User talk:Juno/Archive 2014

Proposed deletion of Worldwide wave of action

The article Worldwide wave of action has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Future event, apparently called for but no evidence that anything's going to happen. WP:CRYSTAL. See [1].

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Obama-ism AFD

Thanks for your "KEEP" vote at the Obama-ism AFD. Sadly, Wikipedia still can't shake its liberal bias. The admin closed the debate early, ignored all of our arguments and assumed that this article wasn't notable because Obamaism wasn't a few years ago. --HansBarack (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I count myself as one of those liberals, but its hard to argue about the bias. Hopefully people will be less sensitive after this administration is over. Its always easier to talk objectively about the past, rather than the present. Juno (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Worldwide wave of action for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Worldwide wave of action is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide wave of action until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hillary Clinton's Enemies List, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Casey (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) 08:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll patch that up. Juno (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[[[Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton|Presidential campaign, 2008]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 American intervention in Iraq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drone. 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) 09:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Worldwide wave of action for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Worldwide wave of action is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide wave of action (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your recent post at ANI

I have to suggest that your characterisation of a banned contributor/sockpuppeteer as a 'terrorist' strikes me as distinctly over the top, and unlikely to add anything to the debate but more heat - could I suggest that you revise it, and replace the word with something a little less dramatic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@User:AndyTheGrump Just meant it as the turn of phrase, no drama intended. Happy to strike. Juno (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 American operations in Syria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In 2013, after an alleged chemical attack by the Assad Regime on its own people (the [[Ghouta chemical attack]], U.S president [[Barack Obama]] announced that Syria had crossed a "

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Move requested to make room for American operations in Syria

There's a move discussion at Talk:2014_American_rescue_mission_in_Syria#Move_request_-_9_September_2014 to move 2014 American rescue mission in Syria back to original title 2014 American operations in Syria. With surveillance flights ongoing and airstrikes soon to happen there needs to be a place to put this.~Technophant (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerald Westerby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Graham. 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) 09:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

A topic in which you may be involved, is the subject of discussion at ANI here. DocumentError (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Service Metals

This might be of interest to you. I've not looked into your sources, just sharing this. Legacypac (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC) http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20141002/NEWS05/310020070/Pentagon-Medals-new-Iraq-mission-fall-under-Operation-Enduring-Freedom

ooooooooh good news! It looks like their still missing out on a Campaign Medal and a few others but hopefully that will all be sorted out as well. Juno (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

hi

I am providing everyone who commented in the open page RfC without respect to their !vote. [[2]] This has to do with a possible editor stability issue. DocumentError (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Juno, there is discussion going on on the Traditional Marriage talk page, scroll down the the bottom and feel free to jump in.ChicagoGuy11 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for both invites, I will take a look if I have time. Juno (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

NOtice of complaint for edit warring

Well it's taking me a while to figger out how to use wiki templates, but I am filing a complaint against you for edit warring against me. This will serve as your notification until I figger out how to use the official template. Goblinshark17 (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Understandable. I appreciate the heads up. Juno (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC - Name of ISIS/ISIL/IS

There is currently an RfC underway here about what name/abbreviation to use for ISIS/ISIL/IS in the American-led intervention in Syria article. I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - SantiLak (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I'll be over the chip in. Juno (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

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.

2014 American-led intervention in Iraq

added a link pointing to Operation Inherent Resolve

American-led intervention in Syria

added a link pointing to Operation Inherent Resolve

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion: Theodore Shulman

Hi Juno, I'm not sure if you re-created the article on Theodore Shulman after it was deleted, but if you are the creator, this note serves notice that this article has been nominated for deletion, again. Goblinshark17 (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I was indeed the author of that article. Thank you for the heads up. Juno (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, you should have used Wikipedia's DELETION REVIEW process to un-delete the article instead of re-creating it. Goblinshark17 (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the previous article was not Speedy Deleted, nor was the discussion particularly contentious, I didn't think that Deletion Review was called for. Juno (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP warning

You're not a newbie, so I'm going to tell you personally instead of templating: Don't flagrantly misrepresent sources in order to make controversial claims about living persons. This is a violation of several core Wikipedia policies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

With great sincerity, I do not think that I am misrepresenting Shulman situation and please do assume that I'm not doing so flagrantly. I appreciate the personal message. I'll open a discussion on the talk page and we can figure it out there? Juno (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Theodore Shulman, COI complaint, Sockpuppetry complaint

1. As the discussion shows, there is no COI. I think you are abusing the process by initiating the investigation on such flimsy grounds.

2. The link to the Wikipedia "Sockpuppetry investigation page" you posted on my TALK page is a red link. Please post a correct link to that page so I can look into the complaint. In any event, I have only one Wikipedia account/name, and that is Goblinshark17.

