tenney

Would you have a look at Claudia Tenney? Also Anthony Brindisi if you have a chance. Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Is Genesis History?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wheaton College (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) 09:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Stephen P. Vaughn

He didn't actually resign did he? Trump appointed him as General Counsel, and immediately elevated him to acting Trade Rep... to me he's like the other "acting" officials and wouldn't be placed in the "resigned" section... He should definitely be added above in the USTR section, though, since he is an appointee... Corky 01:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: True -- if you think he's better placed in the USTR section, I'm OK with that, just as long as he's placed somewhere. I knew that he is the general counsel, but I didn't think of keeping him in the main section since general counsel seems insignificant compared to the other listed positions (though I could be very wrong, and if so, please correct me). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, but we have added other positions that aren't necessarily notable as others... CIOs, human resources assistant secretary, etc... those who are appointed by Trump but doesn't need confirmation. Maybe we should set a "guideline" on who should be included? Vaughn was kind of a controversial one due to not working in the agency and immediately elevated to acting trade rep. I don't think we need to include he was the acting trade rep, though we can... Corky 02:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I think we should mention Vaughn's former status as acting USTR, since he clearly was a political appointee and because he led the entire agency for about three months. Guidelines might be a good idea, since agencies have a lot of non-confirmed political appointees (though I am not against allowing non-confirmed people be listed). --1990'sguy (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Ark Encounter. Your revert reintroduced deliberate factual errors. If you continue, I will ask for administrator intervention. jps (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I crossed out your stupidity, since you're the one inserting blatant POV into the article. Tell me what is factually incorrect about my wording? That it doesn't go out of its way to read like an atheist blog? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You may remove my message but you may not strike through it. If you cannot be bothered to learn why your creationist beliefs are incorrect, it's not my job to educate you. But you will find it unpleasant to work here. jps (talk)

I can do what I want with my talk page, and be thankful that I didn't delete the message outright. Please show me examples of how I'm somehow inserting YEC bias into the article? Because I oppose wording that makes the article read like "RationalWiki", or because I don't want the article to go out of its way to just to call YEC pseudoscience? And your latest comment is about my personal beliefs, rather than my editing -- which is inappropriate and is a borderline WP:PERSONAL attack (if I were writing an article from a YEC perspective, it would look a lot different from the wording I am proposing). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You are within your rights to delete the edit outright. You are not within your rights to put strikethrough around it. WP:TPO. jps (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@ජපස: Yes he is within his rights to strike your post as long as he does not change the meaning. Striking the whole post does not change its meaning. 86.153.129.239 (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

Hi 1990'sguy! I noticed that you have an interest in creating high quality content. I was wondering if you would be able to help out and be a co-reviewer for Margaret Thatcher. The article is already GA so the review should be straightforward. The review page is here and the A-Class criteria are here. Thanks! – Lionel^(talk) 06:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: Yes, I can do that. Thanks for asking me! --1990'sguy (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Trump appointees who've left the Administration

I don't see the point in keeping them on both pages... they've already decided to keep List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations after I had nominated it for deletion. Corky 04:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: If every person listed in that section is moved to and listed in the sub-article, I will self-revert. However, as I think I pointed out before, what will happen is the sub-article will grow larger and larger as more Trump Administration appointees resign (and most appointees in every administration don't serve for four-to-eight years). --1990'sguy (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Alrighty, I see that as an issue now. Do you know where the discussion is where we decided to keep those who have resigned from one position to take another within the Administration? There are others who are only mentioning my name in reference to that discussion and I know I'm not the only one who agreed to it... I want to point them to the right direction... Thanks, Corky 01:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: This might be the discussion where we decided this -- it's the only one that specifically discusses appointees who resigned to take up another Trump Administration position. However, this discussion might also be relevant. I hope this helps. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ueli Maurer

Hi! That information was placed so that when the Swiss Vice President Ueli Maurer assumes the presidency of the Confederation next year.--Stalin990 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Border article

Please self-revert this as it is currently being discussed on the article's talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Hi... I also edit Wikipedia. Actually, Wikipedia and RationalWiki (I can mention it here) are how I heard of Conservapedia in the first place. I was reading RationalWiki history on Wikipedia and it mentioned CP --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Anyway, thanks for saying hello. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Keith Kellogg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously

Seriously, though... All I did was simply state an opinion or corrected what I saw was wrong. And now I am blocked for eternity by your sysop... What rule did I violate? I was blocked for the crime of knowing more biology? I respected the website, and contributed a lot! This is UNJUST (though not unprecedented) --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian right, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Christian Coalition and National Restoration Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are you biased against me?

