User talk:LoveUxoxo

ELs

I am reviewing your EL edits to TWA Flight 800

Removing NTSB links - I am immediately restoring those. LoveUxoxo (formerly Lipstick), no matter how many times that document is linked to as a source, it must be in the External links section at all costs. The investigation reports are so important to the article that they must be prominent in the external links section.
Also any press releases released by the airline need to be in the external links section. That one document that you called "not notable" is the only thing written by TWA that was archived on web.archive.org.
I am reviewing the Navy and FBI links. When I checked them, they worked. I will look over them and post results to this talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The links on the Navy page here work! - And I am checking other dates and the links are flawlessly archived. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FBI works too - But it consists of a single page WhisperToMe (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked again and the FBI page works on my end. On web.archive.org, if someone gets a "Data Retrieval Failure," I would suggest him or her to try again. If the page says that the content was not archived, then the URL definitely doesn't work. Cheers! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community restrictions

The article Bloody Sunday (1972), along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are:

All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related.
- Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty
Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

O Fenian (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was looking on the Trouble's arbitration page at all the editors who were blocked at one time or another for edit-warring. Sad, isn't it? LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1953 coup

I'm notifying contributors to the 1953 Iranian coup article about a proposed change in the article posted on the talk page, that adds information about events leading up to the coup. Only a couple of comments so far. Am planning to request comments WP:RfC later. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Civil Aviation Agency final report

The report at http://www.ntsb.gov/events/ea990/docket/ecaa_report.pdf has been taken down by the NTSB, and the NTSB blocked the archive of the website via robots.txt.

Do you have a copy of the report? Do you know where a copy of it is online? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know!
The good news is that the NTSB unblocked archive.org, so now we can view the Egyptian report, etc.
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

afd

Anthony Bologna

Hi your attempt to nominate that article is a bit messy - I will tweak it up for you if you want? If you post here the reason you want to nominate it and I will add it and tweak the report. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- No worries I see you have sorted it - regards. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, only the 2nd time I have done that, however the instruction page WAS clear and helpful. Thanks. LoveUxoxo (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, but I wanted to say that I agree with you about the Svidersky article, but it's been through AFD several times already. Steven Walling • talk 20:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that you were not the one messing with the leading paragraph (which was probably improper anyway). My apologies. I updated my "complaint". Thank you again. --Fayerman (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments in the Anthony Bologna discussion. I recognize that the WP:GNG guidelines can be ignored in some circumstances (WP:Ignore all rules). I'm frustrated by the attitudes of some editors who are refusing to acknowledge that the WP:GNG guidelines even exist and apply to this subject. I truly believe that the earlier coverage would have been sufficient for a (quite boring) article about the subject to have been written and kept before his recent rise to infamy. Pburka (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all of your work with the Anthony Bologna article - it's been a mess, and who knows how it'll end, but so far, you've done an excellent job with it and the AfD. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I've misinterpreted

But it sounded like you "recused" yourself from a discussion simply because everyone else involved in it seemed unfazed by the prospect of using original research to build an article? If that was indeed your intent, please reconsider. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 11:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I said what I thought should be said, so I'm done. Honestly, I didn't mean to start editing that article. And hanging out there the next few weeks sounds so "ugh". Have fun! LoveUxoxo (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Gabriela Mistral

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gabriela Mistral. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AB again

I was wondering how you'd feel about changing the CSD criteria to G4? I'd hate to see the speedy declined on a technicality. Just a thought. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I wonder if perhaps the best solution is not a speedy but a reversion to the redirect, and then protection in that form? ScottyBerg (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought I should do *something* quickly, but am in unfamiliar territory. Advice is welcome and appreciated. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I alerted NW,and he rolled it back and salted. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mexico City

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexico City. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Serer people

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Serer people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 6 November 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:)

Hello LoveUxoxo, CharlieEchoTango has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Please comment on Talk:Sri Lanka

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sri Lanka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tupolev Tu-134 crash

Thank you, will check it out. I'm looking for more references when I can. I started the article based on a few articles from an Afrikaans newspaper, and their content circled around individuals defending their own involvement. Your comments introduce new considerations which I may certainly have missed. JMK (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Veterans Day

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Veterans Day. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My excuse

I keep planning to return to the 1953 article but the Occupy protest and other domestic issues (Income inequality in the United States, Koch Industries,Grover Norquist, Hydraulic fracturing) keep distracting me. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

proposed changes in 1953 Iran coup article

Since there was little discussion and no resolution to my proposal to add a short subsection titled ’Iranian coup supporters’ to the 1953 Iranian coup article, I'm doing a Request for Comment on the issue as well as polling editors active on the 1953 Iranian coup article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L'Auberge (restaurant) AfD

Thanks for the encouragement, that kind of behavior is unpleasant but I have learned to deal with it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelin stars

As follow up to the discussions about Michelin stars and Michelin starred restaurants, I have created User:Night of the Big Wind/Michelin restaurants. Could this be helpful in your opinion? Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Harry Houdini

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Harry Houdini. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Filipa Moniz Perestrelo

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Filipa Moniz Perestrelo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:David Hampton

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:David Hampton. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on latest proposed change in 1953 Iran coup article

I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of cleaning up the article to fix duplication, contradiction and bad chronology. Here are my proposed changes. Please leave a comment. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediate

As a participant in WikiProject Alternative Views I invite you to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination)[1]. For an entity such as this who has gained global noterity to even be considered for deletion is beyond my understanding.Kmt885 (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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