User talk:Prcc27/Archives/2020/August

Please Vote

I invite you to vote here for whether or not Ralph Nader should be included in the info-box, @Prcc27:. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw your edit question on Eureka, California. I did not revert the edit, but it looks like to me that since the earlier mention of snow is in a record-breaking year, that it would be notable whereas a light dusting in an otherwise ordinary year is not notable. Hope this helps ! Ellin Beltz (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

List of House of Anubis episodes

You are editing against what a reliable source states. You need a much better reason than "I don't believe it". Both the Futon Critic and TV Guide are very trusted reliable sources of broadcast information. Nick's promos conflict with what really is happening. Nick is promoting the normal weekday schedule but they ARE airing the first eps on the 7th. Until 8:30 comes and goes we won't have better information than what is the latest schedules. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just a sneak preview! (twitter.com/NickelodeonTV/status/155710312182579200). This tweet is from the Nickelodeon official Twitter account.

Great, further confirmation that the first airing is tonight. I added the Nick tweet as a reference to the article. It doesn't matter what Nick calls it, it may be "just a sneak preview" but the first airing of a season is the important info to be in the article. I did note that the official premiere is listed on the 9th. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough!

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of House of Anubis characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip Wright (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to House of Anubis, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Photocaucus

Hello, user. What pictures do you prefer?

Option C/E)

Option B)

Option D)

--Belibaste (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

option c/e please!!!--Prcc27 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, Prcc27, ¿can you write this words in the page of discussion of the elections 2012. If you don't write this, is denegated. Thank you.--Belibaste (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Victorious season 4

You started a discussion on the talk page. Don't edit war this issue. Work to get concensus on the talk page. You have made 3 reverts so far and could get blocked for breaking the WP:3RR rule. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to List of Victorious episodes. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

April 2013

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Sam & Cat. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please heed the note that advises contributors "Don't add Cameron Ocasio unless and until there is reliably sourced official announcement." Orlady (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a source thank you very much! --Prcc27 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

iCarly

Understand the term main character. Justice just appeared and was credited in a crossover of both TV series, in that sense iCarly cast must be added to Victorious just because of this. Consider that I've seen your editing in the past, reverting me is not WP:CONSENSUS and if it is needed you and me can be blocked or the page protected. For good of the three better discuss rather than start an WP:EW. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on ICarly. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at iCarly. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Understand the concept of main character. It was a special opening for that episode only. talk about it on the talk page before adding it. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at iCarly shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 155blue (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. IMBD is not a WP:RS Please read that page. Also she is not a cast member WP Editor 2012 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:List of House of Anubis episodes. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. If you are really that IP, log out and make the changes as that editor. The dates of the original comments are important. Otherwise leave old comments in a talk page alone. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

warning

Your edit has been rejected. Please take it to discussion. If you continue edit warring, I will ask to have you blocked. — kwami (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I did take it to the discussion. You started the edit war. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no. You made an edit. I rejected it. Then you started an edit war over it. If you want to make a change, then it's up to you to convince the rest of us. That's how it works here. (See WP:BOLD.) — kwami (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by you "rejected it." --Prcc27 (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Prcc27. You have new messages at Geraldo Perez's talk page.
Message added 15:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Does the claim "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function." use a secondary source? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Next time you add content without consensus you may be blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

SSM polling

Would you check out the percentages and colors they match up to at Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States#By state? Right now Missouri which has a support rating of 38% is labeled as pink while Kansas at 39% is in red. I also want to know where you consider the "majority" point to be? Is 51% support stretching it a bit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

At what number do you define the majority opposing SSM? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Review

See Wikipedia:Reviewing. Regards. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the United States - Illinois

Gov. Pat Quinn has instructed county clerks to issue marriage licenses to all who apply. It's not just in Cook County - it's throughout the state. This supercedes the legislation. - ILBobby (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States map

Those colors where on there for a reason. I can't see the colors made in the edit by Bigdaddybrabantio. I'm getting sick of this. The colors where good for a reason, but you keep editing it. Please keep it the way it was.GayTenn (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Kentucky

Could you reply to my comment at Talk:Same-sex marriage in Kentucky ? I think the entry for Same-sex marriage in Kentucky could be made much better very easily in the way I suggest, but since you started the entry I'd like to hear from you. Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of 2014 Eureka Earthquake for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2014 Eureka Earthquake 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/2014 Eureka Earthquake 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. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve 2005 Eureka Earthquake

Hi, I'm Dreambeaver. Prcc27, thanks for creating 2005 Eureka Earthquake!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It seems you have made a mistake with the date of the earthquake, which you have stated in the article as 14 June 2014. Wanted to bring that to your notice. Happy writing!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Dreambeaver(talk) 07:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of 2005 Eureka Earthquake for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2005 Eureka Earthquake 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/2005 Eureka Earthquake 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. Dawnseeker2000 00:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake articles

Hello, please do not create any more of these types of "articles". There is usually nothing to say about these types of low impact earthquakes because no one was affected, and all they'll ever achieve is stub class here. WP does not need stubs; it needs comprehensive articles where people can actually read and learn something. We have a solution for these types of events: the list articles. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 00:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion on SSM (states)

Please Stop removing my most recent addition to this section. The two polls that were added (NJ and NY) were from March of 2014. You can not just edit the section without reading the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.71.243 (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but you added an older poll from California as well. If you don't want me to revert you, don't put older polls. Simple as that. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the United States

Hi, I reverted your edit to Same-sex marriage in the United States and changed it back to the plural. More than one marriage was performed that morning, so the plural is more accurate. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 04:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the plural is less accurate. When you are specifically referring to a specific amount of marriages performed then it is. but if the amount isn't specified, generally it is referred to as plainly "Same-sex marriage" not "Same-sex marriages". A good example of that is the title of the page Same-sex marriage in the United States. Sure more than 1 ssm was performed, but it's referred to as "same-sex marriage". --Prcc27 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you marry several couples, you have performed several marriages. That is the grammatical sense in which the sentence in question is written. Several marriages were performed. When speaking of the phenomenon of same-sex marriage as such, the phenomenon is singular, hence the article title. Hope that helps clear things up. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 03:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi & sorry for the misclick

Been travelling this last week and have only been able to edit via a smart phone. Editing that way can be a little tricky (its happened to me before) and I inadvertently touched rollback while checking my watchlist. Apologies, and have a great rest of the weekend. Dawnseeker2000 03:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States

Please don't edit war. Unreferenced material can be removed at any time. Use the talk page. — kwami (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Sorry, I would have- but I'm on my phone... Prcc27 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I noticed the thing that said colors in the table match the map. Prcc27 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It did match. — kwami (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:Could you please fix Connecticut; it doen't match the table..!? --Prcc27 (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that should be navy then, but could you provide a link to where you got that data, so it's verifiable? — kwami (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Here's the link, it's already on the table... [1] --Prcc27 (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That link's dead. Google can't even find the domain. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: How is it dead...? On my computer it works..! :o What do you mean by "dead"..? --Prcc27 (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I get the error message "unknown domain: www.publicpolicypolling.com". I've even started replacing some of those with other polls. I've asked at the help desk, but so far no response. I'll try WaybackMachine and see if it does any good. — kwami (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, could you check the dates on the other "Shifting Landscape" poles, and replace them if you have s.t. more recent, like you did for Ohio? — kwami (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:Done. Unless those links appear to be dead to you they can now be updated on the map. P.S. Those edits might get reverted because they kept reverting Ohio. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I can access them through Wayback, so I think we're fine. Very odd that I can't access the site from my IP address, though. — kwami (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Okay good. That means Connecticut can be changed as well. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm holding up on reloading the map until I check the rest of the states. FL, MT, SC, & NC also need to be changed. — kwami (talk)

What about Illinois? In the state article there's another poll from a few months earlier, but I can't access that either. I'm hoping it has better than a 9% sampling error; we can probably change the state from pea-soup to azure if you can access it. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed all the refs & updated the map. Moved Nebraska down because the poll is over 2 yrs old; that was the only one.