So,

• 1.I get blocked, ask you for help in e-mail, and you refuse to do ANYTHING
• 2.I get unblocked WITHOUT YOUR HELP (you refused to do ANYTHING about ANYTHING!!!) and you block me for "removing content"
• 3.Then you police my articles and upon finding the SLIGHTEST MISTAKE "warn" me
• 4.If I go to someone else's Talk page you cut in... AND ALWAYS try to make me look bad... If I talk to Andy or ask him a question, you jump in to show him how "worthless" I am.
• 5.I write something on your talk page... I get blocked for my views (My block LOG LITERALLY says that the reason I got blocked was MY VIEWS ABOUT EVOLUTION) you DO NOTHING!!!!!
• 6.When I ask a sysop, you revert my request so as not to let him see my request...

Do you do this to everyone or just me? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The first three (and #5) are easy -- CP is a conservative wiki (duh), so info should conform to its POV. Your edits did not (if it wasn't already obvious) -- and I'm the one who generally checks peoples' edits (yes, I do it with everyone). Also, I'm not going to change a ban by someone superior in rank to me (it's not allowed, and it's not good conduct even it is was) -- and remember, I wasn't the one who banned you. Also, you don't know about the "behind-the-scenes" conversations we have about matters like this (no, I'm not going to divulge).

About #4, it has nothing to do with your "worth", but your lack of understanding of CP's rules. You were obsessed with becoming an admin (though you literally just started and had been blocked more than once for bad behavior). It's not like RW -- it takes a long time and a lot of good edits that don't go against CP's POV. I don't even have full rights. Then you come and expect quick promotion? I find that offensive, actually.

I chose to respond to prevent you to correct these misconceptions, but I won't respond anymore on my talk page, since I don't want to discuss CP matters here. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to bother you again with CP stuff and I promise I will try my best not to bring up CP here with you...

Look, about my current situation. I do not protest my block. I understand that I broke my promise and started to heat up the situation... But I think 2 week block is ENOUGH ok... Lesson learned. Look, all I want you to do, is just let Karajou, when he is cooled down, see this... just let him read this, and in a COOL state of mind make a decision. First of all, I do not plan to continue arguing or pick a fight... I don't care too much. I just want to edit CP and be a member. I am not a troll. Like you have noted I was not a particularly big fan of RW was I? And in over a year I have created only mainspace articles. I have been blocked several times, I was once blocked, ironically, "for being a creationist."https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AKingdamian1&type=block Anyways, I wish to edit Conservapedia again... If I was only allowed to create pages again, I could improve CP significantly. For some reason, Karajou does not see this. I know, he is a good guy, he loves CP. But if you look at his block list, some people who are clearly there JUST TO DISRUPT are sometimes given 6 months. This is unfair. I know I am not perfect, I inserted leftist POV (though I am NOT leftist), but when corrected I always accepted it... Also, is it really such a big crime that I was arguing. I mean ok, lesson learned, right? Block is to prevent vandalism, can Karajou or you HONESTLY look at me and say that you are genuinely afraid I will vandalize CP? OF COURSE THE ANSWER IS NO! Neither of you think that even for a SECOND... Both of you know FULL WELL, that I respect CP, I respect the power structure, what the project is for. I heated up a discussion, I understand, I was blocked... And I accepted it, now can we move on? Can I continue editing Conservapedia? So again, I know you will see this, though you might not respond... All I ask you is let Karajou see this... That is all, let him pread this in calm state of mind, and decide whether blocking me is to prevent vandalism (which we all know is NOT gonna happen from me), or for something else... And btw, I am not a little kid, hungry for attention. I am younger than Karajou but that does not make me a little kid. Please, let him read this, let him see what I write and let him decide whether I am a danger to Conservapedia or am I being blocked for something else? I know, that my chances for being unblocked may not be good, but can I at least know, do I have a chance for later? And I can't state this enough... I AM NOT AN RW troll. I even provided my block log for you to see... I have kind of run out of traditional sock accounts to create... I would appreciate if you let me know that you understood and saw what I wrote here. I will try my best to NOT bother you with CP matters. Have a great day.. Thanks Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I think Karajou is in a calm/cool state, and I don't think his biggest worry is you being an RW troll or a vandal. I understand what you wrote here, but I will not and cannot argue with him -- he's been on CP for over 10 years and knows what he's doing. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

