User talk:NickCT/Archive X

Please comment on Talk:List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miranda Lambert

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miranda Lambert. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Promotional editing

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Frequency Therapeutics. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Pleaase be aware that I am pretty close to seeking a topic ban for you, with respect to editing about biomedical companies. I do not have time to deal with the carelessness in the discussion (diff Ok. I didn't realize that that was the sentence you're taking issue with) when the diff cited is very small), where you were not even looking at the content under dispute, much less the dreck content you are "defending". Completely careless, completely promotional. Our article about Cipro is way out of date but i get pinned down by this kind of incompetent, promotional garbage. Not for much longer. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: - Please do what you feel you need to do. I don't think my editing is promotional. I have no personal link with the subjects of the articles I'm editing, and I'm curious why you think I'd be seeking to promote them.

I do appreciate your concern about being cautious when using sources that may have COI's. I think in my most recent response to you I indicated a willingness to properly qualify facts attributed to said sources.

On another note, I'd encourage you to consider discussion before wikilawyering. Frankly, I don't think the content change you're looking for is that different to the one I also think is appropriate. It's a tad annoying that you don't seem to willing to come to consensus through discussion. NickCT (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

this is not a narrow "lawyer" thing, this is a mission thing. You add way to much promotional dreck about companies and you are out of WP:ROPE with me. If I find this kind of promotional garbage from your hand again, I will seek a topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring to keep it

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

After a single revert? Really? Don't think we might be jumping the gun with the obnoxious warning messages? NickCT (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• diff your original addition, 16 June 2017

1. revert to keep it diff 16:40, 16 January 2018
2. revert again diff 20:04, 16 January 2018
3. revert again diff 21:22, 16 January 2018

You are edit warring to retain spam-driven promotional content. Shameful. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you seek to discuss the topic before reverting? NickCT (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Technically, you added the spam to WP. You reverted to restore it. You should have instead opened a discussion per BRD as to what was wrong with it, and listened. Instead, like most editors who come to WP to promote things, you have blindly edit warred to keep the garbage. Whatever. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you think my impetus is to promote the topic in question? NickCT (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are hyping things, and I don't care. What I know is that you are hyping things. I know this from 1) the content - badly sourced (primary sources, press release, churnalism) ; 2) the behavior - adding it in the first place, and blindly edit warring to keep it. This is what people who come here to promote things do, content and behavior wise, all the time. That is the only way I can know. I can show this with diffs. You violate WP:PROMO all the time. Content and behavior. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Generally, people promote things because they are fans or haters ("veganism is great!!!") or they have a financial conflict of interest. Somtimes industry people come to WP who are used to press-release-like writing and are in some context where press releases matter, and they bring that crap into WP. I have no idea what your deal is. I don't guess. Sometimes I ask. I have not asked you. There has not been a clear enough case with one company to justify it. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 in science

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 in science. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

Alexbrn (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: - Well that seems inappropriate. Do you use templates b/c you have trouble conversing? NickCT (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The template is required as a precursor to WP:discretionary sanctions. You have been warned. Alexbrn (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: - Oh no! Really? Wow. I guess I'm warned then. Isn't there some rock you're meant to be under? NickCT (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Now asking...

Due to your persistence at Frequency Therapeutics, I am now asking...

Your recent contributions are focused on Frequency Therapeutics, an article you created and have been the biggest contributor to. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, NickCT. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Frequency Therapeutics, directly or through a third party (e.g. an economic development agency, an investor group, or a PR agency or the like working for people connected with the company)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: - This seems like a slightly disingenuous question as I recently told you that I have no relation to these folks. It's beginning to really weird me out that you continually seem to infer or insinuate I do. Please cease. If you don't believe me, go post to some appropriate noticeboard. Also, please cease posting to my user page. We're trying to address a content question which is probably best addressed on the talkpage of the article in question. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Seth MacFarlane

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Seth MacFarlane. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Frequency Therapeutics. 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. Note you are at 4RR already Alexbrn (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn - You are invited to cease leaving comments here Alex. NickCT (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sex

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sex. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Thiel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Thiel. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kate Mara

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kate Mara. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image RfC