However, while I've always assumed that an uncertainty is 1σ (as it is in everything I work with), some of the polls give the error and then say they have 95% confidence that the true values are within that range of the results. This suggests it's the margin for p=0.05. I've asked at the help desk, but if this is the case, then we can move more of the 'maybes' to absolute majority, and break some of the statistical ties. It was only a day before s.o. answered by last question, so hopefully we'll know soon. (Meanwhile, best to be cautious with our claims.) — kwami (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I uploaded a version assuming all errors are p values, so it would be in the article history in case you need it, then reverted. The map does look bluer, with ME, DE, and the Pacific states going dark blue and only AR (+ old NE) going red, but there's no difference in the ties. — kwami (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Okay. I think it's good that we got rid of dark gray. But umm.. How come some of the states with polls that aren't two years or older have question marks; specifically Oregon and Nevada..? Prcc27 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, for Oregon I got confused with another poll. Nevada's because the margin of error slightly overlaps 50%. I suspect it's still a majority to 95% confidence, but I worked out the relevant numbers for standard deviations, not p-values. (Also, if the error were r

ounded off to 4%, like it is for DE, then we wouldn't worry about it, though it matters if the value is rounded off from closer to 54.5% or closer to 53.5%; that potentially changes Oregon as well.)

Take Delaware: The poll result might be 53.6%, and the error 4.4%. I'll fix Oregon for now, but we should probably revisit these marginal cases (also perhaps the Carolinas) after I confirm the margins we're allowed assuming all polls are based on p=0.05. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I got rid of the grey by using older polls w published errors. We still might be able to update them. I left Hawaii in the chart only because the discrepancy is so great.

We should probably average all polls taken over the past year, rather than picking one that might turn out to be an outlier, but that would be a lot of work. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Re. Texas, in WI 51% support SSM but 56% support recognizing SSM performed in other states.[2] Of course, that explicitly said 'in other states', which the Texas poll did not. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, look at the Utah and Louisiana polls I found. Found NE and SD too, but no surprises there. — kwami (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Pretty sure the Utah one is actually an old one; you might wanna check the other ones too. Prcc27 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Check the ref. It was January this year. — kwami (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Another Louisiana poll [3] Prcc27 (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That's the one we had. But besides being older, it's completely incompatible. Since we have a couple refs now that LA is ~40%, I'm assuming it's an outlier. — kwami (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Added map to Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Presently_in_litigation. You might want to check for accuracy & completeness.

I thought most states had cases pending. Maybe we just don't cover many of them? — kwami (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Yeah, all but a few states... Also, here's the UT poll I was talking about.. Is it accurate..? [4] Prcc27 (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but that's the other Utah poll we have in the table. They were polled in the same month, too.

As far as analyzing whether a poll is accurate, that's a bit beyond us, I think. We could use Nate Silver's evaluations, but unfortunately he hasn't been active recently. Also, many of these polls are by newspapers etc. that don't have much of a track record to evaluate. The smaller the sampling error, the larger the sample, and hopefully the larger (and thus more expensive) polls are done fairly well. The Utah and Hawaii polls have differences of 10%, which means there's something wrong, but I don't know how to decide between them. Louisiana, though, was a 20% change, from dead last to middling. Generally when you have a bunch of data that is consistent and one datum that's not, you can toss the outlier (though two polls isn't exactly 'a bunch'). We should keep an eye on all three to see how upcoming polls track them. — kwami (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Yeah, but the colors on Utah need to be flipped since the most recent poll shows opposition rather than a tie. Prcc27 (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The polls were simultaneous, over the same week in January.

I've also gone by the idea of not making a strong claim unless it can be substantiated. How can we justify coloring Utah majority opposed, when we have a poll showing nominal majority support? The gold means it's indeterminate, which is the weaker claim and basically the situation we have when we consider both polls. So Hawaii for example is also gold, with a question mark in blue, NC is pink, w a ? in red. — kwami (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Now we've got Georgia going from dark red to light blue. Light blue is the objectively weaker claim, but it's not what you'd expect. It looks really weird blue with a red question mark. What if we split the state, half one color, half the other, giving neither prominence? — kwami (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: But shouldn't Georgia be beige..? It seems like it's within the margin of error. Prcc27 (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be, if the margin of (sampling) error were the standard deviation σ, but it appears to be the interval for 95% confidence, which is 1.96σ. So a difference of 1.65σ, for 95% confidence that the higher-polling opinion is actually higher, is just 0.842 of the sampling error, which in this case is a tad less than the 5% difference between support and oppose. Of course, all those numbers are rounded off; it would be nice to have them to 3 sig fig. BTW, I've posted these numbers at the humanities ref desk, and so far the only objection has been what we've already noticed with Georgia and Utah: a poll doesn't tell us all that much. I'm only working on accounting for the reported precision of the poll, but ignoring the fact that, precise or not, the results may not be very accurate.

If we had a large number of polls, it would be better to average them, but it's not very meaningful to average two divergent polls. — kwami (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I think the other California poll was actually more recent.. Prcc27 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not as precise a poll, and it's only by a couple months. I tried to only include polls within ±4%, or a minimum of 600 people. — kwami (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, found another Texas poll. It's older, but also surveyed a larger base, and AFAICT was not about recognizing marriages performed in another state, and still it came back with the same results, a statistical tie. So I feel better about having Texas gold. — kwami (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Kwamikagami:, sorry to bother you; I was just wondering if both polls for North Carolina should be pink. (Sorry, I don't fully understand how this works). --Prcc27 (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The numbers I used are listed in the legend of the map at Commons.

Think of it this way: The sampling error is the range that the true figure should fall within 95% of the time. That means that 2.5% of the time it will be greater than that range, and 2.5% of the time it will be lower. So, if a poll result is 55%, and the sampling error is ±5%, there's a 95% percent chance that the actual figure (in the real world) is in the ±5% range of 55%, or between 50% and 60%. But there's a 2.5% chance that it's above 60%, and only a 2.5% chance that it's below 50% – that is, we can be 97.5% confident that a polling result of 55% indicates a true majority. But if we're only demanding 95% confidence, we have a bit of leeway – we can still be 95% confident that we have a majority even if the poll result is somewhat lower than 55%. Now, how much less? I calculated that 95% confidence would follow if the poll result is 0.653 times the sampling error above 50%. (I'm not used to working with p-values like this, but I posted the numbers at the ref desk, and there weren't any objections.) Now, if we look at the second NC poll, it's 53 ± 3.6%. Since 0.653 times the error (3.6%) is 2.35%, we only need to be at 52.35% to be confident we have a majority. The figure of 53% is of course rounded off to two digits, so it could really have been anywhere from 52.5% to 53.5%, but even at 52.5% it's slightly more than we need. We could try to dig up the original poll results if we were concerned about it being too close to call, but it this case we don't need to.

