User talk:Darouet: Difference between revisions

Hi Darouet, welcome to Wikipedia! -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion involving you at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darouet, I would like to discuss your removal of the edits I made to the page "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I agree that the edit lacks citations which I am happy to add. There are only two that are critcal, (1) the text of the law itself and (2) the text of the Authorization for Use of Force on which it is predicated. My edit is almost purely factual and my other comments, such as noting that certain important terms are undefined and some potential implications are worded in a manner so as to intentionally not slant the edits towards my point of view which is critical of much of Sub-section D. I can try again and weave parts of what you put back into the edits, add cites, etc. However, the text you put does not appear to be accurate in critical respects. If I am wrong, I welcome being enlightened about. The text as it now stands includes in the overview the following: "the Act legislatively codifies[6] the President's authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens, without trial as defined in Title X, Subtitle D, SEC 1021(a-e) of the bill.[7] Because those who may be held indefinitely include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, and because that detention may be by the military, the Act has received critical attention by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and media sources.[8][9][10][11][12]" Most important, where in the Act does it provide for the indefinite detention of American citizens? How can the statement that it does be reconciled with the 1021(e) which provides that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” There are other points we can discuss. I note that there are extensive quotations and references to the actual provisions of the Act in my edits, whereas what you put back uses loose language like "terrorism suspects" which does not appear in the law or accurately summarize any of its provisions. The edited version while it certainly can be improved does not contain any inaccuracies that I am aware of and is therefore a significant improvement over what you put back which contains demonstrable inaccuracies. I would like to try to collaborate with you on improving this page if you are interested. Your gratuitous comment that I turned the article into a "sounding board for the State Department" is troubling and makes me question your objectivity and attitude. I only contributed to this article because I believe it is important that people have access to accurate information about legal provisions that threaten fundamental rights. Your statement about the State Department is tendentious and at least a little bizzare. Please respond. Erichaim (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)). EricHaim.[reply]

Hi Erichaim; thanks for your note. Please make a new heading in the talk pages of the NDAA 2012 article and write, or paste what you've written above, into that section so that we can discuss your proposed edits with other editors. Briefly, a good deal of your concerns above are explicitly addressed in the references provided in the article itself. Nevertheless I think you are correct in some of your points (e.g. 1021.e) and I look forward to your contributions to the article. -Darouet (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darouet - thank you for your response. I am a new contributor and don't know many editing features and tools yet. Can you tell me how to make a new heading once I am on the appropriate talk page? With that info, I will do as you suggest. I think the most helpful thing I can do at this point is to also review the existing page and post on the talk page the specific propositions which I believe to be innacurate with explanations and citations that interested editors can review, and also post revised versions of proposed changes to page on the talk page so we can take into account responses to all of that before any further edits are made using the material I am generating. This is a very important topic and it is important that we get it right. As the creator of the page, I definitely would like to work with you to make it an accurate and informative page. I do have some specialized qualifications in this area. I am a practicing lawyer and independent legal scholar and have a J.D. and a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence and Social Policy, both from the University of California at Berkeley. I have been a serious student of Constitutional law, history and theory for over thirty years. If it might be helpful, I would be happy to provide my e-mail address, which I think is available on the site (though I am not sure as I am a newbie) so we can confer directly about any issues we might wish to discuss. Thanks for creating this page. erichaim (Erichaim (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)). P.S. figured out re header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erichaim (talk • contribs) 19:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please don't replace all stale over three months discussion. What benefit do youy see in replacing discussions over three months old that you have no intention of further contributing to ? If there is something you specially want to reopen then start a new discussion and link to it. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned only those discussions that were active as of the past month. -Darouet (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - this cite does not mention Hoare - http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16032138 - and can you please provide an online link to this article Lewis, Paul, "The Guardian," 19 July 2011. or some more details about it. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly rated in C because I wasn't sure that I had the expertise to determine whether it covered all angles and because the lead might be regarded as short. I have now reconsidered and rerated it B for WPA.--Grahame (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you inquiry about the Dialog belonging in MILHIST. I personally disagree with the article being covered in MILHIST but laissez faire. You need and infobox similar to NATO or even simplified such as Lithuanian–Polish–Ukrainian Brigade. To progress the article further I would suggest at least getting a map with the associated nations highlight in green. Much Ado, --MOLEY (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrilateral Security Dialogue looks better - the introduction is call the lead on Wikipedia - please see WP:LEAD. It does not need references as it is supposed to be a summary of the whole article (so the refs are in the body of the article). I would look at WP:LEAD as I think the current lead could be expanded to be a better summary. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.