ok... I understand. You are a really helpful person and I than you for that. One last thing, what do you suggest, forget about cp forever? Or is there a speck of a hope my situation can be reconsidered? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Is Genesis History? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Is Genesis History? 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/Is Genesis History? (2nd nomination) 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. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Thomas Francis Davis) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Thomas Francis Davis, 1990'sguy!

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

Thanks for creating this article.

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

Learn more about page curation.

TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hashtag tool

Here's the link to the Hashtag tool: http://tools.wmflabs.org/hashtags/search

The hashtag #1lib1ref is being used by libraries this month to track contributions to Wikipedia. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Article Rescue Barnstar
	Is hereby awarded for your valiant effort to rescue from deletion Is Genesis History?. Keep up the great work! – Lionel(talk) 06:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: Thank you! :) I appreciate it, though the fight's not over yet. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Fredrick Steinman Foltz) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Fredrick Steinman Foltz, 1990'sguy!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed, well done, in-depth article. Thanks for creating!

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SamHolt6 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Gary Washington

Do you know if Gary Washington, the USDA Chief Information Officer, is the same as the one that was appointed to the Commodity Credit Corporation? I am thinking so, but I can't really find anything about the guy! Corky 17:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: It is, according to agri-pulse.com. It's true that there aren't many sources about him. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I couldn't access the article earlier due to not being a subscriber, so I am glad you are able to confirm! I can add his picture now. Thanks again, Corky 21:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Edward Alexander Miller

I think the correct name of that general is "Edward Alexander Millar". Comp: [6][7]. regards, Alexpl (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alexpl: You're probably right -- this wouldn't be the first time (much the opposite!) I've seen different spellings used for the same person. Would you please perform the necessary article title move? Thanks for pointing this out to me! :) --1990'sguy (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I dont think its a controvertial move. So I just did it. Alexpl (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Awaiting your apology

waiting... Kevin McE (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It's obviously no fun being investigated for socking when you're not actually a sock, so I definitely empathize with that. However, it seemed very odd that Cliveplug created an account after you crossed 3RR to support you when you have virtually no support on the talk page for your edits. Also, on that SPI, a clerk endorsed my claim. I think what I did what right, in light of the evidence that was there at the time of filing, and comments like this are ridiculous. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Slander and no apology noted. Kevin McE (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry C. Hodges, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rutland, Vermont (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please explain

You appear to be systematically going behind the edits of James mccosker and removing COI tags and the like, without doing any significant cleanup.

This appears to be either proxying for a banned editor or renewed undisclosed paid editing.

Please explain. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: That user was banned over two years ago, and the history of the pages I edited show that you and several other editors examined them and removed promotional info. In the two years since, the pages were virtually untouched, indicating that the current versions are the consensus. Since that was apparent to me, and since User:James mccosker is banned, the tags are redundant. And please, WP:AGF for once. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the talk pages still have the COI notices -- and they should stay that way. But if these articles have been stable for two-and-a-half years (even after being noticed and edited by you and others), having a tag at the top of the article is an excessive solution to a real problem. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not answering the question, as to why you are going behind this particular person's edits. That is the question. Please explain. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I answered the question, and I'm not "going behind this particular person's edits", whatever that even means. You had two-and-a-half years to remove the banned user's promotional garbage, if there was any left. At this point in time, tags like that are unnecessary and even hurt the article. If you have no issues with the articles as they are now (judging by the fact that you haven't touched them for years after looking closely at them), the tags should be removed. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

See below. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Scare quotes

It wasn't scare quotes, it was wiki markup for italic. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Is Genesis History?. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 17:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh well -- Wikipedia is a great site for most topics, but most of its editors -- clouded by their extreme animosity for YEC -- don't even try to be objective on topics related to YEC, as we can clearly see on IGH. Apparently, it's a blockable offense to remove blatantly false information about Ken Ham that closely mirrors (exclusively) atheist blogs and other articles criticizing (rather than reporting on) AiG and Ken Ham.