That doesn't mean the majority of NC are opposed to SSM. The ±5% is only the sampling error, the likely error assuming they polled a perfectly random set of people. There are all sorts of potential non-sampling errors well. It only means that, if this was a perfect poll, with a random sample that perfectly reflected the proportions of the true range of opinions in NC, and there was no confounding influence, leading questions, priming, or other bias in the poll or afterwards, then we're just a tad better than 95% confident that the majority of NC are opposed to SSM. Of course, real polls are never that good. Usually only about 10% of people called agree to a telephone poll. Are they truly representative of the other 90%? Probably not. That alone means that we can't have 95% confidence in the results. That's why people like Nate Silver compare polls to voting records, weigh the pollsters against their performance, and consider as many polls as possible. If we had eight polls, with different wording and from different pollsters who all had a track record of getting these things right, and they all had results close to 53%, then we'd be very confident that the majority of NC opposes SSM. But with one or two polls of unknown reliability it's much more difficult to judge. — kwami (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Why does Alabama have a red question mark..? --Prcc27 (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I've read comments about AL having very low support, though I haven't found an actual poll. And where metastudies discuss polling coverage, it's the states of the upper Midwest that don't have any polling data, not AL. So I assume there's an old poll out there somewhere, and it almost certainly shows majority opposition. — kwami (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Should we add this misleading poll? Also, D.C. needs to be gray with a blue question mark (I don't know how that can be pulled off) and I'm leaning towards opposing having Alabama be a red question mark. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We can certainly take out AL. But I don't think we need to worry about blue states. Because support is steadily increasing, once a state polls support consistently, IMO it's just blue. — kwami (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Okay. Also, the most recent poll suggests that a majority of Americans are against same-sex marriage, but the polling sample seems to discredit it. Should it still be added to the by state chart to show how there were two (or three) different polls with different results. We could note how the most recent poll isn't that accurate in the sample size section. I should probably take this to the talk though... --Prcc27 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't know which poll you're speaking of. For the past few years polls have pretty consistently showed support. There are always outliers, of course. Though I wonder if the 59% support we show have isn't also an outlier. You can't get there by adding up recent state polls. — kwami (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I put the poll on the talk. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: The map doesn't match the chart. Also, it looks like Oklahoma has a poll now. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll change the chart but I think Oklahoma needs be updated on the map. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I decided to change the chart back because I'm not sure if there's 95% confidence. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Oklahoma was fine, but I didn't have access to software to select which parts of the map to revert. Thought I said s.t. in my edit summary. — kwami (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: As for the other states (SD & SC)... Could you explain how they were wrong..? I'm a little confused on that and don't know how to do the calculations. It looks like they're in the margin of error though. --Prcc27 (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Btw, now that I can edit the map (since it's text editable) I will change those states without messing with Oklahoma. --Prcc27 (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they're right at the margin. The figures should be in the file description. I'm on a new OS and don't know how to access the file. — kwami (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The LGBT Barnstar
		I also award you a barnstar for working to make Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States a better article through discussion and edits. Great work! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Idaho

So the gov who vows to appeal is named Butch Otter. I had to laugh. Do you think he's taking it personally? — kwami (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Oh my gosh, are you serious? Isn't Butch a lesbian term and Otter a gay term..? xD --Prcc27 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's even funnier! I didn't know about "otter". No wonder he's so upset! — kwami (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: And apparently he married someone named "Gay Simplot"..? I'm not sure if this is actually true (you can't always trust Wikipedia, you know?) --Prcc27 (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems too good to be true, but apparently it is: [5] — kwami (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Wow! :o --Prcc27 (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Cousins in Idaho

Done! File:CousinMarriageWorld.svg You may need to clear you cache (usually hitting ctrl-F5 while viewing the page) to see the change. Pardon us using your talk page Darlwik. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding modifying others comments

Hello, please don't modify other peoples messages as you did here [6] and here [7]. Thanks! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: I'll try not to. I'm doing some of my edits on a mobile device (this edit included). Prcc27 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state

Can you explain your reasoning for the recent changes you have made to this page? I really don't see how the new map helps the article at all. 67.215.140.115 (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@67.215.140.115: Since the article is mostly about same-sex marriage, I added a same-sex marriage map. But since it also talks about other unions, I decided to leave the map. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The state by state chart includes civil unions and domestic partnerships, so the appropriate map was on the page already - adding the second map is confusing, and doesn't add any information. Please revert to the previous version. 67.215.140.115 (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@67.215.140.115: Since the article seems to actually be about same-sex unions in the U.S. by state rather then same-sex marriage, I feel like the name of the article should be changed first. You can change the name of the article and/or revert my last edit if you want... --Prcc27 (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the intrusion into this convo, but I am having the same concern. The community has rejected taking out CU/DPs from File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. Trying to remove that map and replace it with your CU/DP-gutted map is undermining the consensus against you. Please stop, thanks. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: The map isn't even on this article anymore because I realized that article touches on more than just marriage. Which is why I moved the page to what it was originally called. I don't remember there being consensus to not have a marriage map made but rather to not remove information from the partnerships map. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You made a marriage map and then you tried to replace the old map... You are undermining the consensus to leave all the information. Since you can't removing CU/DPs from the original map you are trying to replace the original map. This is evident by your edits at Same-sex marriage in New York and your active attempts to replace it at Talk:Same-sex marriage and Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States. Please stop. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at LGBT rights in the United States. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am placing this tag as you have inserted a map into the article that was not agreed upon via consensus and removed the map that was agreed upon. The agreed upon map File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg covers all the articles it is used in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: It was a bold edit. When the edit was challenged the map was removed from the respective pages. Furthermore, I didn't even remove the partnership map from the Lgbt rights u.s. article.

• @Thegreyanomaly: Don't come on my talk page and accuse me of lying. I did add the the map to the US Lgbt page but did NOT remove the partnership map. Prcc27 (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Adding redundant maps that the consensus was against is not being bold, it is undermining consensus which you did at more than just this one page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Thegreyanomaly: Cool, doesn't make me a liar though. Prcc27 (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    • You did remove and replace the map here though: [8], adding the map to LGBT rights in the United States was also prob not the best idea without first addressing the talkpage. WP:BOLD means to do things that are not reckless, anyways I just want to say that going around consensus in any shape or form is never a good idea here on Wikipedia unless you explain what and why you are doing what you are doing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

MSM blood donor controversy

Prcc27, I wrote "per 3/4 participants", not "votes". However, I can see how anyone would take that as meaning the decision was based on majority. My bad.

There was unanimity that MSM blood donor controversy was not desirable. Gay male blood donor controversy was the only alternative on offer. You've since offered Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy, which would appear to me to fit with what others would support.

Can I suggest you move it to that title and leave a note on the current talk page (not the archive)?

Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tóraí: I tried to move the page, but it said the title was on the title blacklist. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Done now. If that title isn't good to all then I suggest another RM. --Tóraí (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

RFA

Not much gets by without someone noticing... If I may, let me offer some unsolicited advice: Not now. I haven't seen a candidate even get close with less than 5000 contribs, they almost always end within an hour or two via WP:NOTNOW. Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship is worth a read. It looks like you might be on the right path, but it is just too soon for most of the community to trust you yet. Age and experience work against you, but fortunately, both of those are easily solved with time and by doing things. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd suggest holding off too. In particular, <250 talk page edits would be seen as a sign of not enough experience at interacting with other users.

I also think you're on a good path. A kicking now in RfA (and RfA is always a kicking!) isn't what you need. It could also spoil a future RfA because some editors would interpret an unsuccessful early RfA as a sign of power hunger, etc.

So, my advice is also to take heed of WP:NOTNOW. Bring more articles up to spec, get involved in discussions, keep your cool, get more experience under your belt, and if things continue as they are now, you can expect my !vote in a year or two.

(And if you want me to delete your current RfA page while it is still untouched by others - to give you a fresh run next time around - I'll do that. Just let me know.) --Tóraí (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tóraí: Thank you, I'd appreciate it if you deleted my current RfA. Prcc27 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I wandered back and saw the note, so just went ahead and deleted it for you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Gay blood donation listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gay blood donation. Since you had some involvement with the Gay blood donation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - MrX 21:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

One of those maps you wanted

I was tired of seeing the CU/DP map as a PNG all over the place. I map an SVG map and uploaded it at File:Same-sex unions in the United States.svg. I have a lot of work to do, so I'll let you replace the PNG map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Men's rights movement probation notice

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For a good job in the articles about LGBT topics. Миша Карелин (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

About Pele' article

Dear user, I dont know you like European footbal or no, but there is a question about famous footbaler Pele's article. About his confesion to had a gay sex. The discussing is here [9]. Please take part if you can. M.Karelin (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• A ruling striking down [[Same-sex marriage in Virginia|Virginia]]'s same-sex marriage ban]] goes into effect August 18, 2014.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Template:Samesex marriage in USA map shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You're well over the limit here. Please stop edit warring and take your concerns to the talk page. Artichoker^[talk] 06:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Artichoker: Calm down! All I did was switch "performed" and "recognized" around so they were in alphabetic order... Prcc★27 (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

(I did accidentally remove a "<" though, but that was an accident). Prcc★27 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, I saw on my notifications that you had reverted my edit and your edit had broken mark-up. However I can agree that your last edit wasn't necessarily a revert of the central issue. I have restored the alphabetical ordering. Artichoker^[talk] 06:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Same-sex marriage in the United States