Because you have commented previously at other image RfCs, letting you know there's another one you might be interested in looking at here. Thanks,-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:47, 14 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) 04:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A little note

Hey NickCT. Just wanted to say, while I do agree your points, it's not a good idea to call out others for their POVs. We all have personal POVs. There are some editors who are mainly POV-pushers on the mainspace but 90% of the time it doesn't help to actually say so and mostly just undermines future possibility of editors with different personal POVs reaching agreements. He probably hasn't read the comment yet-- you have time to edit it. Feel free to delete this message if you'd like.--Calthinus (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: - I appreciate your thoughts and agree with you to some extent and realize there might be civility issues. But the fact is that the editor in question is pretty grievously distorting the references and rules of Wikipedia to fit his/her own personal viewpoints. As you're no doubt aware, some editors tend to do this more than others. I think it's important that repeat offenders be called out or else what's essentially a disruptive behavior may never get sanctioned. NickCT (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Tbh I probably spend too much time on certain obscure geographical regions, where it is very, very difficult to avoid having to make peace with POV-pushers :/. In theory you're right, really.--Calthinus (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sci-Hub

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sci-Hub. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Catholic organizations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Catholic organizations. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nextdoor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nextdoor. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Liberty University

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Liberty University. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Savile

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Savile. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NickCT. You have new messages at Talk:John_Taylor,_Baron_Taylor_of_Warwick#rfc_211B605.
Message added 21:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A new image has been added, may be you would like to take a relook DBigXray 21:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trypophobia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trypophobia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you may to read a comment made about you. See "That the RfC has been called "vague and poorly framed" by one editor". That's not accurate. Others have also complained about the vagueness of the RfC. Is it about that article or is it about something else. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Only one editor stated "vague and poorly framed." No other editor stated that. So there is no inaccuracy regarding my comment. I fail to see why you felt the need to post this on NickCT's talk page unless it's to start unnecessary drama. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced and promotional editing

this violated WP:V and WP:PROMO. You are still heading directly for a TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Grow up bud. This is the second time I'm asking not to post on my talkpage. NickCT (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of 7400-series integrated circuits

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of 7400-series integrated circuits. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Third Rock Ventures for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Third Rock Ventures 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/Third Rock Ventures until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, NickCT. You have new messages at Talk:Anesthesiologist#Request for comment on definition of anesthesiologist.
Message added 17:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kwekubo (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Monsanto Cancer Case RfC - text has changed, please review

Hi there, please see amended proposed text here and let us know if you still approve, thank you! petrarchan47คุก 05:57, 18 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) 04:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Soros

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Soros. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David M. Cote

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David M. Cote. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Aniston

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Aniston. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 December 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) 04:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving to section

== A query Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Giles == Hi, NickCT I suggested the deletion of this page, but was knocked back with my suggestions, yet you were the only person who agreed with me. I'm a little frustrated given that I'm new to editing Wiki and instead of diluting Wikipedia with people such as this (those in paleontology that really aren't deserved of their own page compared with the notable individuals I've mentioned previously), I wondered what you would recommend in terms of deletion for that page? I was quite surprised to receive such harsh comments from other users. Thank you. Xioa72 (talk) 12.39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Xioa72: - Hey buddy, I agree with User:Ifnord's close of the AfD. Consensus was clearly for keep. I agree with you that adding people like this "dilutes" Wikipedia. I think the fundamental problem is that the bar for notability of academics is just very low compared to other BLP's. I think this has come to be b/c academics love to think of themselves as notable and deserving of mention on Wikipedia. This is despite the fact that academics are usually the first to berate Wikipedia as an unreliable source.

Frankly, unless there's a change to how WP handles notability of academics, I don't think there's a good chance of this page will be deleted. You can always wait a few months and propose deletion again to see if consensus has changed, but I don't think we'll get lucky. Alternatively you could propose tightening rules for notability of academics, but there to I think we may have an up hill battle. NickCT (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving to section, as not sure a misplaced comment pings the user, apologies if I'm overstepping valereee (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, NickCT Xioa72, did you just make a Wikipedia account to take down the page about Sam Giles? What is it about her research that you don't like? Jesswade88 (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jesswade88: - I think your comment may be better placed on Xiao72's talk page. I certainly don't have a problem with her research. I just question whether she (and a number of other academics like her) really meet the spirit of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NickCT (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT: - happy to place a comment there too, but you clearly agree with him/her. Which biographies dilutes Wikipedia? Jesswade88 (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jesswade88: - Academic biographies dilute Wikipedia. As I said above, the way notability of academics is written it's a lot easier to be a notable academic than say, a notable architect or a notable artist or a notable engineer or physician or cleric. Wikipedia treats academics as inherently more notable than other professions, and I'm just not sure that's fair.

