Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:30, 18 January 2016

Archives

Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation: Texas Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law has been accepted

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

SwisterTwister Credit really belongs to User:2602:306:C4EA:CEA0:8C18:C012:44D3:D40 who started the article. I already informed them as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Decision for climate change deniers cat

Are you absolutely confident that you had sufficient consensus to close as delete rather than no consensus? I do not think consensus favoured the decision you took. AusLondonder (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this discussion? You'll need to give me something more than just say "you should have gone with no consensus". It's not a pure vote situation. When I look at the timeline during which the discussion was added to the BLP/N board and the views there, I think it does. You can't give great weight to the procedural opposers or the early opposers if there's no later discussion by them or even a later rebuttal to the points expressed. It's no different than an AFD with a lot of delete votes at the top and then someone comes in with new evidence or a new point and then a bunch of keeps at the bottom (or in the opposite, a bunch of keeps but someone finds out the sources are inaccurate and so it changes to a bunch of deletes). Closing those as no consensus is inaccurate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask, which is the specific BLP/N discussion that you refer to that figures so prominently in your decision to support category deletion? Was the BLP/N discussion formally closed? If not, and it if it is archived, may I respectfully ask that you un-archive it and attempt to formally close it, so that we as a community may assess the consensus on your take-away from that discussion? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"You can't give great weight to the procedural opposers or the early opposers if there's no later discussion by them or even a later rebuttal to the points expressed." Respectfully disagree. On a good day, yes, new evidence and new points of view are shared and views evolve; on the other hand another pattern in online discussions is unloading the bus. You are giving undue weight to the last word. Maybe early commenters see little substance in later comments. The arena of climate change being under discretionary sanctions, it may be that early commenters are reluctant to rebut each and every later comment because they fear being topic banned for tendentious editing. Delete is clearly a minority view in the category discussion. Your close is difficult to understand. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion at that time was cross-posted to now-Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive231#109_BLP_articles_labelled_.22Climate_Change_Deniers.22_all_at_once. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Thank you for engaging in discussion of your action. I see the request for closure WP:ANRFC of the BLPN discussion you linked to was declined, yet your interpretation of the consensus at the BLPN discussion figured prominently in your rationale for your closure of the category discussion. May I respectfully suggest we un-archive the BLPN discussion, and again request a formal, uninvolved closure, so that we may as a community assess the consensus of the BLPN discussion, if any? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You can bring that up at WT:BLP. I had no involvement with the BLP discussion but I think it is a moot point at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"moot point" I don't understand your comment, "moot point." What do you mean by "moot point," do you mean to say done is done? You invoked your interpretation of the BLPN discussion in your closure of the category discussion. Can we please find out if here is community consensus on your interpretation of the BLPN discussion? It sure seems like you used a BLPN discussion with no consensus and a category discussion with no consensus to justify a category deletion. I'm confused, please explain. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and argue it if you want. I don't care. The issue was whether those BLPs should be in the category or not. I just close the CFD as I did for the others that day. I didn't close the BLP discussion, I had nothing to do with that, I didn't even do more than scan it. I closed the CFD discussion. The BLP discussion brought up a new point, which came into the CFD discussion. I didn't see a lot of rebuttals or responses to the BLP discussion issues (there were some but not a lot) and a lot of newer voices from outside the general topic concerned about the BLP implications of the category itself. My advice was to formulate an RFC or some other discussion, but that's just advice. If you want to reinstate the BLP discussion, bring it up, if you want to take this to DRV, go do that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Where can I review the CSD discussion you mention? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This discussion? That is what we are talking about, aren't we? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Above you mentioned you closed both a CFD discussion and a CSD discussion; I would like to please review the latter. Can you please help? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That was a typo. It was just a CFD discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Quviahugvik

From high in the Canadian Arctic CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate the Winter or Summer Solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Adapted from User:WereSpielChequers greetings