I know you would like to keep thinking "A [temporarily] stayed ruling doesn't legalize same-sex marriage," when it actually does, but please don't disruptively edit articles to make your point as you did here [10]. The column edited refers specifically to when a bill was signed or a judicial order was filed. Every other state that received SSM by judicial ruling with a temporary stay uses the date of judicial ruling for that column (Massachusetts, California (In Re Marriage cases), Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey). Admittedly, the Prop 8 case is slightly convoluted, but Walker's ruling was the only legal ruling that discussed the legal merits of Prop 8 (the vacated ruling doesn't count, and the 5-4 SCOTUS ruling didn't deal with the merits), and thus his order was the one that "re"-legalized SSM and it is his date that is relevant to the table. Please do not repeat this edit. (Also, if you are to respond, please direct all responses to the article's talk page where everyone will see it) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: Don't come on my talk page accusing me; it was a good faith edit. I thought CA's stay was indefinite pending appeal. All you had to do was revert and explain California's situation at the talk.. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: Don't misquote me either..I didn't say "temporarily"; I didn't think the stay was temporary so.. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Request

@prcc27 I'm going to be incommunicado for three weeks. Could you take care of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_laws_on_same-sex_unions if any rulings drop? Thanks. Mw843 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mw843: Sure. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Same-sex marriage in the Seventh Circuit) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Same-sex marriage in the Seventh Circuit, Prcc27!

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

Well written article. Don't forget to expand as events develop.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Re: File:112th United States Congress Senators.svg

Hello, Prcc27. You have new messages at Thegreyanomaly's talk page.
Message added 16:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SSM in Coahuila state

Hi, would you clarify the information regarding same sex marriages in Mexican state of Coahuila. Is that only recognition, or full marriage (they say it is in force since 17th of Senptember, see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Timeline). M.Karelin (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Prcc27. You have new messages at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg.
Message added 03:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have been waiting for multiple days, and you have not responded. Dustin (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Dustin V. S.: Hey, I think I'm gonna quit Wikipedia/Wikimedia for a while. I won't be responding to anyone. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Forbes about Obama

Hello dear user. I started a new section in Talk page in the Barack Obama page - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#The_Best_Economic_President_In_Modern_Times.3F.3F). As far as only one person replied, it would be nice if you also say your opinion there in talk page, what you think about it? Thansk in advance. M.Karelin (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't ask for pages to be protected

I wish you wouldn't ask for pages/maps to be protected just because there is lack of consensus on what an edit should be. Protection is overkill because it prevents *anyone* from making any changes. Just let us sort it out on our own. (No need to respond on my talk page, I can check your talk page if you have a response.) Tinmanic (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tinmanic: The reason I asked for the US same-sex marriage map to be protected is because there was a dispute on whether Alaska qualified as transition or legal and the map was being changed 7 times. I didn't ask for anything else to be protected, the reason I supported the same-sex unions template being protected is because people kept removing Idaho from the "previously performed." Prcc27 (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Same-sex marriage by Circuit Court

The article Same-sex marriage by Circuit Court has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Analysis of a judicial situation at an arbitrary moment isn't suitable as a Wikipedia article. It seems more like a Wikinews type of essay. WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Same-sex marriage by Circuit Court

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Same-sex marriage by Circuit Court. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Same-sex marriage in the United States#July–present. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Same-sex marriage in the United States#July–present – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Missouri/county maps

If you're dead-set on de jure over de facto, we should have a third color for the rogue counties, like a medium blue with the stayed ban counties not issuing in gray. That way the maps are not just legally accurate, but also reflect the real world. Also, your original Missouri map fails the Commons standards since it is not sizeable (you cannot zoom in and keep resolution). I am fixing that. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've put in the same medium blue as the recognition color on the main map for the rogue counties. Feel free to rewrite the legend. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I've also put the rogue county blue on the county map. I've also put a link to a news story on Johnson County, KS still legally barred from licenses, but that is expected to clear up in the next few business days. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the Tenth Circuit

Hello dear friend. I think the map in the mentioned article is very outdated. SSM is legal in Utah and Oklahoma, but the colores are NOT blue for those states. M.Karelin (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• And the same for Same-sex marriage in the Fourth Circuit article. M.Karelin (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Миша Карелин: States are only colored solid blue if a circuit court did not strike down a same-sex marriage ban. The map isn't just to let people know where same-sex marriage is legal, it's to let people know where same-sex marriage bans were struck down and by whom. I will update South Carolina though. Prcc27 (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks. M.Karelin (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Kansas colouring

I'm sorry I said that. I can be a hothead when it comes to such issues and I feel like I'm being called out unfairly, and I tend to say the first thing that comes into my mind. I'll strike the sentence on the talk page and add public apologies there as well, it's only fair I do that. Kumorifox (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

MO != MS

Reverted your edits to the SSM timeline. You provided no refs, and are contradicted by our articles. 108.171.132.164 ([[User talk:108.171.132.1 64|talk]]) 22:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• @108.171.132.164: You can't use Wikipedia articles as a source per WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Mississippi: "He stayed his ruling for 14 days but also noted clerks could not issue gay marriage licenses until further guidance was given from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court" [11]. This is why on the Wikipedia article for Mississippi I put "Same-sex marriages cannot be performed unless further guidance is given by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of the United States." So if the stay expires but there is no further guidance from a higher court, same-sex marriages will not be allowed to be performed.

Missouri: "If neither appeals, he said, the stay will expire on Dec. 9" [12].

Florida: "U.S. judge keeps Florida same-sex marriage stay in place until Jan. 5" [13]. Prcc27 (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Florida divorce

the divorce you count as Florida's third recognition of SSM is already counted as the second (Brassner). The news is just the divorce made final. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Bmclaughlin9: Oh okay! Prcc27 (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Idea for the Florida map

How about making the Florida county map show only the local cases? That way, we can show the Miami-Dade development and avoid deciding the scope of the stayed federal decision? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 09:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Dralwik: Works for me. I left a message at your talk page too Lol! As of 12:01 a.m. Monroe County should be dark blue [14] Prcc27 (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Nasty snowstorm here, wish I was in Florida. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 09:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Chile Civil Union

Why did you deleted my change on Chile's civil union?Kallme (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Kallme: Because it hasn't been signed into law yet. Prcc27 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Prcc27: The President will have vacations on February (so it won't sign the bill)and I think is impossible that you change your obsession with formalities, so I won't insist in the change of color for Chile. I think your argument that couples may be confused is not relevant...Don't you think that a couple that want to enter in a civil union in a foreign country will check other sites besides Wikipedia in order to make a informed decision? That being said, I think that what you did on Template:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression adding and the bill was not even approved yet make everything more confusing. Its sad what you did in order to make your point and to keep your monopoly on the articles. Whatever color YOU want to put Chile I hope you remove that confusing note and add the same color to Easter Island that is grey for the moment. Kallme (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Kallme: Why should I have to color Easter Island? Besides, I was blocked on Commons for two weeks. Prcc27 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

SSM template

We say they were performed and are still valid in MI and AR, and also that they're recognized in MI if performed in MI. That means the same thing. Unless, as you say, they're not still valid in AR, in which case the entire 'still valid' section should be deleted. It makes no sense to have both. — kwami (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Kwamikagami: Someone (possibly you) changed the wording from "not invalidated" to "still valid". Both states haven't had those marriages invalidated, but they are only recognized in Michigan, not Arkansas. And the only reason why we made the distinction of "not invalidated" is because people didn't want to add the Australian Capital Territory because same-sex marriage used to be legal there but was eventually invalidated. Prcc27 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

But what does it matter to not be invalidated if they aren't recognized? If you aren't married in Arkansas, why do we list SSM in Arkansas? I understand that they're rec'd by the fed, but so are numerous one-off marriages (rings on the map), and we haven't been listing those states. You can get married on an military base in Mississippi, and those marriages are valid, but we don't list Mississippi. If a state does not rec SSM, then we shouldn't list it as having SSM just because the fed rec's some marriages there. The fed is already listed for recognition. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, don't mean to nit-pick, but the grammar was good as it was. — kwami (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