With all due respect to Ms. Giles, I can't see anything in her biography that might be of interest to the general public. It might be interesting to a small group of paleontologists, but Wikipedia is written for everyone. If we forget that, then we basically just become a site like LinkedIn, or some other platform designed to relay information about members of the public. NickCT (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT: That's an interesting take. I'm not a palaeontologist but still find it cool that it's possible to find new models of anatomy, even when you're so early in your career. I'm all for notable architects and engineers and physicians being on here. I don't understand how it dilutes anything, you don't need to search for palaeontologists if you don't want. Jesswade88 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jesswade88: - Don't get me wrong, I find it interesting too. But just b/c I find something interesting, that doesn't mean others will and it doesn't me it's an encyclopedic or notable topic. re "you don't need to search for palaeontologists if you don't want" - That rationale could be used to justify inclusion of anything, no?

You don't see how including articles covering non-notable topics dilutes Wikipedia? Hypothetically, if I wrote an article about a huge piece of lint I found in my sock, you don't think having that article would somehow dilute WP? NickCT (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello NickCT, I appreciate your taking the time to reply to me. I would have to say that I agree with everything that you have said above. To answer your question Jesswade88, not at all! Having been a long-time reader of Wikipedia, I felt it important to (finally) contribute something. It just so happens that Dr Giles was the first paleontologist who I came across that I felt did not meet the criteria for notability in this field. Whilst one would probably agree it is not ideal to begin my wikipedian journey by deleting a page, I opted for this suggestion to reduce dilution in a field that I have spent more than three decades. I cannot help but echo what Nick says here, that this individual, who I would agree has published a few good papers, is far from the mark of being a notable academic in this field. If Dr Giles is deserved of a page, then quite literally 100s thousands of scientists deserve to be on here, too. Jesswade88 Please do know that this is nothing against you, or Sam, and having read your profile I can see that you have contributed a significant amount to Wikipedia for which I think is fantastic. I think that perhaps being stuck in my traditional ways, maybe this wiki editing is not for me. Xioa72 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2018 (CET)

@Xioa72: - Don't get discouraged Xioa. No one is going to tell you that WP is perfect. If you've noticed an imperfection, start a conversation to help get it fixed. NickCT (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT: Thanks, Nick. That's greatly appreciated. I cannot help but feel discouraged, but I'll stick around and maybe just edit here and there. Thanks for your support. Xioa72 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2019 (CET)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Please note the discretionary sanctions for American politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

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

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | talk 20:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	While the big meanies suggested you strike it out this especially the first comment, was good humor deserving of a barnstar. I'll likely get in deep doo-doo for defending such a "personal attack" but well, if the truth hurts then so be it. MONGO (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@MONGO: - Thanks mate! I thought my response to User:BullRangifer was pretty fair and measured, but apparently Mel and User:Awilley, didn't. Anyways, for the record; Bull wrote me a very pleasant e-mail. It turns out he's a pretty cool guy. We've had a virtual handshake over the whole incident. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

We all agree to do our best to write well...we just don't agree on what that entails. Sometimes after even heated disagreements, a reasonable neutral compromise happens, but on an article like the one in question, while tempers and passions are high, its doubtful during the fog of war that this is possible, even if the effort to do so is both right and valient. Best wishes.--MONGO (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, if good humour barnstars are being handed out for comments on that talk page I think this deserves consideration. Also, @NickCT, I suspect that's fairly common. When you strip away the anonymity of the Wikipedia user handle and the pretense of arguing about something in a public forum, getting to actually know the person behind the username, you find out that they're actually a fairly normal person that has more in common with you than you previously thought possible. I was once in a year-long content dispute with an editor. At one point we took things offline and communicated by email and it was surprising how quickly we were able to work things out. We're now friends on Facebook. ~Awilley (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That's been my experience, too. Nick and I have exchanged several emails, and we share many POV. I could use 90% of his userboxes on my userpage. It's often relatively minor triggers here that cause big disagreements, which shouldn't really be that big, because in reality they aren't. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:35, 11 January 2019 (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) 04:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I feel like I know you...