Request

Hi there! You kindly offered your help at Misplaced Pages:Bot requests#Help with BAFTA articles. I installed AWB and had a go (after being verified for use), but it just would not work for me. Even trying to do the simple things like "apply general fixes" wouldn't work, let alone my efforts to replace the BAFTA text that I wanted. I don't know if there's something wrong with my download. Anyway, at first I was determined to work it out for myself but now I've been gone from WP for a week and I'm not fussed about that anymore, heh. Any chance you could have a go at fixing those links? I'd be very grateful. Cheers --Loeba (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, Loeba, it is a complicated task. I did some work a while back. First, where is the problem? Are you able to load the pages at all to review them? You would need to use the down down menu to "what links here" and type in "BAFTA Award for Best Film" but I imagine there may be similar redirects there too. It should load all pages that reference it. From there, you need to go to the "Disambiguation" tag and (a) enable disambiguation; (b) put "BAFTA Award for Best Film" in the disambiguation top box and (c) put in the pages that it could be in the main box (I have "BAFTA Award for Best Film", "BAFTA Award for Best British Film" and "BAFTA Award for Best Film Not in the English Language"). Start that it should load the page, pull up a separate box and ask you what to do. There's still quite a number to do though so contact me once the holidays are over if you're still having trouble. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh I didn't realise you'd already done some of this back when I first mentioned it - that's great, thanks. Yeah I was able to load a list of films but whenever I pressed "start", even trying to do simple changes, it wouldn't do anything. Anyway, I reinstalled it and logged in again and it seems like it may work now (using "what links here" is a good method as well, I was doing a text search before). It's found 473 pages still linking there - ouch, this will take a while! I'll carry on a bit anyway. Thanks again, and merry Christmas --Loeba (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone needs to be changed. There's a lot where the Best Film is actually to the Best Film overall. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, but it still seems to mean clicking through all of them. Anyway, I'm down to 274 already so it's not too bad. --Loeba (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Just an FYI but I'd change the default edit summary to something more descriptive like "fixing BAFTA Award for Best Film link" so that's more obvious to people what you're doing. It seems like you got it though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Great minds think alike.

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_supercentenarians_who_died_in_2012 Legacypac (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

As with all these, we shall see what happens. With all the prods and AFDs, WP:AE will necessarily get uglier first before it gets better all around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Formally request reconsideration of expansion of topic ban