Consensus is currently against you on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Doc James: Then how about trying to refute the last point I made..? Prcc27 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Same-sex marriage in Texas

New case. — kwami (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Warning 3

Purposefully introducing errors is vandalism. Please stop. — kwami (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Kwamikagami: St. Louis is the only jurisdiction under court order to issue same-sex marriages, the other two jurisdictions are rogue. Also, that wording has been up there for quite a while which means it has WP:EDITCONSENSUS. You were bold, I reverted you, now let's discuss (WP:BRD). Please also keep in mind that we already had a discussion on Missouri's footnote before. Prcc27 (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how SSM is illegal in Kansas City. What is the penalty? A fine, or jail time? — kwami (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Kwamikagami: Illegal: "forbidden by law or statute." That's all it means, there doesn't have to be a penalty or a fine. You need to stop edit warring and get consensus at the talk page before removing the wording. We already discussed Missouri's wording before and we ended up keeping the wording that we have now. Prcc27 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Matla

http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=8749&l=1

In addition to section 18, section 19 further rebuffs it. If you think I misrepresented something in an article, template, or table discuss it with me on my talk page. I don't make edits without sources unless I have the source in its main page (i.e. LGBT rights in Malta or the LGBT Right in Europe). I'd rather you talk to me personally on my page than going back and forth with edits, it counter productive. I'm always on here, shoot me a message. Not trying to turn this into a Fry1989, Ron1987, or Kwangami feud. ;)

Chase1493 (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Chase1493: I don't think you're supposed to interpret the source for yourself (WP:OR). I wasn't being counter productive, you made an unexplained edit to the template that seemed to go against consensus and I reverted it. I think you should bring it up at the talk before adding Malta to the recognition column. Prcc27 (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

SSM in AL

If SSM is recognized in AL, shouldn't it be blue-green on the map? — kwami (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Kwamikagami: Only the AG is required not to enforce Alabama's same-sex marriage ban. Once/if the stayed class action lawsuit goes into effect then I think all of Alabama will have to recognize same-sex marriages. This has been discussed at the U.S. map's talk page, but we might have to discuss the recognition more. Ireland shouldn't be blue yet because same-sex marriage isn't legal yet. And idk what the new color for Kansas means... Prcc27 (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Basically the original federal ruling that legalized same-sex marriage recognition was never "overruled" by the state court which is why I had Alabama in the recognition column on the template. If you want to color Alabama for recognition I guess that's fine. Prcc27 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

But the color means that AL recognizes SSM performed out of state. Does it?

KS is the same color, just partially transparent, since SSM is open to all, but isn't recognized by the state. — kwami (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Same-sex marriage in the Pitcairn Islands

An RfC has been started on Same-sex marriage in the Pitcairn Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FYI. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Florida map

Regarding your map showing Florida counties and their stance regarding SSM...now that it has been legalized across the country, and Florida AG Bondi has of course dropped her case, I was wondering if the map could be made to reflect those counties that have legalization unhindered, and then those where clerks have stopped performing ceremonies (dark blue for the former, maybe purple for the latter (14 counties) like the US SSM map since it is technically legal, just more complicated to get the license validated as opposed to most other counties in the state). Would that be alright?

By the way, links showing these counties. Admittedly, it's been difficult to find full updates on where all of them stand post-Obergefell: [15] [16]Ghal416 (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Section links

Either you are deleting section links from your edit summaries (they should appear as /* Section */) or you just aren't using section-only editing at all, but it is helpful for you to link the section you have edited in a talk page in your edit summary. If you use the section-only edit, it should automatically add text to your edit summary linking the section you have edited, but you are either always editing the page as a whole or deleting the section-link from your edit summary if you are not. On the File talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg page, it is more difficult for me to track your comments than just about anyone else, so I thought I should point this out to you. Dustin (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

SSM in US map

Dear Sir: Would you kindly review this proposal/compromise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Njsustain/sandbox Could this be all things to all people and hopefully avoid any future edit wars? Njsustain (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Statistical ties

Statistical ties occur when two or more candidates report numbers that are within the margin of error. Nitroxium (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC for 2016

There is a request for comment on the 2016 article, and your involvement has been noted. You may wish to vote. Spartan7W § 00:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I've been watching your edits on same-sex marriage since U.S. v. Windsor. You've always been on your game there. Love it. Thanks for all your contributions. Semperferox (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing your map for Statewide opinion polling for Democratic Party

I downloaded your file and added Georgia. But before I uploaded it, I faced 2 challenges. First, do I have the authority to modify the map? Two, if I do, how do I update the map so that the history of map changes are maintained? Thanks All4peace (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• @All4peace: I updated the map for Georgia. But in the future all you have to do is upload the file by clicking "Upload a new version of this file". Prcc27 (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Belief

Hello, Prcc27

Is there a place where I can speak with you privately? This would be very appreciated. 107.188.135.107 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well? 107.188.135.107 (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't even know who you are so no... Can we please keep conversations pertaining to Wikipedia on this talk page..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I take it you don't trust me? 107.188.135.107 (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Well? Don't be afraid to talk with me. I only desire to ask some questions. 107.188.135.107 (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Then ask them on this talk page. Thank you! Prcc27 (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Prcc27, don't worry- You didn't break any wikipedia policies. I've been blocked for things like this yk. What's your email? I want to talk to you in further detail about this. Cirflow (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Swing state map

Hmm, now I'm feeling bad for sticking that on the 2016 article (stuck it there since it was just using text to say the same thing). Anyway... while it's cool you took an interest in this, I reverted your changes. There's quite a number of sources that make it clear that distance from the -nationwide- vote is what matters, with landslide elections being the classic case where this is obvious - Massachusetts was not a swing state in 1984, it was super-Democratic. If you look at the sources in the "potential battleground states" section (e.g. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/2016-predictions-117554 , http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-gops-uphill-path-to-270-in-2016/2014/01/18/9404eb06-7fcf-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html ), you'll see that states like Nevada & Iowa (won convincingly by Obama by more than 5%) are marked as "toss-up", while Georgia (won by Romney by 7.5% or so) is marked "Likely R". Georgia is not really a battleground state; if the Democrats are contesting it in 2016, then they've likely already won anyway. Sources seem clear enough on this. SnowFire (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How margin of error works — Statewide opinion polling, Democratic Party primaries, 2016

User All4peace (talk) has initiated a discussion, on the article talk page on English Wikipedia about how we present MOE.

I would very‐much appreciate your participation ! Info por favor (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• No problem. And thanks for the award! ☺Prcc27 (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

hello

Hello, I would like for you to go to my user talk:Cirflow page. Me and another editor are engaged in a discussion- It is the newest topic open. User:Cirflow

WP:NOTEWORTHY

Please read policy before reverting. It says "with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people". You should revert your edit. Prcc27💋 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

but if you go to the beginning of the article's history, there were NO restrictions at all, and the eight of us (I think) who've been reverting any attempt to inflict any restrictions on the article. It's about ALL results for ALL candidates voted for. There were no consensus for restriction. You started that, not us.72.226.125.231 (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

here is the way things were at the start: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016&diff=next&oldid=698555947 The rules were clear. ALL CANDIDATES Were allowed.72.226.125.231 (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Clinton image

I've created a discussion at Template talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Image. Please don't change the image until a consensus is reached. MB298 (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your preferable photo had been disputed by a number of editors, including most recently myself and another editor – so as to avoid edit warring by trying to achieve WP:EDITCONSENSUS, it would have been better to go through the channel of achieving discussion based consensus. Might I add, WP:EDITCONSENSUS should have stopped following the initial editor's reversal of your edit, per WP:BRD. It's good we're finally at the discussion based consensus step, though. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• @MelbourneStar: Please note that WP:BRD is an essay and not an official Wikipedia policy. I reverted the WP:BOLD edit made in order to restore the photo that already had consensus through WP:EDITCONSENSUS. When that happens a discussion should have been brought up at the talk in order to change consensus (which you guys did not have), but instead you restored MB298's bold edit and only then a discussion was started. Please note that I did not revert your edit (I made a dummy edit). Prcc27💋 (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I know you made said dummy edit, which I thank you for. I'll just note that your edit was actually the bold edit, as the image you replaced had been there for a couple days without any disagreements. Nevertheless, while BRD is not a policy – edit warring is – I believe it's best, whatever the outcome, that we have a discussion (which we are now having). Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• @MelbourneStar: Wrong, I reverted the image less than 24 hours after it was added whereas the previous image had been the consensus photo for several days and actually should be up there right now until you guys get consensus for your image. Prcc27💋 (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, edit warring is clearly not the appropriate way to go about anything. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Clinton color