Are you from Connecticut? Would you like to participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut?

Also, you seem familiar. Are you involved in politics in this state? Just curious. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: - Yes, I am from CT and yes I would be honored to participate in the WikiProject dedicated to the greatest state in the union.

Other than having briefly met Chris Murphy and briefly canvased for Chris Shays, I have had no involvement in CT-related politics.

I've lived in DC for over a decade now, but was raised in Norwalk and still consider myself a Connecticut Yankee. NickCT (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

NickCT, ah gotcha. I thought for a moment based off your userboxes that you might have been someone I knew, haha. Either way, I am super glad to have you aboard Wikipedia:WikiProject Connecticut!! :D ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 23:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pamela Geller

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pamela Geller. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Psy-Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shabir Ally

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shabir Ally. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suki Waterhouse

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Suki Waterhouse. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2019 (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) 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Decline in insect populations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Decline in insect populations. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Superconductivity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Superconductivity. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 Strasbourg attack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 Strasbourg attack. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Indian general election

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Indian general election. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Re your comment on "Backup"

My ideal question would be "Should 'Enterprise client-server backup' be split into its own article, and—if I do that—can editors lay down a set of comments that will persuade 'new-to-the-subject editor' not to merge it back in to 'Backup' and dumb it down again?" The problem is that, IMHO for a combination of psychological and cultural reasons, "new-to-the-subject editor" simply won't listen to anyone's comments. I initiated a 3O, and he simply refused to respond to the Third Opinion editor. I'm hoping an RfC will have more influence on him, but I'm reluctantly prepared to go to Administrator's Noticeboard or Arbitration. I'd prefer not to get "new-to-the-subject editor" banned, because I think contributing to WP is an important part of his life, but I think that some of his conduct in connection with this and other articles would support doing so. As you can see it's a very tricky situation—which WP no longer permits dealing with directly via an RfC, and I'd appreciate any further advice you in particular can offer. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: - re "I'd prefer not to get "new-to-the-subject editor" banned" - Don't worry. You won't be able to.

My friendly guidance would be to remove your current RfC, and resubmit it. When you do, it should take the following format;

---

RfC Question: - Should 'Enterprise client-server backup' be split into its own article? (Date/Time)

• Support - Nominator's rationale and interpretation of other editor's actions. (Data/Time/Signature)

---

Looking at Backup, the article seems too long, which generally means stuff should get split.

Also, quit with the new-to-the-subject editor shenanigans. Not clever. Not civil. Not convincing. NickCT (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions.

As far getting Pi314m (I think I can use his "handle" here) banned, look at the 4th paragraph here—the one beginning "Pi314m has a distinct fondness for 'cut-and-paste moves' that he calls 'mergers' ...." As that paragraph says, he was cautioned twice about that—the second time in 2018 by Matthiaspaul who said "If you continue these kinds of edits, they will have to be regarded as vandalism which may led [sic] to a block." As the last sentence of that paragraph states, Pi314m did a half-dozen of such "merges" into"Outsourcing" in the first 4 months of 2019, and of course last month he "merged" two other articles into "Backup"—deleting the entire body of the second article (and if that ain't vandalism I don't know what is). With a history like that, I'm not so sure I can't get Pi314m banned—at least selectively for "Backup" and any related articles.

And of course a selective ban would be sufficient for my purposes, just so long as it prevents his merging a separate "Enterprise client-server backup" article into "Backup" again with his "simplifications". When I call Pi314m a "new-to-the-subject editor" I'm not exaggerating; he truly doesn't know his a*s from his elbow about enterprise backup. Look at the single-sentence paragraph beginning with "Creating a synthetic full backup ...", which he added to the "Performance" sub-section of "Backup" as a replacement for my full paragraph on the feature. If you read Pi314m's sole reference in that sentence, it's a 2005(!) ComputerWorld article talking about enterprises' Recovery Point Objective being improved because synthetic backups allow them to reduce their "backup window" by doing incremental instead of full backups. If you read halfway down the "Full Backups Broken" paragraph in the ref, it says an outsourcer's senior storage architect found "it took him longer to perform a full data restore than it did to perform a full backup"—which means the Recovery Time Objective was actually increased because it takes longer to recover from tapes (which these days are likely to be off-site because of HIPAA/FDA/Sarbanes-Oxley requirements).

