Hello, Guest2625, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tim PF (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
A tag has been placed on Albinobeach requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you can assert the importance of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Free Syrian Army Green Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. In Free Syrian Army, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Arms (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.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. When you recently edited Free Syrian Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rastan (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.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. When you recently edited Syria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canaanite (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.
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You created this map with the bombardment of Homs. More districts since have been under shelling or are under shelling per article. (Example: Jeb Jandali, Bab Dreib, Old Homs, Hamidiea, Ghouta, Jobar, Rifaat, Arabis, and Juret al-Shaya. The last two have got the brunt lately: and somewhat Ghouta.) If you can update this mpa it would be nice. Jacob102699 (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I didn't create that map. I got it from the Voice of America website. The VOA is a US government organization so all the work they specifically create is in the public domain. If I have time I might be able to use Adobe photoshop and shade in additional neighborhoods although it's not a top priority. I'm also not that sure how beneficial it's to shade in more neighborhoods, because it's starting to sound like most the neighborhoods in Homs are being bombarded.--Guest2625 (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry for the major edit mess ups on idlib governorate. The page must be messed up, because it only happens on that page to me. It keeps saying Wikimedia Error and I have to reload while editing. Maybe the server is down on this page. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. When you recently edited Buffett Rule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup (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.
Please discontinue posting charts, graphs, and/or data of your own creation except where the data and conclusions are clear, unambiguous, and published by reliable sources. If a graph is merely the presentation of items from a reliable source and does not involve any analysis, such graph MAY be permitted. If such graph, chart, or data requires ANY analysis, or is based on results or conclusions not fully published in a reliable source, then it constitutes original research (OR), which is prohibited under Wikipedia policies. The policy states that "each statement in the article [should be] attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. … Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." It has been widely discussed what deviation can be made from this, with a concensus that very little deviation is permitted. For example, it is OK to add two numbers in a source together. Going even a tiny bit beyond this likely is not OK.
Examples:
Your chart at Estate tax in the United States appears to accurately present data from IRS Statistics on Income by year for about 30 years. Without addition, that should be acceptable. You also overlayed names of Presidents in those years. This is public record, and thus the combination might be acceptable. However, you also added data for 2009 and 2010 which was not in the main source IRS data, and for which the denominator of the fraction presented (total number of deaths) was not shown in the secondary data. In addition, the data apparently used as the source for your 2009 and 2010 items states clearly that it is by year of tax return not year of death, and thus not comparable to the main data. The 2009 and 2010 columns are OR and not permitted. Further, they are not even consistent with the 1982-2008 columns, according to the IRS second data file.
Your chart at Excise tax in the United States is based on data presented in a 2007 CBO report. The chart presents the CBO report table accurately in chart form. As such, it may not be considered not OR. However, the chart title and descriptions differ materially from the CBO descriptions. Therefore, even though the chart itself is not OR, the captions are OR. Further, the captions used indicate the material is presented in a manner not intended by the source. This renders the entire table OR.
Your chart at Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax cites no sources. Though the data presented might be accurate and calculated from the IRC, it is OR and is not permitted. To quote WP:OR, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
I will delete charts that appear to be OR. If you believe a chart is not OR, please provide justification and sources in the article discussion and/or file information.
I can relate to frustration that the media does not adequately or accurately cover many tax topics, particularly those involving incidence of tax. WP, however, is NOT the forum for redressing this problem.