I apologize. Recently we engaged in discussion here on your talk page exchanging frank feedback, in the course of which, I may have offended by neglecting to explicitly, formally request reconsideration of your recent administrative action in your expansion of your topic ban. I apologize for my oversight, and at this time wish to correct my mistake by formally respectfully requesting your kind reconsideration of your expansion of your topic ban. Sorry, and thank you for generous time in your engagement in talk regarding your administrative actions, I know you are busy. Hugh (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that there's currently a request at WP:AE regarding the expansion from two weeks ago, it seems like an request at AE is the best approach (possibly within the current one or a separate request) especially given that no one there seems to be support any further sanctions (whether or not the comments should or are stricken). Nevertheless, do you have an alternative proposal? I've tried different formulations of a possible topic scope but those have not worked out for anyone it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and thank you for soliciting my thoughts regarding an alternative proposal. Thank you for your openness to alternatives. I would be happy to collaborate with you on an alternative. I understand AE is available to me, but as you know my preference and easiest for everyone here is if we can work out this together. Your recent action was an expansion of a topic ban, which as I understand it generally results from persistent problematic editor behavior; therefore, I would please like to begin our collaboration by examining together one or more diffs of edits which you believe demonstrate disruptive editing warranting an expansion of a topic ban. Thank you again for your engagement at talk regarding your administrative action, I know you are busy. Hugh (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It was in large part because it seems that no one (neither you nor others) were particularly clear what was the intended scope of the ban other than me it seems. That's a poorly thought out topic then. I tried conservative politics with the year 2009 which is when Tea party alleges it began I believe since it seems as though "Tea party politics" is still not a clearly defined term. I'd be fine with retracting it if you have an alternative in mind but it seems that identifying individuals is not ideal especially people like the Koch brothers. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We agree the previous topic ban was less than ideal, though for different reasons. Regarding your recent administrative action, your recent notice to me was entitled "Expansion of topic ban" and I hope we can agree that since the Tea Party + Kochs is a strict subset of American conservative politics, your recent administrative action was an expansion. I am not an administrator of our project like yourself, just a humble editor and writer, forgive me, but as I understand it one of the explicit considerations in discretionary sanctions enforcement is proportionality of the remedy to the disruption. I believe I could be a better collaborator in formulating an alternative enforcement action if I could better understand the disruption it is intended to prevent. Therefore I respectfully request again, could you please help set the context for our collaboration by offering up one or more diffs of problematic edits by myself that convinced you of the need for an expansion of the topic ban? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The actual edits were discussed extensively at User talk:Callanecc/Archive 22. If you are asking me to retract it back, it first depends on whether or not you consider Watchdog.org in the scope of the prior topic ban as stated or not. I don't think we need to rehash this all over again. I don't think you found it a violation, I did. User:Callanecc proposed one remedy (and at least saw it as problematic editing), I proposed another and enforced it. I found a broader topic ban more prudent that a block or other violation for two reasons: (1) while somewhat at an issue, this was at a talk page with little evidence of actual edit warring so a block seemed excessive; and (2) even a block would not solve the real issue, which was that the topic ban that I described was not clear enough that others understood what was and what was not in the scope of the topic ban. The broader "all conservative politics 2009 and going forward" hopefully provides a little more clarity. If there's something in particular you think that you can edit productively that doesn't seem to have all the trappings of the articles where there's currently problems (as I noted at AE, I'm aware it's not all you) I'm open to re-wording it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your openness to alternatives. Thank you for your observation that this ongoing drama is not all me, that means a lot to me. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"I don't think we need to rehash this all over again." I don't either. But one open question, that was not answered at AE or here on your talk page or on our good colleague Callanecc's, was what specific diffs led to the expansion? Though just a humble editor and writer, not an admin, my understanding of discretionary sanction enforcement actions is that the enforcing administrator must have a reasonable belief that the enforcement action was necessary to preserving the smooth running of our project, and that the enforcement action is proportional to the threat to the smooth running of our project. Though asked many times, diffs available upon request, you never answered me which diffs of my behavior exhibited a threat to the smooth running of our project. Respectfully, I ask again for such diffs. You mentioned that AE is available to me; your refusal to get specific on this reasonable question is frustrating my ability to file; I think you can understand I am reluctant to file stating that "My behavior threatening the smooth running of our project is discussed extensively elsewhere and need not be rehashed here." I believe that part of your responsibility in choosing to take an administrative action is that you be clear with your justification. In the context of this thread, I am frustrating in collaborating with you on alternatives without the context necessary for assessing proportionality. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"I don't think you found it a violation, I did." Do I understand the threat to the smooth running of our project, which in your view justified the expansion of the topic ban, was a violation of the previous topic ban, which you now say was unclear? If so, could you please provide one or more diffs of edits of mine which in your view constitute a topic ban violation? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"the topic ban that I described was not clear enough that others understood what was and what was not in the scope of the topic ban" Respectfully, I don't think your previous topic ban TPM + Kochs was as unclear as you think it was. Logging enforcement actions is not just paper work; an enforcing admin is asked to provide a clear statement of each enforcement action in order to facilitate other members of our community participating in patrolling the enforcement so that you don't have to shoulder the burden of patrolling every enforcement action you take by yourself. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"it first depends on whether or not you consider Watchdog.org in the scope of the prior topic ban as stated or not" Instead of asking me whether Watchdog.org was in scope, why don't we both listen to a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators? This is not all about you and me. A clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at WP:AE said Watchdog.org was out of scope. The uninvolved admins read the log, comprehended WP:TBAN, and stated their assessment; none complained the statement of the topic ban was unclear. That's how it is supposed to work, on a good day. May I respectfully summarize, in my view, the problem was not that the initial topic ban was so unclear as to be unworkable; respectfully, the problem was that you considered the topic ban was your intention, not what you wrote. In the months following your initial topic ban, you steadily expanded the scope, to include Donors Trust, the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, Watchdog.org, and eventually to "American conservative politics," logging only the last. From my point of view, and this is just us guys talking here on user talk, you tried to slap a topic ban that was exempt from interpretation by WP:TBAN, exempt from community consensus, and that you reserved the right to redefine the scope of as desired. Now I am somewhat surprised to recently learn, with the patient help of our good colleague Callanecc, that, apparently, the cultural conventions surrounding the implementation of our discretionary sanctions regime, referred to affectionately as the "leeway" extended enforcing administrators, support your point of view that you may expand the scope at will, that the intention in your head overrides consensus and policy, and that logging of enforcement actions is merely a place-holder claiming the target as an ongoing personal project. Still, some of our colleagues were on the verge of helping out with dealing with the 30 November AE filing regarding an alleged topic ban violation, but you couldn't let it go, you had to make sure the close was your close: an expansion; that's how it looked to me anyway. What do you think? Thank you again for your time and consideration of these ideas. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so this is going nowhere yet again. If you wish to have the ban reverted to the prior one, then bring this up at WP:AE. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm saddened that you once again shut down dialog. Progress is slow, but I see progress; I recognize I am challenging your beliefs and I am trying to be patient. I believe you have unfairly been targeted in filings for your ongoing work on non-notable old people and stale drafts and I am loathe to pile on. I hope you will reconsider your decision to stop discussing your enforcement action. I would very much appreciate your thoughts on my comments above, maybe tomorrow. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If your goal is to ignore all the prior discussions about how consensus isn't required for discretionary sanctions and then to argue for reversion of discretionary sanctions based on your belief that there wasn't consensus for it, it's clear you're not taking this seriously and this is just another round of the same arguments. The fact that you could even think that editing the Citizens United article wouldn't at least raise some red flags is concerning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I did not edit or think about editing our project's article Citizens United. I said above that it appears you seem to be within your rights to dispense and expand discretionary sanctions enforcement actions at will, exempt from our community's pillar of consensus, and exempt from policy; your intention rules, so we are making progress. I understand you are apparently within your rights to ignore consensus in dispensing and expanding discretionary sanctions, so we are making progress. Still, I wonder, most of us here, in the face of a clear consensus that disagrees with our actions, regardless of whether or not we were required to do so, might pause and reflect. May I ask, what did you take away from the close at AE regarding Watchdog.org? Nothing? Are those admins confused? Did they misinterpret your log entry or WP:TBAN or both? How do you reconcile your close with theirs? Thank you again very much for your continued engagement, I know you are busy with your important work on non-notable old people and stale drafts. Hugh (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing via WP:Votestack