I think there's been a little hiccup in our updates of the map. My upload did not change the color used for Clinton. All it does is make it easier to edit the map with a text editor. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 08:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Abjiklam: Hi. Sorry, I was trying to revert the other user but you did it a minute before I did so I accidentally reverted you. Thanks for making a text editable map. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It did not seem easy for me when I tried editing it with a text editor. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You're not the only one it seems. I don't understand why since I'm using the same way that is used for world maps all around Wikipedia. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 03:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

POV-pushing

It is very easy to pull a pattern out of your editing of POV pushing on circumcision related issues. This is behavior that can lead to a topic-ban. This is Wkipedia not Wikipenispolitics. So please knock it off and confine discussion of that "controversy" to articles that actually deal with that the subject. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Jytdog: If you would actually look at the sources you would see that they aren't necessarily "anti-circumcision" and that they use "intact". I'm not POV-pushing, we have to go with what the reliable sources call it, and they happen to use both terms. The issue arose on the UTI article and so that's where the issue should be resolved. There is no uncircumcised article nor is there an intact article, so IDK where you would want me to even have that conversation. Stop reverting the term "intact" simply because you don't like it. I honestly see problems with both terms, but since Cirflow and you decided to edit war based on your preferences instead of what the reliable sources say I decided to step in. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please just knock off the campaigning. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Hi! I've taken to updating this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Currently_active_bills) every few weeks. You recently updated the Arizona Upper House bill status, and to save myself some work, I'd like to know whether you checked the others through this (https://legiscan.com/gaits/search) or another reliable source. I'm not really sure how you should respond, since I'm relatively inexperienced with Wikipedia. Do you post on my talk page? Should I watch this page? Is it automatically sent to me via notifications?

I suppose at this point, it's already been more work to post here, but it'd be useful to learn a bit about Wikipedia anyway.

Blippy1998 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Blippy1998:, I actually clicked on the source link next to Arizona as well as for all the other states to see what the status was for each bill. You can use the sources already provided in the article (which is what I did) or you can use the search engine. Either way should be fine. In order to give a user a notification on a talk page you put two "{" brackets, then you either put "reply|" or "ping|", then you put the user's name, and finally you put two "}" brackets. But you wouldn't need to do that on my talk page since any time someone posts on your talk page you get a notification. Welcome to Wikipedia! Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, and for updating the page! Next time you check, though, you should make sure to update the "as of" template given above the table. I've updated it to "as of May 13". Blippy1998 (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016

As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

1. Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
2. Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
3. Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2005 Eureka Earthquake listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2005 Eureka Earthquake. Since you had some involvement with the 2005 Eureka Earthquake redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dawnseeker2000 02:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

2014 Eureka Earthquake listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2014 Eureka Earthquake. Since you had some involvement with the 2014 Eureka Earthquake redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dawnseeker2000 03:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Voting *against* Pic C or E

I'm inviting you back to participate in the runoff election between C and E.

If you don't want to support either one, you could oppose one or both by voting "C -6 (6 against)", "E -6 (6 against)", "C -5 E -1", "C -1 E -5", ... --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

your vote

As written, your vote will necessarily result in the following comment in the tally results, for clarity:
A2.6 and B1.8 - discarded as out of accepted process, see WP:POINT.
Those two votes will not affect the percentages. I would prefer to avoid that bit of unpleasantness. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Also my plan is to respect the tenths portions of your C1.3 and E0.3 votes, resulting in two tallies ending in .3. People may wonder WTF, investigate or ask about it, and they will learn that it's because of Prcc27's POINTy vote. More disruption, more unpleasantness. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Using that logic, splitting your 6 votes among 2 options e.g. C4/E2 and using negative votes like the user in the section above suggested could also be deemed as violating WP:POINT. You designed your voting method to reflect level of support yes or no? I'd say my votes reflect that very well while also having the potential to sway the results one way or the other. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the C4 E2 kind of split was stated in the parameters (I specifically avoid the word "rules" because of your incorrect perception of WP:OWN behavior), which were accepted as part of the process. Voting for A and B, and voting with a 0.1 precision, were not stated in the parameters and are therefore not part of the accepted process. I'm sure you're aware that your votes as written can have no effect on the outcome and serve no constructive purpose. They are a protest vote, protesting the accepted process which has been endorsed by at least two admins. They are a vote that makes things a little more difficult for me and add, as I said, a couple of bits of unpleasantness to an already tense situation. That is the essence of WP:POINT. I don't wish to make a battle of this, which is why I contacted you some 16 hours before the fact. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Re the negative vote, consider the following conversation:
UserBob31: Hey, I noticed that Prcc27 voted with a negative number, but that wasn't in the parameters. WTF?
Mandruss: Yeah, Dervorguilla suggested that and I chose not to make an issue of it.
UserBob31: Well I would have done that myself, if I had known it was allowed.
Mandruss: Sorry man. Shit happens.
That is a conversation I would prefer to avoid. UserBob31 ends up penalized for playing by the stated "rules". ―Mandruss ☎ 19:54, 19 September 2016 (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. Sparkie82 (t•c) 12:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2016

I assume you are aware of the 1RR in place, a lot of reverting has been going on lately is all. This is just a heads up message. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Knowledgekid87: Thanks for the heads up. I have had an active report against me for my edits at that page for several days now. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey man

Hey man, so why did you remove the new picture of Donald Trump? Everyone seems to agree in Talk. You're talking about some kind of RfC, but it's been archived and the picture hadn't been taken back then. What's the problem with the picture? It's recent and it looks good. So what's the problem, why would you remove it? People agree. User1937 (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• @User1937: I removed it because more people have expressed support for the photo you removed than the photo you replaced it with. Also, one user has expressed opposition so far and your proposal has not been discussed enough yet. Consensus usually takes time. Please revert yourself or I will report you for violating WP:1RR. Your edit was not bold and I suggest you read WP:BRD. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• Update: your edit was already reverted again. If you restore it again I will report you. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait but I didn't remove the picture I think you're referring too, apparently it was a Flickr-washed picture. I didn't know that. And btw, yeah one guy opposes it (doesn't wanna say why) but the majority approves :) User1937 (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive and harrassing edits at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

Please stop removing content from the talk page at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Your removal a consensus notice (which has been on the page for months now) appears to be intended to obscure of effect the RfC that is currently going on, or is intended to harrass me directly. Stop it now. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Sparkie82: Please assume good faith. A consensus notice on the talk page doesn't make your viewpoint more likely to succeed in the RFC, nor would I make an edit in order to harass somebody. A consensus discussion on the 2012 article isn't necessarily binding on the 2016 article. Once the RFC has been resolved is when it would be appropriate to add a consensus notice. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Your Talk:The 100 (TV series) close

I do not believe that your close was an accurate understanding of WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNC, and WP:NPOV. Nor do I believe that WP:Consensus was against the inclusion. I will be challenging the close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

But before I ask for a close review, explain why you think your close was correct? After all, protocol suggests that I discuss the matter with you before taking it to WP:AN for review. Isaidnoway, who understands the WP:NPOV policy quite well, might also be interested in commenting here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Flyer22 Reborn: Hey, this is the first time I have closed an RfC. Nonetheless, I am pretty familiar with Wikipedia policy. Regarding WP:SYNC: "Sometimes editors will add details to a summary section without adding those facts to the more detailed article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article." Adding this info to the subarticle is the first priority. Also I could probably bring up WP:DETAIL which says "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in child articles and in articles on specific subjects." A general summary is what the parent article should have. Regarding WP:UNDUE: "Some have argued that this stifles creativity and the freedom to develop characters and stories, while others have welcomed the debate, even if they have not signed the pledge." This is an example of undue weight being given in the sub-article whereas in the main article if you mention Lexa as being "iconic" to the trope without giving due weight to the other arguments like what was done in the sub-article, you run into a problem. You could certainly avoid violating WP:UNDUE by giving due weight to the other arguments but then there is too much detail in the main article. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