Thank you for your suggested improvements to the graphs mentioned above. It's more constructive if these suggested improvements were given on the specific article talk pages so that other editors could contribute their thoughts. The wikipedia project very much appreciates image files for articles, because these help to advance and improve the content of the project. It should be noted that essentially all featured articles on wikipedia contain images, so it is great that you are helping to improve the images of the articles that you are following. I look forward to any suggested improvements you have on the relevant talk pages. Guest2625 (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I saw the situation developing at the article on the Battle of Zabadani. And I think we have to look at the time-frame and what the sources really do say. So I have carefully worded the article per the sources. First, I agree that it seems that a large part of the town is not under the control of the government, with the military only focusing on guarding government buildings in the town and the roads into and out of Zabadani. However, the sources are clear that the FSA itself doesn't have any control of Zabadani, with them holding positions outside the city (not being able to enter due to the checkpoints) while the ones who are actually on the streets of Zabadani are civilian opposition members who are organising the protests. Second, I do not agree the battle is ongoing because too much time has passed since the last phase. Three months, and the sources themselves state that battle ended with the military regaining control of Zabadani. So the event that the article covers is done. If there is a new event create a new article. However, as it seems, there is no actual battle for the city. The Army won the battle. Now it seems more of a situation where the military controls the critical points of the city, while they are letting the opposition protesters roam free on the streets. Again...three months, too much time has passed. All this now is for the aftermath section of the battle. EkoGraf (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sounds fine with me. I was just going along with the wording in the Economist that "much of the town is again under opposition control." From the sources it appears that the Syrian army has control of the entrances to the town, but does not control the town, perhaps because the army fears attacks if they station throughout the town, or perhaps because they are physically not able to. The Guardian source also appears to say that there's a truce or fragile peace in Zabadani with the civilian opposition in control of the town, and the armed opposition and loyalist forces stationed outside the town. But describing it as part of an aftermath section rather than a third phase is fine with me, since the exact details of what is happening in Zabadani is not clear. I think a more accurate heading or subheading for the last paragraph, however, would be either stalemate or truce as stated in the Economist and Guardian. Guest2625 (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes the sources clearly say that much of the town is again under opposition control. But they are not under rebel fighter control. They are under opposition civilian control. Also, the military still has a small presence in Zabadani itself at the several government buildings in the town and on the approaches to the town. The FSA is outside the city. So, ok, we agree on that. But, the last edit you made now on the heading and subheading is inaccurate. The article is on the battle for the city from back in January-February. And per the sources you are quoting yourself the Army won that battle and regained control, so there was no truce or stalemate at the time the battle ended. What you call renewed fighting is not a renewed battle for the city, its standard guerilla warfare. There is no fighting for control of Zabadani, only occasional rebel hit-and-run attacks. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. When you recently edited Fawaz Akhras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syrian uprising (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.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Please don't remove POV tags until the dispute is resolved. Next time, read entire the talk page before assuming that said POV isn't mentioned. Thanks. Armins (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
It is done. Sorry if the previous post sounds a bit rude. In my opinion, after reading the numerous disputes on the talk page I did not feel like the previous POV dispute was resolved despite the tag having been previously removed. Armins (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This thing about his gradfather being a Turkish wrestler, I believe it's in Zahler's book. I'll fix the citation after the article gets a peer review, then I believe it could pass as a good article, with few additional informations. I just need to make a good prose. --Wustenfuchs14:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
The information about the Turkish wrestler is in Seale's book. It's in the first paragraph of the book see this link [1]. The paragraph states that his grandfather fought a Turkish wrestler that was going through his village and then beat him. It was because of his strength and fighting ability that he subsequently got the nickname Wahhish. I haven't read all the other new material, but I checked this paragraph, since it was added to the Assad family article. The additional material is good, but I agree that the prose needs some work to have a more encyclopedic tone, especially, the material that comes from Seale's book. Guest2625 (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Crap... yes, I haven't saw that. I'll revert my self. About the prose, I gave the article for the peer review. The "Presidency" section is mixed up. Iraq-Iran war is at the bottom, while it should be at the top of the "After dissolution of the FAR" subsection, other paragraphs also need to be moved somewhere else etc. --Wustenfuchs00:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