So how should I refer to Pi314m in the RfC? I previously got shot down on the article Talk page for using his "handle" in an RfC, and now you're saying "new-to-the-subject editor" is a "Not clever. Not civil. Not convincing" shenanigan. Pi314m is my real reason for filing this RfC, and I need some way to say that I need to protect a separate "Enterprise client-server backup" article from such actually-existing simpletons. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: - Look.... I'm not going to make a judgement on Pi314m's behavior. You might be right. But if you are right, you're not making your point a clear or succinct way. Just refer to him as "another editor". NickCT (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot to mention that, when Pi314m makes "cut-and-paste moves", he does so without any preceding discussion on the merged-in article's Talk page—which survives when he redirects the merged-in Article page. That means in some cases he's deleting the entire content of articles entirely on his own say-so. IMHO that's against WP rules. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of people with non-binary gender identities

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of people with non-binary gender identities. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neonicotinoid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hessy Levinsons Taft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hessy Levinsons Taft. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Opioid epedemic

A tag has been placed on Category:Opioid epedemic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2019 (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) 04:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Calvin Cheng

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Calvin Cheng. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stoya

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stoya. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dendrochytridium

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dendrochytridium. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alice Stewart (commentator)

The article Alice Stewart (commentator) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NBIO as written. Having internet presence doesn't make a person notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. shoy (reactions) 13:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 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) 00:10, 19 November 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) 04:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tristan Pollock

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tristan Pollock. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Pierre Poilievre

The edits I made to Pierre Poilievre's page were anything but a "test". They are 100% accurate and should never have been removed. It's bizarre that given this development is all over the news today, you would have removed it or for some reason thought it was a "test". Please reinstate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.175.10 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@173.206.175.10: - Hi Buddy. Thanks for your comments. Couple things about your edits; 1) "the couple lives" is not good English. It should be, "the couple live". 2) the other information you're trying to add could be fine, but it would be better with a citation (see WP:CITATION). Hope this helps! And welcome to Wikipedia. Let me know if I can be of assistance. NickCT (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Brady-Belichick era

I noticed that you moved the Brady-Belichick era article to New England Patriots Dynasty. My earlier move was reverted, correctly, by User:Gonzo fan2007 as there was a recent move discussion in which it was determined that Brady-Belichick era was the correct common name. See Talk:New England Patriots Dynasty#Requested move 13 December 2019. Accordingly, and absent a further move discussion resulting in consensus, your unilateral move to another name is improper. Please revert your move and seek consensus for it if you believe it is the correct common name. Cbl62 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cbl62: - Hey. Thanks for your note. We could probably have this conversation on the articles talk page. Consensus developed in an AfD to include "New England Patriots Dynasty" in the title after the move discussion you referenced was set up. I'm trying to stick to the most recent consensus. NickCT (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

NickCT, I also would request you revert your move as it was improper. AFD is not the venue for a move discussion, and with an already complete move discussion having occurred just a few months ago, a unilateral move is improper. Per WP:BRD, the status quo should be returned (Brady-Belichick era) and you should start a new move discussion if you think the article name should change. Again, an AFD discussion does not superseded a specific move discussion consensus. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, the AfD did not close with a consensus to remove Brady and Belichick from the article title. Indeed, the AfD ended with this closing comment: "There seem to be some dispute about the title ..." Such language does not reflect a consensus and any dispute over the name should be resolved by a move discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cbl62 and Gonzo fan2007: - Fine. I'll revert. However, 1) I think a consensus developed during a later AfD does supersede that from an earlier, admittedly more "specific" move discussion. After all, consensus can change. If I had know the what the title was going to during the earlier move discussion, I wouldn't have voted then to move to Brady-Belichick era. "Brady-Belichick era" was better than original title in the move discussion. It was not better than the later title that came out of the AfD. 2) The AfD ended with that move. Really the move discussion should have been re-initiated, as the proposal in the move discussion was to move away from a title that was no longer the title. That would seem to nullify the discussion 3) I'd thought we three had agreed during the AfD that the "notable" subject of article was the Dynasty, not the era. Why then did we move back to a title about the era? NickCT (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