What made you decide to want to close this particular discussion? As for your arguments, the interactions you've had with this account and above on your talk page show that your understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not always correct. You mentioned WP:SYNC, but the main article is not fully synched with the Lexa (The 100) article when it comes to the impact. Lexa's death propelling national and international discussion of the "bury your gays" trope is the biggest aspect of the death, and should undoubtedly be noted in the main article. Your WP:UNDUE argument is invalid. WP:UNDUE is based on how the preponderance of reliable sources treat a topic. The preponderance of reliable sources treat the death as a turning point regarding the "bury your gays" trope. That "Some have argued that [the Lexa Pledge] stifles creativity and the freedom to develop characters and stories, while others have welcomed the debate, even if they have not signed the pledge." is a different matter. The Lexa Pledge is a different matter, and the preponderance of sources are not discussing that "Some have argued that [the Lexa Pledge] stifles creativity and the freedom to develop characters and stories, while others have welcomed the debate, even if they have not signed the pledge."

And like I stated, adding "iconic" was not the main argument. The main argument was noting that the uproar rose to a national level. As another editor noted, the uproar reached beyond the United States; so it's not even just a national matter. I do not see how consensus was against briefly summarizing the national/international aspect of the topic. As many sources are clear about, this trope didn't have as much discussion until Lexa's death. So this should be briefly made clear in the main article.

If you stand by your close, I should go ahead and start the close review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I just saw your reply at the article's talk page. While I obviously don't agree with your issue with "national debate," we are both in agreement with using "widespread debate." I noted in the RfC that I would be fine with using that wording as an alternative. So does this mean you are willing to alter your closing statement? If so, is it in support of the proposed sentence, but without use of "national," "icon" or "iconic"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I just saw you revise the close. I don't fully agree with it, sure, but I can work with it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't see that the notion that Lexa's death fulfilled the trope was challenged; even the creator agreed that it unintentionally fulfilled the trope. I did see disagreement about the creator's/other writers' intentions and whether Lexa should have been killed off in a different way, though. But all of this is made clear in the character's article. Adding "contentious debate" would be redundant. A debate is, by definition, contentious. Usually. Anyway, thanks. I appreciate the compromise and that we worked this out without taking it to a drama board. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Kaine closure

Hi, your closure of this this RFC seems a little astonishing. The overwhelming opinion was to disambiguate (and indeed the subsequent requested move (which for unknown reasons was completed before this RFC was closed) very recently moved Kaine (disambiguation) to Kaine. Your closure seems to unnecessarily complicate matters. older ≠ wiser 03:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Bkonrad: Hi, I'm very sorry for the complication but Wikipedia is not a democracy and I closed the RfC based on policy. Many of the people that wanted a disambiguation cited an essay whereas the small minority that wanted a redirect to Tim Kaine actually cited Wikipedia policy. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Whatever. I expect the closure will likely be ignored, or if it is moved again after an RM, there would likely be an uproar. older ≠ wiser 04:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Bkonrad: I will notify the person that closed the RM that our closures are currently conflicting and we'll go from there. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Bkonrad. The closure seems more of a supervote than an assessment of consensus as contained in the !votes. I also note that the logic in the close is faulty; even if Tim Kaine is viewed more than the other pages, it does not mean that readers accessing Kaine are searching for that page; additionally, the usage referred to is usage in the wider world, not Wikipedia page views, nor GHITS. I formally request that you self-revert the close, per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ryk72: As a closer I am supposed to be neutral and apply Wikipedia policy. In the end we have to go with what Wikipedia policy tells us. Per the article you linked to "Closures will *rarely* (my emphasis) be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review:

1. if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if the closure was made on the basis of policy. Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself.
2. if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin." It's quite clear that the usage did in fact refer to Wikipedia page views per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. So I will not be self-reverting my close. But as Bkonrad said, it's likely that consensus won't even be enforced. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; appreciate it. However, I maintain that this is a misapplication of policy; that the page view rate at Tim Kaine does not demonstrate that it is the primary topic for Kaine, in much the same way that the page views for Muhammad Ali do not indicate that it is the primary topic for Muhammad. In fact, most readers (~11,000/day; >96%) seem to find Tim Kaine without passing through Kaine at all. If a close is not likely to be enforced, then it's also not likely to be consensus. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Ryk72: You're welcome; and I appreciate your reply as well. Per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY a google search can help us figure out what the primary topic for "Kaine" is. One of the participants at the RfC pointed out that when they googled "Kaine" all but one of the links showed Tim Kaine for the first three pages. The same can not be said when you google "Muhammad" (and in fact Muhammad Ali isn't even the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear "Muhammad"). I was actually thinking that the close wouldn't be enforced due to how inactive the talk page is. But maybe eventually the consensus will be enforced. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

DETERMINEPRIMARY is descriptive, not prescriptive. If the two pages were Kaine (politician) and Kaine (other) then I would place some stead in the page views, but they're not. Google searches bias towards recent content, particularly for news content. Similarly to Muhammad Ali not being the first thing to come to your mind, Tim Kaine is not the first thing that comes to the mind of non-US readers; and WP:NWFCTM. I'll include a ping in the review request at WP:AN. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Ryk72: Hey, as a closer I made a decision based solely on the arguments made at the RfC. The most popular reason why users thought WP:PRIMARYTOPIC didn't apply was WP:RECENTISM which ended up being a faulty argument. You bring up good points but they weren't made at the RfC so I obviously couldn't have taken them into account when I closed the RfC (although they aren't really convincing me to revert my closure). Tim Kaine's Wikipedia article is the first thing that pops up when I google "Kaine". Given that even before Tim Kaine was announced as Clinton's running mate Tim Kaine's Wikipedia article was viewed more times than the other Kaine articles- I wouldn't be surprised if his Wikipedia article showed up before other Kaine articles on google in the past as well. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

CfD closure

Hi, I saw you closed this discussion without implementing the outcome. The intention is that you do not only assess consensus, but also implement consensus. If you don't know how, then please don't close the discussion because this is very confusing. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:European Open (snooker)

Hello. Do you see the consensus in that discussion? Three users said, it was the inaugural tournament, only two users for merging. OVERLAP rule doesn't apply here, because the tournaments are not the same. Interwiki conflict will be in case of merging, see [17] for old European Open and [18] for new European Masters. It's a different tournaments in all wikipedias. Do you have the source which says it's a same tournament? (it was not shown in the discussion) Where is the analyze of arguments shown in the discussion? 95.133.148.13 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. WP:OVERLAP says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept." The concepts may or may not be the same but it's pretty clear that they are overlapping (especially since it was announced as the European Open prior to the name change). Also, Malta Cup isn't a separate article either. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There are no any sources indicating it's the former European Open. There are many sources saying "inaugural" tournament (linked in the discussion). The official site didn't have "current champion". WorldSnooker article clearly says, the new event. Even if they have similar names, they are different. Compare with Champions Hockey League (2008–09) and Champions Hockey League (since 2014). There was no consensus in the discussion, so I ask you to revert your summary. 95.133.148.13 (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, even if they are different tournaments they can be included on one article if there is significant overlap (which there is). Also there wasn't consensus for the article to split in the first place so WP:PROSPLIT applies. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for close

I wanted to say thanks for the close at Talk:Shooting_of_Keith_Lamont_Scott#RfC:_Scott_history_of_carrying_a_gun, and not just because you closed in my favor. That's a tough and generally thankless job, and essential to Wikipedia's functioning. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Instant-runoff voting

Judging by your bio, it seems that we have some life similarities. :-D Anyway, here's the spiel I came here to post:

I see that you're a Bernie and Jill supporter, which indicates to me that you would support fair voting reform. The Wikipage: Instant-runoff voting.