I never said they were the FSA, I only said rebels but noted, with proper sources, that the towns in which the killings happened are FSA-controlled (sources don't mention any mujahideen presence). So there is no OR, everything is written per the sources, please refrain from unfounded accusations and assuming bad faith, that is not per Wikipedia rules on civility. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I will also tell you here what I told you over at the talk pages. It can be stated that your removal of the sourced info at the FSA article, on the basis that maybe they were mujahedeen, can be considered OR or POV, due to the fact that all of the provided sources state that the towns in which the killings took place are FSA-controlled, no mention of mujahedeen or SLA presence. As for the separation line, like I said at the talk page, there is no rule that the infobox combatants in the Battle of Aleppo article must be a copy-paste from the main war article. Besides, sources have been provided that during this battle the jihadists have been cooperating and coordinating with the FSA and viceversa (already provided you with one source), thus they are allies during this battle. The separation line was proposed as a compromise solution for the Kurds exclusivly due to their ambiguous loyalties in a previous discussion from a few weeks ago. EkoGraf (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Providing three sources confirming that the rebels throwing postal workers of the roof were FSA. Hope that satisfies you. One source is the LA times, which quoted a report by an opposition activist. While another is a report by the Al Monitor, which is considered reliable and notable (read the Wiki page on them). EkoGraf (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
As far as the military.com source goes, fine, remove it. However, the report by the opposition activist can be used by all means. We have used reports by hundreds of opposition activists on all the Syria civil war articles without question when they reported on potential killings by government forces. There is no reason to exclude this one when the FSA is identified as the killer. Also, provided sources that identify the killers of that government soldier, who was executed by his own grave, as members of an FSA brigade. I have even named the brigade per the sources. Hope that also satisfies you. EkoGraf (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Did you even read the new sources I added? The reuters source I added identifies the fighters that killed the soldier as being members of the Amr bin al-Aas brigade, while the other source identifies them being a FSA brigade. What is there not to understand there? What is OR there? Please, stop edit warring. I have been trying to be as compromising as I can by adding sources upon sources to identify them as FSA, but you have not shown even an ounce of good faith or attempts at trying to reach a compromise. Instead you are just removing the information again and again even when sources have been presented, on the basis that the sources themselves might be OR and thus wrong, which is OR in on itself. Other editors would have accused you of pov-pushing on this issue a long time ago, instead I have been trying to provide you with sources and am still trying to find a compromise. Please show at least some good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
I added yet another source from Al Jazeera [2] in which an FSA commander semi-admits to the possibility of the postal killers being FSA fighters. You want me to continue adding sources? You got the LA times, al-Monitor and al-Jazeera now, all reliable and notable sources. EkoGraf (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I apologize! I should not have warned you. The edits were happening so fast, I was confused who was adding "playboy". Again my apology. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mohammed Nasif Kheirbek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syrian uprising (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.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Refugees of the Syrian civil war, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kurdish and Hatay (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.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hard to read even at 300px
Since you have so much better graphical talent than I do, I wonder if you might be interested in fixing this one? Its fonts are too small to read. Please let me know what you think. —Cupco19:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
U.S. mean family net worth by percentile of net worth (1989–2010).
I recropped the image and moved around the legend making it a little bigger. I also added a larger title which allows the graph to be readable at 200px. If I had the original data set, I could create a new graph that had more visible lines, larger axis font and color. Guest2625 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I am not insisting. Multiple sources have been provided, including a few that are not coming from the regime. And it is not just me, several other editors have also edited the article in a way that the battle is over. The article Battle of Damascus (2012) covers the rebel offensive back from July, which ultimately failed to capture the metropolitan area of Damascus. That was a highly notable event which deserved its own article. The rebel operational name of the battle Damascus volcano was also agreed to after a discussion on the talk page. We already have an article on the current fighting, it is called Rif Dimashq offensive (which covers fighting in and around Damascus). If we try and reopen an old battle than it would be simply content forking, which is not according to Wikipedia rules. It has already been pointed out in the result section of the Battle of Damascus (2012) that the fighting later continued with the offensive. Your sources point to rebel attacks and clashes, which were happening long before the July Battle of Damascus, nothing in the sources about further rebel attempts to capture the metropolitan area of Damascus, which was the stated aim of their operation Damascus Volcano from July. EkoGraf (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Closing remarks on splitting procedure for "Battle of Al-Qusayr"
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Libor scandal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bond (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.
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding your last statement here, there are lots of results in economics (such as the laws of supply and demand) where a causal relation has been established, but not by simply observing a correlation between two variables. In economics, as in other sciences, establishing that A causes B is different from establishing that there is a correlation between A and B.
Supply and demand I don't think is some sort of great correlative/causation result. A supply/demand curve is simply a graphing technique for data be it hypothetical or real -- nothing more nothing less. It's a way to display observed or hypothesised results of demand, supply and prices. The more interesting result is that people usually assume with supply/demand that greater demand leads to greater prices and that vice versa lower demand leads to lower prices. This result obviously does not need to be the case, and the actual relationship depends completely on what, when, where, how, why the product was being sold and bought in a market of real humans not a hypothetical market where individuals are rational profit maximisers.