I would also look at WP:HEAD as the headers should follow that. Hope this helps and thanks for your work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI, thanks for the note on my talk page. The article looks interesting and it's something I might want to work on. I'm on a wikibreak at the moment and only editing sporadically, but will definitely put it on my watch list and read through the page. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It would be great to work with you. I'm on a wikibreak of sorts as well, busy with "real" work. But when I come around to working on the Italian Dialogues I'll let you know! -Darouet (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darouet, I'm happy to participate in a review process, though my knowledge of Chinese security issues is not as sound as it should be. Is there anything in particular that requires feedback? Also, could you advise on a timeline, if you have one in mind? Homunculus (duihua) 02:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the best person to ask to provide the Chinese perspective. I'm capable of doing Chinese-language research, but I can't say I revel in it. I'll aim to provide some more general comments sometime this week.Homunculus (duihua) 22:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for dropping the ball on this. On a deadline in the real world. Will return to it soon. Homunculus (duihua) 19:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and several other editors have been trying to piece together the article on Bo Xilai, the Chongqing party chief who recently got dismissed and caused one of the most dramatic 'showdowns' in Chinese politics in recent memory. Would you be so kind as to return the favour and review the article? :) Colipon+(Talk) 03:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Wikipedia Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

Message delivered by Dominic at 09:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.[reply]

Quite right. Thank you, appreciated.

@Truthkeeper above. Surprised to find you here. Any chance of you losing that '88' at the end of your monniker? We could love you loads and loads more if you do :). 216.166.10.195 (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is super trivial, more a clarification. I dequoted and chopped out the mention of the BBC, since it would be clear from the reference, in order to perform a minor space-saver. Either way, the 'weasel words' are still present, only now quoted and the source cited in the text. Is that standard in Wikipedia, as your edit comment suggested, when weasels 'cannot' be avoided? Best etc. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darouet,

I noticed you have been helping with the NDAA article. I wonder if you could take a look at this. I added the Administration's response to the Hedges lawsuit and subsequent blockage of indefinite detention by Judge Forrest. I used direct quotes from the official response. My edits were replaced by someone's interpretation of the response, without any ref source, so I am left to assume this is someone's personal interpretation. That doesn't seem to be in alignment with how Wikipedia works, though I haven't much experience here. I added a citation needed tag, but it seems like the statement needs to be removed altogether. Thank you for your help, in advance. petrarchan47^Tc 21:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I completely understand your request. However, I don't think I am well versed enough in Wikipedia and with legal cases in general to take this on. The NDAA 2012 has been a real challenge to understand, even for those with law degrees. That seems intentional. The Admin's response to Forrest has not been reviewed by any reputable secondary source. Perhaps it's best to wait until media catches up with this story, and go from there. At some point in the near future, I will certainly move the bulk of the Forrest case to the body of the article. Thanks again for your help.petrarchan47^Tc 22:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. I went ahead and moved the section, removing the unsourced opinion.petrarchan47^Tc 23:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NYT has covered Judge Forrest's block and subsequent actions by POTUS ~ thought you might appreciate [this brief overview]. petrarchan47^Tc 21:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks for the fascinating article: Charlie Savage has written consistently well on some of the legal aspects of the war on terror. I'll try to stay more in the loop on this. -Darouet (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. I know it's hard to keep up, if I come across other succinct articles to keep you updated, I'll go ahead and leave them here.petrarchan47^Tc 22:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!

Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields. Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either. 00:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the Disposition Matrix article! I hope you will continue with your great work on it as more information becomes known. The User 567 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to say the same thing. Surprised that there wasn't an 'Obama kill list' article previously. Thank you! groupuscule (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you both! And please feel free to contribute if you find interesting analysis online. -Darouet (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated Disposition Matrix, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Allen3 ^talk 20:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Gtwfan52. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Waco, Texas seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Wiki article states subject was legally hung. Whether it is an example of bigotry or not, it certainly wasn't a lynching. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gtwfan52 for your polite note. Please realize that my edit conveyed the fact that Roy Mitchell was hanged, not lynched. I didn't confuse this fact and actually wrote the article on Mitchell. I apologize, however, for the poor wording on my part (I was trying to be concise). Also, I should have provided a source. Am rectifying my errors now. Cheers. -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for writing the article on Mitchell. Very interesting to me since I worked on the Jesse Washington article. I've been meaning to sit down and take a look through it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darouet! Sorry I took a while to respond. I share your concerns with the introduction of the article subject's race in the first sentence. Although race is directly related to the notability of the subject, I prefer for that kind of detail to be later in the introductory paragraph. First sentences are definitional and I don't like to 'define' people by their race. To me it currently reads more like a newspaper article intro than an encyclopedia one. Here's a suggested change:

Mark Duggan, a 29 year-old Tottenham resident, was shot and killed by police in Tottenham, North East London, England on 4 August 2011. The Metropolitan Police stated that officers were attempting to arrest Duggan on suspicion of planning an attack, and that he was in possession of a handgun. Duggan died from a gunshot wound to the chest. Public protest broke out in Tottenham over the circumstances of his death, motivated by suspicions that Dugan--a black male--was targeted by the police because of his race. The protests escalated into widespread riots, looting and arson in London and elsewhere.

Maybe you could suggest that and get some feedback? I do think his race is relevant to his life and death, but perhaps mentioning it later in the introduction would settle some of your concerns. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Disposition Matrix, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Disposition Matrix creates a blueprint for tracking, capturing, rendering or killing suspected terrorists? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Disposition Matrix. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the article "Domestic Security Alliance Council" that you created! Gandydancer (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding photographs to the Wikipedia articles about Iraqi journalists! Crtew (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darouet! There's been a lot of questioning regarding my role directing a COI representative to active talk page editors. In the case of NDAA 2012 the editor who fielded most of the talk page engagement was you. I want to point you to two discussions where this process has been called into question, and give you the opportunity to respond.

• User_talk:Ocaasi#Declaring_COI
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Direct_COI_representatives_to_talk_pages:_disclosure_and_review

Best, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed and honest response. My apologies if you felt in any way obliged to do something you had reservations about. I'm very glad we cleared that up and I'll work to prevent any ambiguity like that in future situations. Your feedback is welcome if you have ideas about how to make that more explicit or accessible. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks for notifying me. I think something that might help editors on a page, when you begin this process, is making even more clear that you and other editors will reject edit requests that are unreasonable according to wikipedia's core policies. You might furthermore make it clear that neither you nor other editors are obliged to represent the COI party's POV, and that their COI should be taken seriously. I know you're trying to make this process transparent and are therefore trying to make it appear less onerous or wholly unfavorable to the COI party, but that should come second to maintaining transparency on our end, in my opinion. I'll be interested to see how things turn out. -Darouet (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the process is kept, of course. I understand (I think) and respect why OTRS for COI was established, but would also understand if the community decided against it in the end. -Darouet (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you review the language here and let me know what you think? Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I like it very much. You might consider swapping the first and second paragraphs in the first section, "Principle of Independence," while modifying both slightly: this places greater emphasis on the "conflict" aspect of COI, and sets a stringent tone. For better or worse, depending on your perspective. Also, the third paragraph in this section is a bit confusing because the word "requests," when it first appears, looks like it will be a verb for the subject "OTRS." -Darouet (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs swapped, verb confusion fixed. Thanks! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that you have read the English Wikipedia article on Galileo. There is a reference to Bruno in the Timeline, under the year 1600. This reference has been there for a considerable time. The word "spectacular" is clearly a peacock word. You used this in an edit summary, not your actual edit. If you think anything is "spectacular", you are welcome to say so in your own web-site, not in Wikipedia. The word "spectacular" is stronger than many words already banned as peacock words, such as "genius". It will be interesting to see you prove that Copernicus and Aristarchus were not "spectacular". Your edits and edit summaries never refer to the theory of relativity, according to which heliocentrism and heliostaticism are meaningless or untrue. If you think Pythagoras, Philolaus and other ancients were not spectacular, give reasons for supposing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga78675645 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks Ga78675645 for your explanation. I used the word "spectacular" in the edit summary, but not the article, because Bruno was publicly burned at the stake in a spectacle. I did see Bruno was mentioned in the timeline, but doesn't it seem as though mentioning him in the text will allow readers to explicitly see the link between them? Also, thanks for your comments on Pythagoras, Philolaus, Copernicus and Aristarchus. I agree that they are brilliant people, but in the future, I'll try to be sure nobody ever uses the word "spectacular" in their edit summaries of these articles. -Darouet (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also never say "Jehovah". groupuscule (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this and surrounding edits. I often feel too dispirited by Wikipedia to step into thickets like that, but this clearly needed attention. You rescued the section quite nicely. Good job :) SteveStrummer (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steve! I would love to spend more time on the article eventually: I plan on first completing an overhaul of the Robespierre article. In the mean time, I'm grateful for your contributions. Cheers, -Darouet (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dont do this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - Darouet (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link to the specific discussion that you referenced in your edit summary? Victor Victoria (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it can be found here. -Darouet (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank Darouet for returning the Iraq war article to a state of being a balanced fact-based article that is up to Wikipedia standards. It had become a one-sided opinion-based editorial that was far below Wikipedia standards. Truthwillneverdie (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request you again help with returning the Iraq war article to a stable version as it is again being vandalized by CJK. Thank you. Truthwillneverdie (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truthwillneverdie, CJK deserves research and response to his talk page explanations. I don't agree with him, but I won't (and shouldn't) revert his edits without working hard to explain why. -Darouet (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darouet, I agree completely. I hope you may find time to chime in on the article's talk page, I think you could help bring about a more NPOV. -- Truthwillneverdie (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Genovese sauce, Darouet!