For the group fighting for it, check out: http://www.FairVote.org.

To see why it's necessary, check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqblOq8BmgM.

It's supported by the Green Party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb7MQ7da6sg.

Suggestions:

• Share on Facebook
• Twitter
• Everywhere
• Post a sign in your front yard that says, "The USA needs Instant-Runoff Voting!"

^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 20:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Close

Well-reasoned and policy-cited close at Talk:Slut-shaming (better than I expected anyone to produced from that discussion). However, it actually is best to include a non-admin closure notice. What you're looking for is {{nac}}, which links to the general guideline on that, rather than the WP:RM-specific link you added then removed as non-pertinent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That's very helpful. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Clinton Foundation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Clinton Foundation. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Singapore

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dreams from My Real Father

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dreams from My Real Father. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Popular election

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Popular election. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ronald Reagan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ronald Reagan. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Female genital mutilation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Female genital mutilation. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Samantha Bee

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Samantha Bee. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Moazzam Begg

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Moazzam Begg. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Prcc27. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michael Portillo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michael Portillo. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Volunteer (Ireland)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Volunteer (Ireland). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steve Bannon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Bannon. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold war (general term)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold war (general term). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fidel Castro

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fidel Castro. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 South Korean protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 South Korean protests. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abortion-rights movements

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion-rights movements. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beheading in Islam

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Beheading in Islam. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bernie or Bust

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bernie or Bust. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Betsy DeVos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Betsy DeVos. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of fake news websites

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of fake news websites. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of American police officers killed in the line of duty

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of American police officers killed in the line of duty. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement!

Hi Prcc27, please allow me to get in touch because you have stated sympathy with environmental causes on your user page. I would like to invite you to check out the Environmental impact project page on Meta, where I am trying to create some momentum to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. My first goal is to have all the Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy. Maybe you could show your support for this project as well by adding your signature here? Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Betsy DeVos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Betsy DeVos. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tony Blair

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tony Blair. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:William McKinley

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:William McKinley. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James O'Keefe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James O'Keefe. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Breitbart News

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Breitbart News. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on 5% threshold

You may want to participate in this RfC regarding the inclusion of candidates in election infoboxes. MB298 (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political appointments of Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political appointments of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emmett Till

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emmett Till. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Reza Aslan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Reza Aslan. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Melania Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Melania Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Armenia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenia. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ben Swann

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Swann. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Melania Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Melania Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Executive Order 13767

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Executive Order 13767. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

MSM blood donor map

Hey, I noticed you were the last user to edit the worldwide MSM blood donor map. I already made a request at the talk page, but if that hasn't gone anywhere by the time you read this, could you please change Northern Ireland to be the same colour as the rest of the UK? They repealed the lifetime ban in September last year. HelgaStick (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sean Hannity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sean Hannity. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sebastian Gorka

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sebastian Gorka. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maryam Rajavi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maryam Rajavi. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration and crime

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration and crime. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Protests against Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Protests against Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Demagogue

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Demagogue. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

An update from the Sustainability Initiative

Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative!

Hi, Prcc27! Thank you again for supporting the Sustainability Initiative, which aims at reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. Over the past two years, more than 200 Wikipedians from all over the world have come together to push the Wikimedia movement towards greater sustainability.

What's new?

We are writing you this message because there is great news: The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has finally passed a resolution stating that the Foundation is committed to seeking ways to reduce the impact of its activities on the environment. Also, we have created a cool logo and found a nice name for the project which you can see on the right :-)

What's next?

Currently, we are working with Wikimedia Foundation staff to make sustainability a key priority for the selection of a new location for Wikimedia servers in Singapore. Also, we have presented the Wikimedia Foundation with a green energy roadmap to have all Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy by 2019.

Please help!

Let's keep this project moving forward – and there are several ways in which you can help:

• Ask other Wikipedians to sign the project page as well – this way we can show the Wikimedia Foundation that this is an issue that the community really cares about.
• Talk to Wikimedians you know about the importance of reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement.
• Improve and translate the project page on Meta.

If you have any questions, you can contact us on on Meta. Again, thank you very much for your support! --Aubrey and Gnom (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erik Prince

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erik Prince. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Berkeley protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Berkeley protests. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

We're on Twitter!

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!

Hello Prcc27/Archives/2020! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk) For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.

RachelWex 17:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Women's Equality Party

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Women's Equality Party. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Attack on Prekaz

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Attack on Prekaz. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Husan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Husan. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:/r/The Donald

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:/r/The Donald. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Calendar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Calendar. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:British Somaliland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Somaliland. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Theresa May

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theresa May. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Republican Party (United States)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Republican Party (United States). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Racism in South Korea

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Racism in South Korea. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nazism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nazism. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Please comment on Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Prcc27. 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)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your work on LGBTQ pages. MitchG74 14:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Targeted killing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Targeted killing. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Strzok

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Strzok. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pink tide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pink tide. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Federal Correctional Institution, Coleman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Federal Correctional Institution, Coleman. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christianity in Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christianity in Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Real News Update

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Real News Update. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Note

About your question here, before I answer, I wanted to give you the opportunity to rephrase or change it some other way. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

2020 Presidential Election & Bunco man

Hey man, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure what the proper etiquette would be for some sort of disciplinary action to be taken against Bunco man for his repeated editing against consensus. He's been warned several times not to remove sourced information, yet continues to revert edits and delete refs. It looks like he's done something similar (and was banned for it several times) on Austin Petersen's page, insisting that he doesn't represent the Libertarian Party (that Bunco man evidently has been a member of since its inception in 1971) because of his rejection of the NAP, saying it's some kind of right-wing conspiracy to put Petersen and people like him (Rand Paul, other "libertarian conservatives" that are otherwise members of the GOP) at the head of the party. He also asserted that the Wikipedia admins are in on it and that one of the editors is Petersen himself. But I digress; he's even reverting the edits of and comically arguing with AnomieBOT. What can be done to get him to cut it out? Sorry to bother you, you just seemed like one of the other few regulars on that article. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Unregistered cohabitation

Hey. Any opinion on those countries on the SSM talk page? I'm not clear enough on the concept to decide what should go on the map or in the infobox. — kwami (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Navarro

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Navarro. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dana Loesch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dana Loesch. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Colt AR-15

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Colt AR-15. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sean Hannity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sean Hannity. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of military occupations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of military occupations. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Malaysian general election, 2018

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malaysian general election, 2018. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of cities in Israel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of cities in Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christine Blasey Ford

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christine Blasey Ford. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Prcc27. 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)

DETERMINEPRIMARY listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect DETERMINEPRIMARY. Since you had some involvement with the DETERMINEPRIMARY redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 18:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ilhan Omar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ilhan Omar. Legobot (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of 2017 albums

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of 2017 albums. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mobile country code

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mobile country code. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Voodoo Doughnut

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Voodoo Doughnut. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Simplified ruleset

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Simplified ruleset. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Criticism of Huawei

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Criticism of Huawei. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Office actions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Office actions. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation dos and don'ts

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox film. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hungary and MSM blood donation

Hungary has lifteme deferral for MSM. See this official deferral table: https://kimittud.atlatszo.hu/request/11200/response/16628/attach/5/V%2520rad%2520sra%2520val%2520alkalmass%2520g%2520felt%2520telei%2520DON%252001%252013.kiad%2520s%25202018.06.01.pe.pdf

The table is clearly indicates that the reason for the permanent deferral is this hungarian law: 3/2005 (3/2005. (II. 10.) EüM rendelet az emberi vér és vérkomponensek gyűjtésére, vizsgálatára, feldolgozására, tárolására és elosztására vonatkozó minőségi és biztonsági előírásokról, valamint ezek egyes technikai követelményeiről): https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=A0500003.EUM

The cited source for the article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_donation_restrictions_on_men_who_have_sex_with_men is also incorrect for Hungary (and I suspect for other countries too :( ).

The map should be corrected accordingly.

84.225.193.91 (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Idles (band)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Idles (band). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rojava

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rojava. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Textus Receptus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Textus Receptus. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Daily Mail on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sergei Millian on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)