For example, mankind has known for millennia that there's a correlation between foul smells and certain kinds of disease. For most of that time it was thought that foul smells caused disease. It is only in the last couple of centuries that we've known that both bad smells and many diseases have a common origin in bad hygiene. The fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc is as relevant in economics as it is in medicine. Gabbe (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
I'm not questioning that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. I'm sure we can name an endless list of examples and have a great laugh. I'm just saying that in the social sciences it is pretty easy to use this argument, especially bolstered in strength when stated in Latin, to brush off a number of conclusions. What's important in the scientific method is the degree of correlation and reproducibility. In the social sciences reproducibility is the problem because you're studying a fixed set of real world macro data which you're not able to increase upon by doing experiments. I feel that instead of using Latin phrases people should attempt to articulate nuanced explanations of why they think or do not think a conclusion for a set of data is true or not true. Catch phrases are a dime a dozen. hmm and that's a catch phrase itself. Guest2625 (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Precisely. That's my whole point about that graph. In itself, it says nothing about whether one of these variables causes the other or not. Just like this one. That doesn't mean that the graph should be expunged from every article on Wikipedia. But it does mean that it should be accompanied by a commentary discussing whether these two things are connected or not. A commentary that is properly attributed (preferably to academic sources instead of political advocacy groups). Where such a commentary is lacking, inclusion of this image can be misleading. Gabbe (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, Guest2625. You have new messages at Talk:Financial crisis of 2007–2008. Message added 00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for fixing the Economics navbox to make it Wikipedia 'standards compliant'. I wonder if you could also have a look at and maybe comment on these two? Thanks, LK (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
To change the renewable energy source sidebar to a collapsible list wouldn't be difficult; the history of China one would take longer. I don't want to change them at the moment because I don't follow these two topics and I'm not sure what kind of formatting that the other editors want on the affected pages. Take a look at the following Template:Taxation, Template:US_taxation, and Template:Economics sidebar to get an idea of how to make a sidebar list on your own. Guest2625 (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are put on notice of the decision. You can read the full decision here. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. -- Director(talk)14:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An anonymous user has asked me to use the IMF data for PPP conversion in the article template for the article List of minimum wages by country. The person's interest is in Argentina, and their argument is that, as Argentina has a high rate of inflation, using the World Bank's 2011 data makes the Argentine minimum wage in international dollars highly inaccurate. World Bank does have 2012 figures for most countries now. In Argentina's case, the IMF 2012 figure is 36% less than the WB 2012 figure, and the IMF 2013 figure is about 14% higher than the IMF 2012 figure. So it seems that there is greater variation due to a change in source than due to inflation when it comes to Argentia. I compared the completeness of PPP data for 2012 between the two up to Cuba. WB lacked data on 7 countries covered by the article, and IMF lacked 2. However, the IMF data is shaded, indicating it is a staff estimate.
I like the IMF data for its completeness and up-to-dateness, but I suspect the older WB data is more accurate for its time. If I were deciding on my own, I'd keep the WB data in place, at least for now, just because I'd rather spend my time getting all the countries templatized, and I could worry about data sources after. I'd be interested in any feedback you may have on the issue, though. --Greenbreen (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Guest2625, you restored File:Average Effective Sales Tax of the 50 States (2007).gif on Taxation in the United States saying "Nothing wrong with this graph. It helps to illustrate this part of the article with relevant sales tax information." But does it? Who pays a 2.1 effective sales tax rate? It's a mismash of 50 states and doesn't seem to make much sense at all. If we're going to include one, I much prefer the graph you uploaded here File:Average_State_and_Local_Taxes_for_All_States,_2007.jpg, which is supposedly attributed to the same ITEP research. Or better, we could use your graph here File:19237_TaxFoundation_v2.gif which shows how the revenue of each state is divided and include something with regard to the overall burdens of each state. That would be more relevant than mashing 50 states, some with high sales taxes and some with none, into a single graph statistic that is not meaningful to anyone. Morphh(talk)14:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
If you want to go with the File:Average_State_and_Local_Taxes_for_All_States,_2007.jpg graph instead I'm fine with that. It's important to remember that the article that is being illustrated is Taxation in the United States, therefore, it's important that an equal balance is placed on federal, state, and local taxes. The average state incidence bar chart serves that purpose. For a pedagogical idea of how to present information for this article have a look at Paul Krugman's Microeconomics book on page 188 and the section called 'Taxes in the United States'. Paul Krugman a Nobel prize winner has nothing against using ITEP's average incidence data for the States' taxes. The specific title and information of the textbook is: Paul Krugman, Robin Wells, Microeconomics, Edition 2, revised, Macmillan, 2008 ISBN0716771594, 9780716771593, Page: 188. Guest2625 (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.