hmmmmmm.... I can't undo... I'm getting The edit appears to have already been undone. You may have attempted to undo a page move, protection action or import action; these cannot be undone this way. Any autoconfirmed user can move the page back to its previous location, and any administrator can modify or remove protection., when I try. NickCT (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I had know the what the title was going to during the earlier move discussion, I wouldn't have voted then to move to Brady-Belichick era. This kind of proves my point. Those who didn't know that a move was being discussed during the AFD didn't have the opportunity to comment on it. I don't dispute that consensus to move an article can be gained from an AFD, however, with an actual move discussion having occurred just six weeks prior, a WP:RM would be more appropriate (see WP:RM#CM for why the discussion is needed, specifically the two bullet points). This is especially true considering Cbl62 moved the page and I reverted the move. If you look at the move log, my move summary said revert move, recent move discussion determined consensus, propose another move if you think it should be changed. Appreciate you moving it back though, and happy to participate in the forthcoming move discussion, if you so choose to start it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Try now. I deleted Brady–Belichick era to make way for the move. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: - Same error message. You're willfully ignoring the point. With simple "yes/no" answers could tell me whether you accept that the notable subject in this article is the Patriots Dynasty and not the so-called Brady-Belichick era? Do you accept that that was the consensus that developed during the AfD? If the answer to either of those is "yes", why did you unilaterally decide to remove "Patriots Dynasty" from the title? It's obviously not right to look back to an earlier RM to justify that decision. You can start an RM asking whether B-B era is better than the current title.

It seems pretty clear to me that you personally feel this thing is notable and feel it's appropriate to push that POV unilaterally, despite the feelings of your fellow editors. Why don't we call in the person who closed the AfD and ask them what they think the appropriate conclusion is? NickCT (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to make this super clear, because you seem to be under some misconceptions about me. I don't care what the title of this article. I really don't. I'm a Packers' fan and don't edit or follow articles about the Patriots. I came across this article on accident. Right now, I am acting in my capacity as an administrator of Wikipedia to ensure that you are following policy and guidelines when making page moves. Two editors came to you and pointed out that you did not follow the proper process with a controversial page move. Per WP:RM#CM, The [Requested Move] discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies: there has been any past debate about the best title for the page; someone could reasonably disagree with the move. Now if the AFD had unilateral support for a page move and the administrator who closed the AFD also endorsed the page move, then great! Go for it. But when the closing administrator states There seem to be some dispute about the title, but the general consensus is to keep. Other issues can be discussed on the talkpage., that means that other issues, including the page name, should be discussed on the talk page. I will again stress to you that I don't care about the the outcome of any page move discussion on this page. I will gladly not take part in any future page move discussion, as whether it has B and B in the title doesn't matter to me. I shall complete the move and you are welcome to begin a WP:RM discussion at any time. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You obviously do care or you wouldn't have moved the page away from Cbl's title. No matter how little you care, I care little-r. I don't give a flying frick about the entire sport of American football. If all the Patriots and Packers were to go off a cliff in a tragic bus crash, I probably wouldn't bother reading the news headlines. That's how little I care. My only interest here is the principle of notability. Essays like this nonsense make WP look like a collection of ridiculous fancruft. Anyways, on vacation. Will check-in in a week. NickCT (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha real good stuff, man. Enjoy your vacation. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: - That wasn't meant to come off as hate. If you're into it, that's fine. There are worse sports to be a fan off. Synchronized swimming for example. That seems pretty lame. NickCT (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

My main point in all this was that in regards to this issue, I don't have an "editorial" stance. Whatever the title of the article becomes, so long as it meets policy, is fine with me. I ran across this article on accident, but felt compelled to ensure the proper process/policy was followed. Regarding your notability concerns, I understand and appreciate where you are coming from. However, the notability of a subject doesn't change because of its title. The idea of "New England Patriots winning an unprecedented number of games and Championships during an era when Tom Brady was the QB and Bill Belichick was the coach" has been deemed notable in the AFD. Thus, we just need to find the WP:COMMONNAME for that idea and make sure the article title matches that.