I joined Conservapedia specifically because of this bias (one of the best moves I made in the wiki-world) after dealing with it for nearly three years, and that's where I'll be for the duration of this block. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh look, these same people will start ranting about bad faith when someone points out their bias (which by the way is visible from your user page). But they freely say the other is biased themselves, in this case those not supporting Christian conservative view.

The actuality is you only care about your opinion. Isn't it time you were blocked for bad faith disruption? I am not related to any of the guys he fought with, though a banhammer is long overdue for people like him. Fundamentalist1 (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If you actually look at my edits (rather than blindly believe what others say about them), you'll find that I've been very objective in my editing -- supporting compromise edits that most conservative Christians would cringe at. The problem is, anything short of "YEC is false and factually incorrect pseudoscience" (and not just that, but using those terms every time creation science is mentioned on any article, as is currently the case) is accused of somehow being "YEC propaganda." No, it's YEC propaganda to say "YEC has the strong support of millions of qualified intellectuals while evolutionism has nothing" -- but I never proposed such wording, not even close.

Interesting you want me to be banned for taking a contrarian (yet, objective) view on WP's treatment on YEC, when I actually rarely edit the topic these days.

Rather than creating an account just to criticize me, go make some real edits. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Lol you pretend you're being "blocked" for your opinion when it was due to 3RR clearly. What else proof is needed that you're only here to push your own bias? Fundamentalist1 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As for YEC, Wikipedia prefers scientific and historians rather than creationists (experts in the field). And of course every scientist isn't an atheist. Wikipedia allows adding an alternate viewpoint, if it's notable. That includes criticism from reliable sources per BLP. As long as the source isn't pure propaganda or a known political hit piece, it's allowed. If Ken Ham's article doesn't meet this, then you can "correct". Fundamentalist1 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Bishonen, this guy's userpage is pure political propaganda. While one can ignore the attacks on Christianty claims and his strong belief in Christianity is okay, other userboxes show he is only here to push his agenda. He attacks the EU as socialist and globalist, true or not these are used as common slurs by right-wingers against their opponents. He rejects feminist dogma, though in its basic form it is just equal rights. The last image is of Obama family, criticising them over choices of their children's school. All of this is WP:NOTHERE.

Especially revealing is his faith in Creation science over evolution which explains why he was he's so obssesed and even edit-wars on creationist artciles. Though he claims bias of others and talks about neutrality, he claims he is being blocked for his opinion that Ken Ham info he removed was false. It is clear that this guy is himself biased and not here for the good of Wikipedia. Just ban him already. Otherwise all he and his gang does is hound people like me. Fundamentalist1 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's not forget his bad faith claims on bias about creationist sources, when in actual Wikipedia mostly uses scholars or news, not creationsists. Fundamentalist1 (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Fundamentalist1: yes, 1990'sguy's religious opinions are clear from his userpage. In my opinion their userboxes are not in violation of our guideline WP:USER, but if you want to bring their page to the attention of the community, I suggest WP:ANI. I doubt you'll get much traction there, though. Partly because they're fairly normal userboxes, and partly because of the point 1990'sguy makes above: you're a new account created just to post here, and — in my opinion — most likely a sock of an established user. Please don't come here to bait a blocked user. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC).
• User:Bishonen Actually it does matter because I was talking about his motivation. Because it explains his behavior. Regardless of what you think, you must act against this user. He’s himself attacking most other editors as biased against a creationst organisation, even though such sources are usually not accepted here, and refusing to concede he was blocked solely for edit-warring rather than the edits he made. If he's not pushing his agenda, he'll target other users. Such people can't be let off the hook and it's time you did something about them. Fundamentalist1 (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Bishonen I read WP:USER but you should read it. See WP:POLEMIC. Attacks against organisation or individuals are prohibited. Also user pages can't be used for soapboxing or battleground behavior. 1990'sguy has clearly breached this. If you aren't going to ban a guy who edit-wars, promotes his agenda, improperly uses userpages, even has been involved in meatpuppetry on articles he has no interest in like University of Chicago Law School [University_of_Chicago_Law_School&oldid=856864652] where he didn't edit except to restore edit version of an associate. Is this a joke that these people do whatever they want? Fundamentalist1 (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not about his religious opinions anyway, but his religious and political bias which enters into his edits as well as his other nonsense behavior. Fundamentalist1 (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Fundamentalist1: Take a hint and fuck off from this page before I block you. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC).