While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" productor drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). It is intended to help people whose computers do not have good character inserters. For example, many Mac users prefer to use the extensive "Special Characters..." tool present at the bottom of the Edit menu in all applications or to learn the keyboard shortcuts for characters like ñ and ü.
The current version of the special characters tool in VisualEditor is very simple and very basic. It will be getting a lot of work in the coming weeks and months. It does not contain very many character sets at this time. (The specific character sets can be customized at each Wikipedia, so that each project could have a local version with the characters it wants.) But the developers want your ideas at this early stage about ways that the overall concept could be improved. I would appreciate your input on this question, so please try out the character inserter and tell me what changes to the design would (or would not!) best work for you.
The "insert" pulldown on the task bar of VisualEditor will lead you to the '⧼visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title⧽' tool.
This is the ⧼visualeditor-specialcharacterinspector-title⧽ inserter as it appears on many wikis. (Some may have customized it.) Your feedback on this tool is particularly important.
Issues you might consider:
How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters?
Which character sets are useful to you? Should it include all 18 of the character sets provided in the wikitext editor's newer toolbar at the English Wikipedia, the 10 present in the older editor toolbar, or some other combination of character sets?
How many special characters would you like to see at one time?
Should there be a "priority" or "favorites" section for the 10 or 12 characters that most editors need most often? Is it okay if you need an extra click to go beyond the limited priority set?
How should the sections be split up? Should they be nested? Ordered?
How should the sections be navigated? Should there be a drop-down? A nested menu?
The wikitext editor has never included many symbols and characters, like ℗ and ♀. Do you find that you need these missing characters? If the character inserter in VisualEditor includes hundreds or thousands of special characters, will it be overwhelming? How will you find the character you want? What should be done for users without enough space to display more than a few dozen characters?
Should the character inserter be statically available until dismissed? Should it hover near the mouse? Should it go away on every selection or 10 seconds after a selection with no subsequent ones?
Some people believe that the toolbar already has too many options—how would you simplify it?
The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. It would be really helpful if you can tell me how frequently you need to use special characters in your typical editing and what languages or other special characters are important to you.
Thank you again for your work with VisualEditor and for any feedback you can provide. I really do appreciate it.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Economy of Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carats (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.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I removed the CIA info for Andorra and Cuba, as it is impossible to calculate a PPP value for these countries with the information provided by the CIA site. Please tell me exactly how did you arrive to the present values. Thanks. Pristino (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes I guess I should have been more clear how I got the PPP values from the CIA Factbook. You can get them by doing the following:
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your reorganization of the article. I cleaned up that section on paystub violations because it didn't make a lot sense when I first found it and I wanted to do something more positive than just deleting it. I should have thought of putting it in the enforcement section myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean C. Murphy (talk • contribs) 23:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tommaso Buscetta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In absentia. 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.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samia (play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samian. 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.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Minimum wage in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Territory. 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.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cold fusion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Miley. 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.
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
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 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.
That is good advice, though I don't know for whom it was intended, as I had already doneso there and did not do so here. I am not aware of any similar efforts you may have made to discuss the matter. --Noren (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Guest2625. 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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Guest2625. 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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Guest2625. 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.