No offense taken. Suum cuique, sports included. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

re "notability of a subject doesn't change because of its title." - Sure..... but the subject of an article might change with the article's title, right? The "BB era" is not a "real" (or at least, not a "notable") subject. I know you've said the "BB era" and the "Patriots Dynasty" are the same thing, and hence you can infer notability of one from another, but that logic seems like a real stretch. I think the policy to think about here is WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. What is this article about? The long string of Patriots wins (i.e. a possibly notable topic)? Or how great B&B are (i.e. fan cruft)?

re "proper process" - You realize you confused the process by initiating a move discussion during a deletion discussion which was also discussing the article title? You essentially split the discussion. NickCT (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No I didn't. Prod by you was Dec 7. Removal of Prod by me was Dec 13. Move Discussion by me was Dec 13. AFD nom by you was Jan 6. New move discussion by me was Feb 18. What are you even talking about?

The point is that WP:RM#CM says you should not perform a move if that move has the probability of being controversial, and you did it anyway, even after another editor (Cbl62) made a move and was rightfully reverted by me (with Cbl62 actually agreeing with my revert of them!). That should have been a red flag for you that said "maybe I should take this to the talk page". Honestly, I am tired of arguing with you about this. Bottom line, there's a move discussion active, you participated in it, some admin will close it, and the issue will be resolved. I am disengaging from this discussion. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: - Sorry. I meant to say that you enacted an old move discussion even though there had been a later discussion about names in a different forum.

re "with Cbl62 actually agreeing with my revert of them" - Did he agree before you made the revert? I saw you change the name based on the results of your move discussion even though a tentative resolution had been found in another forum. Did you discuss that revert first?

I don't think we're arguing. I think we're debating. I don't think your support for fan cruft makes you a bad person. I'm a fan of stuff too. I've pushed to keep articles/subjects more out of personal interest than a sincere evaluation of notability. Happens to the best of us. NickCT (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I am disengaging from this discussion. Feel free to comment here to your heart's content, but please do not ping me again or otherwise force some type of interaction between us. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Little pointy. Remember, you came here to my talk page. Don't accuse me of harassing you. NickCT (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The Camp of the Saints

I'm responding to some comments on The Camp of the Saints talk, however since my thoughts are wholly WP:OR and slightly off-topic, I'm bringing them here.

Obviously I've never read The Camp of the Saints and therefore any opinion I have is simply a reaction to reviews, or the WP plot summary. Yes, it was difficult to not be flabbergasted by how relentlessly and remorselessly -almost absurdly- negative the depiction of the non-Europeans was, but what also struck me was how feeble-minded and vacillating the Europeans were depicted as being throughout.

This seemed to me to be the real reason why the book would be popular with the Bannon's of this world, who are at least as much at war with the "cuckservative" moderates in conservative politics as they are with 'foreigners'. That says nothing about the 'foot soldiers' of the far-right of course, who may just love to have someone to hate.

As I say, pure WP:OR, but it was my reaction as I read the plot.Pincrete (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: - Thanks for dropping by. I agree with your reading. The book is as much about hating immigrants as it is about hating those who condone immigration.

The book reminds me vaguely of the American movie Red Dawn, in the sense that Red Dawn seemed to be born from the fever dream of some commie-hating American conservative. This book was born out of the fever dream of some immigrant-hating French conservative.

I appreciate the thoughts you expressed on the article's talk page. There are definitely two reasonable sides to the "racist" argument. My feeling is that if certain language is OK for the NYT and other high caliber publications, it should OK for us. If that contravenes a WP policy, then we should WP:IAR. NickCT (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Yapperbot (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Yapperbot (talk) 09:34, 23 May 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 08:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Article titles on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of 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 01:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Audrey Strauss on a 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 20:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Balcombe Street Gang on a "Biographies" 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 19:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shaherose Charania on a "Biographies" 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 03:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) 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 19:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) 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 22:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty on a "Biographies" 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 23:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)