User:Bishonen Don't use foul language against me. I’ve had enough of your nonsense. The user himself has show his bias but all you do is speak foul words. Blocking me after what you said anyway is a violation of WP:INVOLVED. So be careful. You are being reported. Fundamentalist1 (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm unfortunate; I see that it's your first block, so very short. Oh well -- Wikipedia is a great site for most topics, but most of its editors -- clouded by their extreme animosity for YEC -- don't even try to be objective on topics related to YEC, as we can clearly see on IGH. this is victimization. As often, a lot of time was wasted at the article's talk page after a driveby routine WP:PSCI-violating edit (see my previous concern here about the same issue (here is a troubling pattern...) As for Fundamentalist1's edits, you may ignore them as they likely were a sock (their comments are commonly even marked with <s>...</s>). Since you mentioned Conservapedia, I think that I understand the motivation to edit on Wikipedia too, considering its high profile, higher quality and accuracy (vs ridiculous claims like "Unfortunately Bible deniers, including many atheists and evolutionists, refuse to read the Bible, and their irrational closed-mindedness against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science." [8]), but Conservapedia is indeed a better place to promote or defend creationism. —PaleoNeonate – 02:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikisolidarity

• Guy (sorry, I don't like typing out usernames when I'm not pinging because it always feels like an insult if I misspell something), don't let this sock get to you. You and I disagree on a lot of things, but that doesn't make it okay for some asshole to make an account just to put you on blast for having a different worldview. I'd rather work with you on an article than with some atheists I know, including this dickhead.

And Bish? If Guy here were to post an unblock request, I'd support it. Things just got hot for a bit, then settled down into the usual talk page fightingdiscussion. the 3RR vio is not that big of a deal, and I really can't picture him pushing forward with continued reverts. I don't know that he will (a 24h block is not that long), but I just wanted to be clear that I don't think this block will really prevent much. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed the comment here a moment ago by another sock. As an FYI, I think the 24 hours is fine enough to allow cooler heads to prevail, and I can kindly suggest if you're approaching 3RR, walk away for a bit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not gonna argue against it (I'm of the opinion that there ought to be an function that automatically blocks anyone who hits 4RR, and them let them use a dedicated 4RR unblock request to request a vandalism/BLP exemption), I'm just saying that the 3RR vio Guy engaged in was out of character for him. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I've seen the edits and I agree. I always want to see cooler heads prevail, and if it leads you to revert over and over, walk away for a bit. Wikipedia will be here tomorrow. Just some friendly advice that's all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your support, MPants. Honestly, the moment I reverted the fourth time, I was not thinking of the first revert, which was on a different content matter, so for a moment, I thought I was reverting for the third time -- I was not planning on reverting again either way. Of course, that fact is irrelevant to the merits of the block/unblock, but I want to let you know nonetheless. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

unblock

User:Bishonen and User:RickinBaltimore, I have posted my unblock request. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed it for you - you were supposed to post it at the bottom of the page, not edit it inside the block template... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

1990'sguy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I see that I violated 3RR, and I apologize. I won't do it again, and I will edit constructively, like I have done on the 3,400 articles I have edited in my five years here. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

OK. Happy editing. Bishonen | talk 10:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

So 1990'sguy is released from the block, and their next edit to the article is this, removing the sourcing supporting the content that creationism is pseudoscience - leaving it actually unsourced. I am asking each of User:Bishonen, User:RickinBaltimore, and User:Boing! said Zebedee to consider taking action under the PSCI DS. Do let me know. If this is not sufficient for you (which I would understand) please let me know and I will prepare a full case at AE. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The sources clearly violate WP:COATRACK -- they have nothing to do with the movie. The sources/facts/whatever may be true (that's irrelevant), but what does it have to do with the movie? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And no, this is a policy dispute -- I haven't violated any policies/guidelines, and disagreeing with you because of WP:COATRACK doesn't constitute a policy/guideline violation. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

And removed again. For pete's sake. WP:PSCI is very clear that we do not discuss pseudoscience without describing it as such. And sources are needed for that. Period. I won't revert again; I am sure others will do. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