and . Both users sided against HughD on the Watchdog.org talk page RFC and no one else was alerted by that editor to the ARE discussion, though there are two other editors that shared HughD's viewpoint. So clearly people supporting a particular side of the previous debate were chosen to be notified. My question for you is if Arbitration decision pages are exempt from WP canvassing policies?Scoobydunk (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No one needs to be alerted to the ARE discussion and no they are not exempt from canvassing policies. The comments have been identified and explained, nothing more is needed than possibly to respond to what others state or more importantly to what the uninvolved admins comments. Canvassing other people to pile on is not going to add anything new to the situation and will not help the situation at all. I suggest Springee immediately stop notifying others about the ARE discussion immediately. I will remark about this as well there as it is causing some concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Scoobydunk, all these names are starting to blur together for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies and I will strike out, undo or take what ever other steps Ricky thinks are warranted here. Springee (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

What's done is done but I think it's best for you to stop the stick with respect to HughD. If he asks you not to comment on his talk page and if there actually isn't a need to, I'd suggest you do that. Similarly, I don't think you need to inform others about a ARE report. Put the shoe on the other foot, if you were being reported to ARE and others will passing that around, do you think the discussion there would be helped? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Before reading the 08:52 edit I undid the notices. I was hesitant to post on HughD's talk page at all and only posted to ask him to revert a 4RR post. I assumed it was better to ask on his talk page vs the article talk page simple because it was less public. I see your point about the ARE. With regards to HughD, I will drop it. Please note that my interactions with him over the last two months are basically all limited to only one topic which I mentioned on the ARE in response to Fiddlestix. Springee (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I noticed something that slipped by when I first replied to the canvassing accusation (late at night, trouble sleeping). Scoobydunk is absolutely incorrect to imply I was doing this as a bad faith effort to impact an RFC. That is not at all correct. The editors who were notified were the ones involved with the previous TBAN discussion related to Watchdog.org HughD TBAN discussion . The notified editors were the only two editors other than Callanecc who were involved in the discussion that lead to the expanded topic ban and reinforced the view that Watchdog.org was an off limits topic. Springee (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any implication from Scoopydunk that you were trying to impact the RFC, I see the implication being to impact the ARE discussion against HughD. My view is that there is no need to notify them directly regardless of their prior involvement either in the topic ban discussion or the editing. The only people who need to be involved in a report are the reporter, the person being reported on and possibly notifications to the admins involved in the sanctions. Any else should just be outsiders or wandering in but should not be directed there. Of course, that's just my views, others may find it useful to have all the relevant editors involved but as you can see from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#930310, that isn't always helpful either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. Those who participated in previous TBAN discussions in regard a specific editor probably should be informed when that editor violates the TBAN (or another TBAN). But it's a close call. Certainly, if an editor requests a modification of a TBAN at AE, those who participated in previous discussions about that TBAN should be informed. I'll leave the matter to your judgement, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree then. I'm not really an uninvolved admin on this case at the moment and as I said, it's just my view but I think it would have be preferable if done via pings at AE in the context of a comment rather than direct requests but either way, I don't think it's worthy of penalizing or anything more and it doesn't look like anyone else particularly objects. However, doing that almost encourages the other side to do the same and both sides pile in to comment at which point you get something closer to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#930310 which is what it is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Populated places by year of establishment subcats