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.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in 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 the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
On Talk:Jeffrey Epstein you wrote "I will re-establish the old version of the article which had half a year of established consensus". [5] I would most strongly advise you against doing this, given the Active Arbitration Remedies currently in place. Regardless of any blanket ban on the use of the Sunday Mail as a source, it is clear from the discussion elsewhere on that talk page (the one you started) that there is no consensus for the inclusion of the specific material being sourced to it in the Epstein biography. And I note that you have failed to even respond to the comments made concerning this matter. Trying to use past article history as 'consensus' for something currently disputed on the talk page, while not even getting involved in the discussion after starting it, would almost surely be seen as a violation of the imposed restrictions. 86.143.229.179 (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your advise. Slowing down the dialogue on the talk page was good for establishing a constructive and cordial environment. You should think about making a user account. Your help editing on such semi-protected articles would be useful. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi Guest2625! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I have not looked into the material on the pangolin coronavirus, so I cannot say. With the pangolin coronavirus you would need to be specific about the strain that the wikipedia article was discussing. The bat coronavirus RaTG13 is a well defined strain with an entry in the NIH taxonomy database and corresponding literature. --Guest2625 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Zhang, T; Wu, Q; Zhang, Z (6 April 2020). "Probable Pangolin Origin of SARS-CoV-2 Associated with the COVID-19 Outbreak". Current biology : CB. 30 (7): 1346-1351.e2. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2020.03.022. PMID32197085.
I read some of the material on the pangolin coronavirus discovered by Ping Liu et al. in 2019. The group in 2020 further expanded on the phylogenetics of the pangolin coronavirus which was labeled pangolin-CoV-2020. There has been a lot mentioned about this pangolin coronavirus, so I think an article on it would pass wikipedia's notability. However, I do not have a strong opinion on this. Liu in the 2020 paper concluded that:
"In summary, we suggest that pangolins could be natural hosts of Betacoronaviruses with an unknown potential to infect humans. However, our study does not support that SARS-CoV-2 evolved directly from the pangolin-CoV."
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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.Edit warring on one of the highest-profile articles in the Project is really not a good ideaAlexbrn (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
You have completely misunderstood my collaborative science editing. I clearly stated in the edit summary, if you wish to change the text to your preferred form, go ahead. I have no problem with whatever form the article takes. I have provided my suggestions. Cheers and happy editing. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on COVID-19 misinformation. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Are we edit warring? I thought we were doing good work together improving the article. I think the edits you have been making are ok. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sorry. I misunderstood why you were placing quotes around "lab". I agree the informal word "lab" is not ideal and generally should have quotes around it or be changed to "laboratory" -- and that's without the quotation marks. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In this table, you add too much SARS-CoV-1 related coronavirus to compare to SARS-CoV-2, Rs672, HKU3, Rp3, Rf1, which similarity to SARS-CoV-2 is about 79%.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll adjust the strains in the table so that they correspond with the SARS2-like phylogenetic tree. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The argument made by some lab leak theorists is that the cggcgg is so unlikely because two arginines in a row like this would make a virus more susceptible to B cell activation, as CpG islands trigger this. But this is an explicitly human pathogen phenomenon. [6]
You removed the CpG island part, because Wade makes the more explicit genetic engineering argument. And that's fair, I think that edit is warranted. But there is a reason why CGGCGG is "unlikely." It is the CpG methylation which makes CGG an uncommon codon in human-pathogenic coronaviruses, but not human non-pathogenic ones. So we lose that bit of the discussion. See also this discussion in the talk page archives: [7] — Shibbolethink(♔♕)14:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
If you amend your comments more than a few minutes after leaving them, and after people have already responded to them, you should sign again or add another timestamp noting your edits. Andre🚐06:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Placed an ad hoc note at the moment below the comment. If you find a page on the topic let me know. It would be nice to have such a link to read and show others in the future. --Guest2625 (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Lady of the Lake (poem), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gaelic and Glade.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Opening of the mouth ceremony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Set.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red pill and blue pill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ignorance Is Bliss.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed, that you deleted a paragraph in tim walz article. Though it's not me, who inserted that paragraph, but I want to know, why you deleted it, because to me it seems like that information doesn't fit your political views and you don't people to form a bad opinion about tim walz 62.217.185.86 (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tammy Baldwin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bush administration.