Wikipedia editor Surfer43 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice article!

To reply, leave a comment on Surfer43's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Genovese sauce, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Genovese sauce, named after Genoa and later popular in Paris, was invented in Naples, Italy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Genovese sauce. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been constant edit warring related to the lead section on the 2013_Ghouta_attacks aritcle. We get no new information, so please use the article talk page to gain consensus before making further changes to it. Also note that this [1], [2], [3] is very likely a constitutes edit warring. --PLNR (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PLNR, thanks for your civil note. My addition of the UN's statement regarding a ceasefire, and my revert to return it following Sayerslle's deletion, did not violate the 1RR; nor did the deletion of additional material unnecessary to the lead constitute a revert. "Edit warring" doesn't necessarily refer to violations of 1RR or 3RR however, and so I appreciate your effort to resolve things on the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course completely within your rights to stop discussing anything, but I am a little confused since you brought up the poll. What about the discussion is/was unproductive? Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VQuakr, thanks for your note. I brought up the poll because another user asked me to clarify. Editors on the Ghouta attacks talk page discussed all this ad infinitum previously, and as you know, these kinds of pages don't always bring the most pleasant interactions (despite the good intentions of many editors on all sides). So I'm a bit burnt out from the subject! -Darouet (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and all your work on the Ghouta page. I agree that editing busy, contentious articles can be exhausting! I hope to see you around. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Quantel Lotts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This doesn't seem to meet the criteria for articles about perpetrators listed at WP:CRIMINAL.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Nat Gertler (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Quantel Lotts.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Quantel Lotts.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. 

Please note: This notice does not imply wrong doing, it is used in an advisory capacity only. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boris Gusman, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boris Gusman. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You realize edit summaries like this are original research, right? By saying "his interpretation is not one that would be supported by many contemporary historians" when you have no proof to back up such a statement is...OR. Also, being an historian has nothing to do with why the symbols are still used in the year 2014.--Львівське (говорити) 22:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, my job as an editor is to evaluate a multitude of reliable, secondary sources, and present them to the reader in a fair way. That isn't WP:OR, that's Wikipedia. Serhy Yekelchyk isn't "explaining" what's evidently true, but rather contending that Svoboda's fascination with Stepan Bandera has little to do with celebrating the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. If you read him and are so credulous that you need to inform readers of his opinion and let them know he's correct, you're not a neutral editor.