Goblinshark17 (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

1. I didn't think that they were flimsy, if it turns out I am wrong, I apologize.

2. I very sorry about that, I have corrected the template that I left on your talk page. Juno (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done. Obviously, it took some time and effort on your part to suss out the sockpuppet and make the case. Cloonmore (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Juno. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theodore Shulman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan Correctional Center. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

AWB request

Please reply to my comment on your AWB request at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Thank you. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You now have access to AWB. Please remember to follow AWB's rules, as they are slightly different than those for normal editing. Happy editing! – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Juno (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Mark Begich

Hi Juno. Instead of doing massive reverts, please explain your edits when undoing another persons' work. For example, you stuck this source[3] back into a BLP which is unacceptable. Please be more thoughtful in the future. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi SDS, it was only the one, which is what your edits preceding it constitute as well, and I did explain it. I'm not aware of any problems with votesmart as a compilation of endorsements and voting records, but if its a flawed source I'd love to hear more about that. Juno (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Juno, your edit reverted multiple things I worked on. Can you please explain what you don't like about my changes. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You removed 2,337 characters of sourced content. I'm open to an argument that votesmart might not be a Reliable Source, but I not not yet aware of such an argument. Per WP:BRD, if you have one, lets talk about it on that article's talk page? Juno (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll start a section on the talk page. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Juno (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Mark Begich article

Your recent editing history at Mark Begich shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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

I don't think that I have broken 3RR? The one who is being BOLD is historically responsible for the DISCUSS part of things, but lets not let that custom get in the way of things. Juno (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And you have the chutzpah to accuse me of edit warring? Amazing. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Atttica Prison riot

Re this edit, close enough. It got munged here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, Ahhhhh, that would do it. Good eye! Juno (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Social Justice Warrior for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Social Justice Warrior is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Justice Warrior until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move Discussion at Talk:American-led intervention in Syria

There is currently an requested move underway here and I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - SantiLak (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

SPA

The reason why I participated in the AfD anonymously is that subjects related to "social justice" and the like can lead to harassment, and I've seen and experienced it too much to allow my Wikipedia account to become apart of it here. It's a perfectly justifiable reason to want to participate anonymously, and assuming a COI is a huge violation of WP:AGF when the only thing that allows you to come to that conclusion is the desire to distrust the justification to edit anonymously. - 64.235.72.185 (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Further, the fact that you created the article and are making a completely baseless bad faith assumption in and of itself an act of bad faith on your part. - 64.235.72.185 (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia allow users to use multiple accounts? I don't think that they do, especially when it comes to voting. I'd like to believe you but its just as likely that you're editing to hide something from view, or that you're one of the registered accounts who was looking fto vote twice. Juno (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No, see, please don't be dishonest. Don't say that you would like to believe me, because you have at multiple points suggested that I am violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies and that I am acting in bad faith by participating anonymously. It is not against any policy or guideline to participate in a discussion anonymously, especially when one is as heated and potentially toxic as this one. If you feel that there is any legitimate cause to say that I'm hiding a conflict of interest or trying to "cheat" the vote (not that it would matter since it was practically snowballing towards merge, redirect, or delete), then you can find that out for yourself. There is absolutely nothing that would lead a reasonable Wikipedia editor to assume bad faith in this situation, so please don't lie. You very clearly, explicitly want to hold these beliefs. And I would say that your involvement in the article's creation puts a clear conflict of interests on you for suggesting wrongdoing onto others. I edited this AfD to avoid potential harassment. If you assume I'm lying, then you might not be right for this website. - 64.235.72.185 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if we assume that you are acting in good faith, I'm pretty sure that you're still violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies by operating multiple accounts. And, thus, the assumption that you are likely not. How am I supposed to know that you're not one of the other editors involved in the discussion, or a banned user? Juno (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Because you have no cause to make the assumption, and the violation is only a violation if it's demonstrated that I'm attempting to game the system. Further, an IP is not an account. That you need to question "how can I know?" clearly shows that you don't understand half of this Wiki's policies and guidelines. I don't recommend that you participate in this Wiki until you've educated yourself to the point that you can participate properly. - 208.107.110.144 (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Taking directly from the section discussing multiple accounts: "It is recommended that contributors not use multiple accounts without good reason. For example, a user may wish to create an alternate account for use on public computers as a precaution to keep their primary account more secure." So it would seem that I'm being shamed for the fact that I'm doing something that Wikipedia describes as a "good reason." - 208.107.110.144 (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Also from the same policy: "Editors who want to use more than one account for some valid reason should provide links between them on the respective user pages, with an explanation of the purpose of each account or of the relationship between them. If so desired, the user and user talk pages from one account can be redirected to the other. Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse."

You can use a secondary account, but you need to identify the primary account that it is linked to.

Gosh I want to know who you are standing in for now. Juno (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Inherent Resolve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill. 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) 09:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton's Enemies List

You recreated this in violation of several policies, and over a reasoned redirect. You ought to know better. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I see from your talk page that you've been warned recently for 3RR violations, so please discuss before reverting again. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Center C

Hi, I'm Arbustum. Juno, thanks for creating Center C!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please extend the lead by at least three sentences to provide an overview of the subject.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Arbustum (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Arbustum. Juno (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)