Thanks for the source. That is a good source. The birthdates are not that big of a WP:BLP violation problem. The bigger problem is the unsourced middle names. I have come across some middle names that have been inserted as crude hoaxes which is not good. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Latest comment: 21 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello! I didn't upload this file, but I think it should be included. The image comes from the Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, which is public domain, and was posted on Hamadeh's new official government account "@RepHamadeh". Additionally, Hamadeh is technically a federal employee as a member of the United States Army Reserve, making him an officer of the United States, but that's, obviously, less relevant. ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 days ago20 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! Her rank is written below her name on the photo? Bottom left under Kristi L. Noem is the rank Lt. Col. She posted this information publicly a few months ago, however she deleted her entire social media account and this is the only source left. I happened to remember and found the only source available. ZebulonMorn (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
As stated in the source,[10] they are honorary members unless they choose to continue as a full member. As she hasn't been a state legislator in over a decade, and the expiration date on her CAC reads "31 December 2024", she is an active member of the Civil Air Patrol. Additionally, "on Aug. 28, 2015, Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, Air Force chief of staff, announced CAP officially as a member of the U.S. Air Force’s Total Force, joining the regular, guard and reserve forces as American airmen." [11] This should absolutely be included under military service, as she is an officer in the United States Armed Forces. ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The source you are using for her being in this organization is https://www.tmz.com/photos/image_jpg_20240426_8ae99004479c40508a66dc1528c679ab/ which is a primary source. The source does not provide context as to whether it is due weight to include this information in the article. I have removed the information from the article's lead sentence and infobox which are summaries of the article body. You need to provide a secondary source which contains this information, so that the relevance of her membership in this organization can be evaluated. If you disagree with the removal from these two locations, you will need to open a discussion on the talk page to gain consensus of at least one other editor who agrees with your reasoning for inclusion. (See WP:BRD to understand the editing process on Wikipedia. Thanks) --Guest2625 (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is a serious issue that should have been put on talk page before removal. It's the only source available at all. When no other source is an option, primary sources may be used. ZebulonMorn (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is the other way around. The burden of adding material to a bibliography of a living person is on the editor who wishes to include the material. Just open the discussion on the talk page and the process will work out the way it should. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
A primary source is really not good for the body of the article. However, if it is not reputationally damaging material then not urgent. I am concerned about Wikipedia implying that she has the military rank of lieutenant colonel. These politicians run into lots of trouble because of rank and "stolen valor" issues. The way that ranks are given out in the Civil Air Patrol concerns me (see Ranks of the Civil Air Patrol). --Guest2625 (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see that and it's totally understandable. I think a large source of confusion here is the "cadet" vs "honorary" vs standard rank. CAP has "cadet" programs for high schoolers, kind of like the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps. "Senior members" are a different group. The "honorary" ranking system unfortunately doesn't get any easier. The US, officially, does not maintain any "honorary ranks" anymore, unless bestowed by the CIC. The US does maintain a few "honorary commands/positions", but that's a totally different thing. The US frequently used brevet in the past, but that ceased by WWII. The honorary rank comes from the fact she would "commission" at the elevated rank of Major as a "state legislative member", which is similar to how politicians were commissioned in the armed forces during WWII, however, the rank isn't actually honorary and this becomes more clear by her continuation as an active member in the CAP. I understand the need for more sources and I will continue to sear, but this clearly isn't fictitious and, if appropriately cited, should be included. ZebulonMorn (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
No problem. Just find the secondary source that mentions her military rank of lieutenant colonel. It seems as if she went around saying that she was a lieutenant colonel people in the military would not be impressed given that she was commissioned as a major. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Military service isn't about "being impressive". Less than 1% of Americans serve in the armed forces, and for many reason that number is lower for per-capita for women, so I'm just appreciative she's doing something. Additionally, the entire CAP was federalized during the COVID-19 pandemic for first time since 9/11, which was the first time since WWII. ZebulonMorn (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree. We just need a secondary source like a newspaper to say that she is a lieutenant colonel in the military and then we are all set to go. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am unable to see the content. It is blocked with the message: "This content isn't available right now. When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it's been deleted." Perhaps you can share a screenshot link. Also, content on facebook is not a secondary source. It is a primary source. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Kristi Noem deleted Facebook post The problem is it's deleted, so it comes up the same way. It does have her official @GovNoem, but I'm still searching. ZebulonMorn (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you want to get advise on if something should be added to a bibliography of a living person, you can always visit the WP:BLPN or WP:RSN boards. The editors watching those boards are well versed in the topic. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Open the discussion on the talk page and then all editors will be able to contribute and share their opinion on the topic. And, I'll also comment there. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Jojalozzo 23:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. --The Huhsz (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --The Huhsz (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
.gif){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}