For crying out loud, I clearly labeled YEC as "pseudoscience" in my edit -- I made it less wordy and removed the WP:COATRACK violation. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's an article of a movie -- I fully support those refs in the creation science article, which deals with the belief. I strongly oppose treating an article of a movie like that of a belief. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

1990'sguy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

So I can defend myself at the ANI noticeboard and edit on political topics. If unblocked, I will voluntarily not edit the IGH article for at least the remainder of the 48-hour period. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

That seems fair enough, unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• You have just come off a 24-hour block for edit warring, and you go straight in to edit warring on a related the same article. You are heading for a likely topic ban from anything related to creationism if you keep this up. When you are unblocked, you need follow BRD - if you make a change and it is reverted, STOP, do not do it again, go discuss it on the talk page and seek a consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: May I comment on the talk page of the Ark Encounter article before the 48 hour period expires? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine by me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Hi 1990'sguy. You and I have diametrically opposed views on the world, but I've always respected your commitment to NPOV and consensus-building on topics you have strong feelings about, despite considerable hostility from other editors. So if you will take some friendly advice: this issue isn't worth getting banned over. Is Genesis History? has become a battleground out of all proportion to the significance of the film. I unwatched the page months ago, and if you do the same I think you'll find editing a much more enjoyable experience again. – Joe (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I may do that, but it really pains me to see edits like this (1,2; which several editors, with the same views as you, have agreed with me on at the ANI) actually be defended by experienced editors despite their POV and COATRACK problems. Honestly, I doubt that if I didn't act, this would still remain unchallenged. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, if it weren't for you, that article might well be deleted. I agree to a certain extent that the state at one point very recently was very pushy on the "creationism is bunk" front, and I think that's a reaction to the fact that the article should have been deleted but wasn't. But I agree with Joe. This article isn't worth ruining your wikicareer over. Hell, this topic isn't worth it. You're a good editor in general, you just have a weak point. If you accept (or even self-impose) the topic ban that's being discussed at ANI, I think you'll find that your tenure here will become markedly less stressful. That's exactly what I did with American Politics: I took all the overtly political pages off my watchlist, refused to get drawn back into the topic, and I honestly feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders, no matter how hard it was to do in the moment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Apology

Just wanted to apologize here, too, for my poor judgment in hastily bringing CP edits into a WP discussion without fully understanding what I was linking. The blunder could've happened with a diff here, too, I suppose, but it being an off-wiki reference just makes it more embarrassing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted -- we all make mistakes. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Creationism and NPOV and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, funplussmart (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This arbitration case request has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Tea

By the way, 1990'sguy. You likely already know about the popular and welcoming Teahouse, but I would also like to mention that you're always welcome to my talk page as well. I don't hate you. User talk pages are also not like article talk pages: they are allowed more freedom of expression (although noone "owns" them, including their user). Even if we end up not agreeing, there's no harm in asking questions, including on article content. I however don't officially "adopt" editors, but if you would like, there are other experienced editors who do, and may be helpful. As I wrote previously, I think that much of your editing is valuable, it's on particular articles that tension was apparent. It seems that the recent ANI thread wasn't fruitful, which is also a message for everyone, including myself. By being careful this could soon be something of the past... One thing to always remember is that Wikipedia is also only an awesome website and that editor sanctions only affect their access to that site, having nothing to do with the real person, their life, their value as a human being, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 11:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello 1990'sguy, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

DS Alert

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 recently 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 any 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.

Since you were last notified over a year ago. –dlthewave ☎ 11:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I was just legitimately confused. I'll make sure to do more research in the future. BrownstoneKnockn (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. This could easily get you blocked, and you will if you vandalize Wikipedia again. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello 1990'sguy,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, 1990'sguy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, 1990'sguy. 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)

Please self-revert

Please do consider self-reverting this. Since you are under heightened scrutiny, I don't think it a good idea to be engaging in this kind of knee-jerk reverting. jps (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please don't. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you say who are you responding to here? jps (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This is User:1990'sguy's talk page. You asked him to do something, I asked him not to. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you want him to do it? jps (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Because the term Genesis flood narrative is a straightforward descriptive phrase and the title of the linked article, not a neologism. The phrase neither promotes a biblical POV nor a rationalist one. It is entirely neutral. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello 1990'sguy,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Precision Group Logo 2018.svg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

D/S Alert

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.