Here's what Ivan Katchanovski, a visiting scholar at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, wrote in his 2010 paper "Terrorists or National Heroes? Politics of the OUN and the UPA in Ukraine:"

"Many previous studies imply that Western Ukrainians are pro-OUN and UPA because these organizations in the 1940s were mainly based in Western Ukrainian regions and because these regions became strongholds of nationalist parties and politicians in post-Soviet Ukraine, in particular, after the “Orange Revolution.” Viktor Yushchenko, his bloc “Our Ukraine,” and other nationalist parties, such as the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists, which considers itself a successor of the OUN-B, have much higher popular support in Western Ukraine than in other regions. For example, Svoboda, a radical nationalist party, whose leader publicly endorsed all activities of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, won the snap elections to the provincial parliament in 2009 and formed a ruling coalition with pro-presidential parties in the Ternopil Region in Galicia."

I'll add it in along with Yekelchyk's opinion… and I won't be so presumptuous as to write, "Katchanovski explains…" -Darouet (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is again original research on your part, ignoring the sources. The article you're citing mentions Svoboda once, it's purely talking about popular support and not necessarily Svoboda's direct reasoning. The march being cited happened in Kiev, not western Ukraine. As Katch says, this is the sentiment in western Ukraine, it does not encompass all of Ukraine and those who use the symbols, it's used nation-wide for a number of reasons, but in western-ukraine for specific reasons (typically).

Note also that I never contended your edit, but your edit summary, which reeked of injecting your own personal opinions into you reasoning and not objective analysis of the content. It's not the first time you've gone off course to prove a personal point. --Львівське (говорити) 01:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!

New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston, Northampton, South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page. Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk)

I've reverted you there - the quote violates our policy on copyvio, please cut it down to no more than around 220 words. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! -Darouet (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please, look at my notice about a photo placed in the article "Right sector" and fix this misunderstanding. Best regards, Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.57.199.46 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, I've responded there, thanks for writing. As I note there, it's not clear to me how Belarus is being defamed by the image. If you explain there we can bring in other editors. Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion concerning Haller's Blue Army and its pogroms here: [4]. An editor wants to remove sourced info about its antisemitic violence because he claims it is undue weight (it is about 26 lines of text). Any opinions would be welcome.Faustian (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Faustian, I've left a note on your talk page here. Thanks for writing! -Darouet (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for bring the issue up at my talk page rather than at Talk:Right Sector, where a lot of contributors appear to be comparatively lacking in sophistication.
Here’s the most current statement published in the Guardian:

Two men … were killed by buckshot … when pro-Russian demonstrators besieged an office of the far-right Ukrainian nationalist group Right Sector….

Kharkiv governor Ihor Baluta … said the “well-planned provocation by pro-Russian activists” began when unidentified men in a minibus provoked a confrontation with pro-Russia demonstrators and then drove off. When pursuing demonstrators caught up with the vehicle, it was parked outside the nationalists’ building.

[A] Right Sector spokesman … said his group … believed the minibus was left outside its office by others.

Meaning, by the same men who the local governor said were pro-Russian activists posing as Right Sector members.
Have you found any evidence to suggest that they weren’t the same folks who Haaretz said were distributing Mein Kampf and the Protocols at Maidan? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's real and what's provocation in all these instances - I'm sure there's a lot of both going on. -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About RfCs: Suggestions for responding. “If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template.” Statement should be neutral and brief. “If you feel as though you cannot describe the issue neutrally, ask someone else to write a summary for you. You can also do your best, and invite others to improve your question or summary later.”
I could try writing an ‘improved’ statement for the Right Sector RfC, but it would most likely be biased too! Can we work together on a new RfC?
An idea for a new section title:

--- Should the article say in the lead that Right Sector is neofascist? ---

Ending RfCs. “There are several ways that RfCs end: the question may be withdrawn by the poster, it may be moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation….”
What would be the friendliest way to end the old RfC? (Trust me, I am not going to start a new one without passing everything by you first!) --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dervorguilla, it has seemed to me so far that the biggest hurtle we've faced is answering the question, "do mainstream media sources describe Right Sector not only as far-right and ultra-nationalist, but also as neo-fascist?" This has been a problem because I've found a host of sources that I think clearly describe Right Sector as neo-fascist (or fascist, or neo-Nazi, or their supporters or constituents, etc.), while you have written that these sources don't describe Right Sector in this way. Because wikipedia is based on sources, it's critical to resolve this question first, I think.

Not many people have commented: just one person mentioning that we could look up two articles, one of which is already cited, and another agreeing with me, but that's not sufficient to resolve anything.