Several categories, including at least one which you created, have been nominated for possible merging. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac

Why raise a dead issue? Legacypac (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac what are you talking about? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

ANi - defense made, let it be. Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If there's issues, there's issues. I'm not agreeing with you 100% either. It's not like DerbyCountyinNZ is some wild pro-GRG editor here so give him a little respect; there are going to be disagreements once the low-hanging fruit is cleared away. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Asking for help

Ricky, I'm asking for help in trying to figure out the best way to deal with HughD on a recent talk page and asking for advice. Hugh has twice deleted my comments in an RfC he started , and moved them 3 times , , (note: second move was after another editor restored the location). The edit comments attracted the attention of another editor. Since the ANI when I offered to not interact with Hugh for at least 30 days I have avoided interactions on new topics. This RfC revisits an old topic (see the RSN and NPOVN comments). No interest in new topics with Hugh. Before placing my comments I reviewed the RfC guidelines and saw nothing regarding a specific format or comment placement requirements. The RSN and NPONV discussion links were placed under the header since they were recent and covered the exact topic. The replies to specific editor comments were nested under their comments. Anyway, I'm very frustrated with having my comments move or deleted. I would normally file an ANI but I fear blow back. Do you have any suggestions? Would it be too much to ask you to simply ask Hugh to cool it and AGF (no formal action taken)? Thanks and sorry to trouble you (again) Springee (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

William Connolley has noted his concerns about the RFC at the ARE discussion. I've commented as well about the similarities with this and the prior RFCs involving HughD. I say take the holiday off and see what happens there afterwards. If the refactoring of edits continue, then tell me and I may have to make a request at ANI or something because that behavior is not appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will stay out of it. It looks like the edit without discussing and reversing other's changes is happening without my help. Springee (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ricky, would you please step in. The talk page discussions are still questionable. The article quality was changed without discussion and the unproductive edit tags continue. There are accusations of bad faith in a request for help here and .

BTW, since I'm clearly not up to speed on what is and isn't canvasing, is that canvasing? If so, and I think it is reasonable to ask for interested outside eyes, what is the best way to do it in a case like this? I've been on the side of the fence that HughD is currently on and I would like to know the best way to deal with it since I was accused of canvasing. Thanks. Springee (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• And just to dump on you a bit more, I'm sorry to say your trollish friend is back and wants us to have a Koch and a smile. ,. Springee (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

New Years

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I commend you on your decision and the rationale with the deletion of the Donald Trump article. It was a very hot issue, and you made a level-headed decision in a very tough setting. For this, you deserve my stamp of approval, a beer, and a fist bump. ~Oshwah~ 06:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Kingshowman

Ricky, I've reverted your post to the archives. It's okay to post a comment to a closed SPI, but not to an archived SPI. Given that the comment was directed to me, you could have simply posted the same thing on my Talk page.

I have now run a sleeper check, though, as you requested, even though I still think it was unnecessary. Other than being able to confirm a few socks that had already been blocked by non-CheckUsers as suspected, nothing else turned up.

Given the fallout from your block of HoorayForAmerica, I also checked that account. It is  Unrelated. I will leave a note to that effect on the user's Talk page. (I understand perfectly why you suspected the user, though.)

I hope all of this makes sense. If not, just ping me here, although I have your page on my watchlist.

Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was in the archives already. Not totally paying attention. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Heh, sometimes I'm so tired that I nod off at the computer. I need to be on-wiki less and get more sleep. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Attacks at ARE

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Attacks at ARE. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

Good close on Meat

Fancy having a go at Men Going Their Own Way? Both controversial in their own way. Fiddle Faddle 21:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Already voted there (and struck out a comment calling out the WP:OWNership issues that haven't settled). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Amazing how controversial some things can be when there is a claque involved. Fiddle Faddle 21:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hi, Ricky81682 - I think I owe you one of these! I wanted to leave this to let you know that I enjoy seeing you on IRC, and that I appreciate your contributions to the project. Enjoy the beer! :-) ~Oshwah~ 23:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you :)

Uamaol has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

This is for helping find what I need. Happy New Year :) Uamaol (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Proposal to rename category

Please see my proposal to rename Category:17th-century British politicians to Category:17th-century English politicians Hugo999 (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality assessment for Reed v. Town of Gilbert

Hey there -- I noticed that earlier today you assessed the quality of Reed v. Town of Gilbert as stub class. Did you do this because you think the article requires improvement? I am trying to bring the article to GA status, so please let me know if you think anything can be improved. Thanks in advance for your feedback! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I did a brief check of the page and noticed that the US project classified it as a stub. It's probably better off as a start or maybe even B. It's seems like good article material. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words about the article. The stub rating at the US project is probably left over from a stub-tag that existed back when the article was first created. In any event, thanks for your help! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I did a brief check on my Westlaw account. It's already been cited in almost a dozen law review articles (which is normal). You may want to contact the people at Category:Wikipedians who have access to HeinOnline about checking to see if there's any secondary sources that can beef up the analysis section. It's heavily based entirely on the slip opinion, which isn't bad, but I don't know what GA requires on Supreme Court cases. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

My law school just recently began providing access to Heinonline's library of law journals to graduates, so I'll be sure to run a search and update the section to include commentary from recent scholarship. As for the citations to the slip opinion, I have always followed the convention of citing the summary of the Court's ruling to the opinion itself, though it will definitely be a pain to go back later and change the citations from the slip opinion to the official version in the U.S. Reports. The GA criteria don't say anything about citing to slip opinions, but I think it is the most accurate and useful citation to provide when making statements about the Court's rulings. Cheers, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt anyone will care about that. The secondary sources may be more relevant. I added a bunch of details from the District Court case. The wording was not clear regarding the original preliminary injunctions and that the later litigation was entirely due to the summary judgment rulings. Hint: the trial court (District Court), being the party that actually made the decision on the facts and not on the legal background the way the appellate courts do, has the better factual background. I haven't had a chance but I'll look up the original district court decision's on the preliminary injunction later tonight probably. That may give some more details on the citations and the sanctions. Funny how no one had explained why it was named Reed before lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

GRG verified

If not verified by GRG, name can't be added. Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

And after all that, who's fault is that? lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't plan on reporting this but FYI

It seems very brazen to make an edit like this ] just days after getting off a TBAN block. You had questioned the article as possibly a TBAN in general ]. The material added linked to the John_Birch_Society which is both a conservative organization and a group founded by, according to the article, the Koch family. Anyway, I'm not going to actually file a report but I do think this is violation should have been clear to him after the last time he added Koch based material to an article and got a block. Springee (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the consensus is more like climate change requires a different, separate sanction than American politics 2. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

In this case it's not the climate change part, it's that JBS is a conservative political group founded by the Koch family. Both are covered by the current TBAN. Adding that type of reference to any article by an editor who is told no edits related to the Koch family or contemporary conservative politics is basically violating the ban just days after he got back from the last block. Springee (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding AFC submission templates to drafts that you did not create

Please stop moving userspace drafts to Draftspace and then adding AFC submission templates to them. You do not have the right to move a draft from another user's sandbox into Draftspace, and then put it under the purview of AFC by placing an AFC submission template on it. Only the original author should make that decision. The AFC project's procedure is to do such moves only after the draft author has actually submitted the draft to AFC review. Your action has the effect of starting the six month G13 deletion "clock", without notifying the actual author about it. I noticed your actions only when I received a G13 warning for a draft which I have never had any intention to submit to AFC. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)