Just a formality, since you've been active at Wilbur Ernesto Martinez-Guzman. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
• Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
• MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
• Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
• Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
• Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello 1990'sguy,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis

Hello again. I'm sorry I have to nag you in this way, but I've made my final proposal about adding a basis for AiG's rejection of science on Answers in Genesis's talk page, and if this doesn't go through, I will give up. I have taken every issue that has been addressed with my previous proposals into account, and now the only counterargument that they can provide is "if it ain't broke then don't fix it". Please help me out here, as I really don't want to leave the article with a ridiculously obvious POV.^Ol^Ja 19:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: Thanks for letting me know -- I support your proposal and think you're doing the right thing. I also commented in support. Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult to achieve common-sense improvements to articles like AiG, so I do appreciate your efforts. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks a lot for your support. I agree it's hard to push against authority, even if their reasoning is weak and sometimes even nonsensical, but I'll do anything within my power to fix the article.^Ol^Ja 21:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!^Ol^Ja 02:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

Now they are saying that AiG themselves say that human reason goes against God's Word, and that whoever applies human reason will spend an eternity in hell. Despite the fact that the very source that they use to SUPPORT this statement CONTRADICTS it. Honestly, I don't know where to go from here. If they can't accept THIS, I am not sure if there is any point arguing about anything; I am honestly having doubts whether they would accept that 1+1=2 if it in any way weakened their POV. I think what we should both do is just leave them to their own delusions and help Wikipedia otherwise, as they are clearly not going to change. Sorry to spill my frustration out on you, but I think this might be it for me.^Ol^Ja 04:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Oldstone James, yes, I have experienced the exact same thing over the years on the AiG and related pages. Some of it, IMO, has been just as ridiculous, if not more so, that what you're experiencing now. A few months ago, a couple of editors even tried to have me topic-banned from all YEC-related articles on ANI because of a content dispute. Considering the massive opposition, focusing on other areas might be a good idea (it would definitely reduce stress and frustration), but still, I think it's great that you're, at least, challenging them. I wish I could comment more, but I rather busy with some "real world" issues right now. I will try to comment on the dispute resolution and talk page in the next 24 hours, though. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the fact that you were nominated for a topic ban says it all, really. Like you weren't even edit-warring, right? Their negligence of Wikipedia policies is scary, they are just doing whatever they want. I remember there was a user called Jytdog some years ago who used to tell everyone that they were heading for a topic ban because they disagreed with him/her, but he/she got blocked indefinitely, so if it was Jytdog who proposed the topic ban, I'm not really surprised that he/she reached you as well. Yes, focusing elsewhere would certainly help with frustration, as my frustration levels are currently through the roof! Anyway, thanks for your help, but, as I said, I think that if they are defending a claim that is contradicted by the very source that they back this claim up with, that's not a good sign of things to come. That means that I will probably give up my editing if that ridiculous claim is accepted, which is looking increasingly likely, so don't bother wasting your time on helping me - real life is more important :) Good luck with your real life work!^Ol^Ja 12:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Finnish Election Map

Hello 1990'sguy, my name is Space Monitor. I have found an election map for the 2019 Finnish parliamentary election, but I am not aware of how to upload pictures. I wanted to ask if, you could upload the picture. The website is [9]. Thank you very much! - Space Monitor (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Space Monitor: Hello and thank you for your message. Unfortunately, I do not know how to do this either, mainly because of licensing (it's a big deal on Wikipedia) and also because I don't know how to create a map from scratch. I am pinging User:Number 57 and User:Corkythehornetfan to see if they might possibly be able to help with uploading this map or maybe creating a similar map from scratch. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I’d defer to MB298 as they create a lot of maps. Corky 23:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@MB298: Would you be able to create an election map for the recent Finnish election? --1990'sguy (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I might be able to. I'll look tomorrow. MB298 (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Apparently you have elected yourself King of the content on the Trinity International University page. The characterization of "unconstructive" edits is simply your opinion. Ray Van Neste is a distinguished member of the theological academic community. Your insistence that he be excluded as a notable alumnus appears to stem from the fact that he does not have his own Wikipedia entry. Frankly, that's a childish and unprofessional approach to the situation. I will say to you that your edits indeed appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. If you wish to find some consensus on this matter, I am happy to discuss it. But threatening me with loss of editing privileges is not helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relhak78 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Kariņš cabinet moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Kariņš cabinet, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)