One option we have is to go to dispute resolution, to be clear about what sources actually say.

Once this issue has been resolved, I think another RfC like the one you suggest could be helpful:

---Should Right Sector's lead state that media sources describe its politics as far-right, ultra-nationalist or neo-fascist?---

That is the wording that is currently disputed. -Darouet (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. It appears that we may be close to agreement on the key question, Darouet. I think that in some ways the phrasing below may correlate a bit better with the implied meaning of the article text:

“Do any of the top 20 major news publications currently describe Right Sector or its supporters as ‘neofascist’ or ‘neo-Nazi’ rather than ‘far-right’, ‘nationalist’, or ‘ultranationalist’?”

2. We don’t appear to be interpreting each other’s statements (or perhaps their implications) accurately. For example, you’re saying that this article (mentioned by Balaenoptera musculus) agrees with you: “Profile: Ukraine’s ‘Right Sector’ Movement,” BBC News Europe, 21 January 2014. Here are the passages I’ve found that describe Right Sector:

little-known far-right group; [movement created by] the most radical activists; group consists mostly of young men with right-wing views; movement incorporates several far-right groups; organisation’s backbone in Kiev is formed by … football fans sharing nationalist views; radical activists.

I don’t understand how this material is describing the group or its supporters as ‘neo-fascist’, ‘fascist’, or ‘neo-Nazi’.

3. I support your idea about going to dispute resolution. (The RfC article does happen to mention mediation as one example of how to end an RfC.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about point 2: the BBC article linked by Balaenoptera musculus, which we've used for Right Sector since very early on, doesn't call them fascistic. I've never thought it did - just wanted to mention that we already use the source.

As to DR, let's start that shortly. -Darouet (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We’ve got several BBC sources in there, but not the one he’s talking about, BBC News 2 Jan 2014. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I’m not familiar with mediation, it sounds like it might get the job done with the least amount of effort! --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some “neo-logisms” ...

Russia borders on Ukraine. Russian ≈ neo-Ukrainian.

Hard-line nationalism borders on ultranationalism. Hard-line nationalism ≈ neoultranationalism.

neo-. a combining form meaning “new,” “recent,” “revived,” “modified,” used in the formation of compound words: neo-Darwinism; …; neoorthodoxy. Origin: < Greek, combining form of néos; akin to new. Neo-, Dictionary.com. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You can definitely count me as a "neo-Darwinist"!

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

	Owl Of Accuracy and Integrity
	Awarded for your work at Talk:Right Sector. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Talk:Right Sector

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He reverted the same stuff more than once, that's already a blockable offence. Sayer never seems to learn the rules. FunkMonk (talk)

funkmonk, it was the proxy war, and then the hersh drivel - those are different stuff. dreary to see you are still eager to see me blocked when all my effort is good faith edits - the chemical weapons section was full of Russian lying regime pov and lengthy quotes from Russian spokespeople - it was dreadful biased section, - you accused me of sockpuppetry before - lyingly - Sayerslle (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been very uncivil from your very first edits (unlike someone like Sopher), that is the real problem. Constantly adding POV dreck from the likes of Elizabeth O'Bagy, Michael Weiss and "Brown Moses" (as well as other random blogs written by nobodies) just adds to the impression. Hersh is well connected with actual important people, whereas "Moses" just looks at Youtube videos. FunkMonk (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never added anything from o'bagy as far as I know - you seem unable to grasp that Brown moses is recognized by RS as source for content and opinions etc - why has Hersh drivel been ignored largely by RS - deluded, he thinks because of jealousy or something, but its probably because it is rubbish, because it is irrelevant next to the U.N. report - as for civility and such - you know in 'hamlet' it says 'one may smile, and smile, and be a villain' - I do not smile, but I edit in good faith. agree that sopher is admirable for his civility in the face of it all. I don't know how he does it. Sayerslle (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of a community decision, broad editing restrictions apply to all pages broadly related to the Syrian Civil War. These sanctions are described at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions and a brief summary is included below:

• Sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process.
• If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic or article ban.
• A one revert per twenty-four hours restriction applies to articles broadly related to the Syrian Civil War, with the wording listed here.
• Please familiarise yourself with the full decision at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions before making any further edits to pages related to the Syrian Civil War.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

Sanctions may only be imposed after the user is notified sanctions are in effect. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications.