Welcome!

Hello, Carrite, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Morris Hillquit. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Marek.69 ^talk 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy thoughts

Not alone

Thank you. Good to know I'm not alone in that view. Antandrus (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That made me a grouchy Santa. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the Bad Site

Saw your comment on FAs at WR: "I've submitted none of my articles to the A/GA/FA process and I never will. When I'm done, it's a B -- and it's perfectly......................... satisfactory.".

Same here. I think Fishery Protection Squadron is my best one, but I can't be bothered to put it forward for GA and go through all the nonsense with the manual of style and dashes in the right place. It teaches people, and that's good enough for me. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✰

		The Original Barnstar
		Came here via my watchlist, which I have seen you on frequently. You have expanded quite a few of my stubs. Thanks for that! Reading your talk page you also appear to be doing a lot of other work I approve of, so cheers :) jorgenev (t|c|s) 07:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

I do know that you have clear views on administration. At the same time, in one perspective of mine, there might be no harm in giving mature editors like you additional tools that they may utilize in times of need to improve the project; and may not utilize when they are editing. Of course, my view may be gravely incorrect. But there's no harm in asking you - would you up for adminship? It'll be a privilege to nominate you. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 18:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of reply: "Thanks, but no thanks." Carrite (talk)

Silk Purse Award

		Silk Purse Award
		I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your improvements to the Cynthia Basinet article, essentially changing what was seen as a sow's ear into a terrific silk purse. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say hello Thanks and Happy New Year.

		The Original Barnstar
		I see you are still encouraging new editors and you are helping anyone who asks you to in a mature and objective way. Just wanted to say I have never forgot how you help me in the first few weeks when I wanted to throw a computer monitor out of the window at times. You are the best wishing you a great 2012 It is always reassuring to new editors that you are here JoeyD2010 (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Sadly, too few disputes here seem to be independently resolved well. Your actions at an AfD are deeply appreciated and deserve recognition. VQuakr (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your special work to help build the place where neutral should be keep! Farewellmyfriend (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar

The Genuine Barnstar

Tim, this is just the second barnstar I've ever presented. You and I haven't chatted much in recent months, but every time I see your work here, I am impressed and gladdened that an editor such as you is active here. I took this photo in Petaluma, California, home town of my father-in-law, and also home of Jewish socialist chicken ranchers 100 years ago. That's the milieu he grew up in. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your excellent detective work in finding solid sources for Donald Duncan. Thanks for your hard work! I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your sensible comments at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-01/Paid_editing.

Bearian (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite/Tim,

It is another moment of integrity, one in a long list, where the principal, principled defenders of free speech and critics of harassment of conservatives are leftists, notably you (Carrite). Well done! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For being level headed, helpful and polite wrt Sally Season Sædontalk 00:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About zombies

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For this. Made me chuckle. Good work! xanchester (t) 09:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just the right words

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For giving it the whoopty fuckin' doo on the Lynette Nusbacher AFD NetNus (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

For making me smile at the end of a long day. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I left a more detailed comment at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Proposed decision#General thanks to the parties & participants, but I wanted to thank you and the other parties to the arbitration case for your excellent conduct throughout the process. You should also know that the case is due to close in a few hours (about midnight UTC at the earliest). Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I misjudged you

You would make a great administrator.

Hypothetically speaking, I mean. Obviously it's not for everyone. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice words. We are indeed dealing with hypotheticals here, as I have no interest in the buttons. Happy editing. Carrite (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, which is precisely why I used the term "hypothetically speaking". :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 14:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for creating the new Victor Kamkin Bookstore article, and for all of your work to improve Wikipedia! Northamerica1000(talk) 05:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For this comment. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your kind words here. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You Have Mail...

Old Business

I figured we'd take it to talk, rather than give the perception we are fighting at AFD. Again, I was initially against the creation of the article, on the basis of not having enough information on the subject. The direct quotes and the sourcing to the vido on YT came from the article's creator, I just did my best with what print sources were available and included the opposing view from the Sociology professor. That said, I am willing to work with you to improve it. I would be in favor of stripping out the "Quoted transcripts" from the video and replacing them with an external link to Plaster's video in an external link section as I feel it is lurid and nonencyclopedic. For the record, I am convinced this woman existed and that Gunny Hathcock killed her. I believe she tortured some Marines and that is what made her a high value target for 1st MARDIV in that area of operations. As for the rats in the basket deal, well I may be seeing Jim Land in a few days and if I get the opportunity I will ask him about it. I don't really care if it stays in the article and if you want to remove it without disrupting the reference I have no objections. We may have differing opinions, but that's no reason why we can't work together.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, nice to meet you. Sorry for my snark at AfD — it's a rough neighborhood, as a Wikipedia vet like yourself knows well by now. The issues are complex, we'll work them out, I have no doubt. I'll track down Lembcke's book and lay out his contrarian case, perhaps one or both of the bios of the sniper as well; a minor rename of the article, a little balancing of the wording, and removal of the pretty clearly false rats-in-a-basket story (it is borrowed from Orwell, let there be no mistake) and we should be good to go. I didn't mean to indicate you were a liar for listing the History Channel documentary, I was just surprised to see that — I didn't catch it in the footnotes — and needed to investigate. Sorry that came out wrong. "Trust But Verify," as Jimmy Carter said, ha ha. I do appreciate your message and look forward to working with you. Way too much heat in that AfD debate, for sure. Sorry about my end of that... I'll be in touch in a week or two when I have some books. Carrite (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, apologies if you took anything I said out of context as well. Yeah, the History Channel thing was used as a source, so it may not have been as obvious at first glance. I changed it and listed it in the article. Truth be told, Lembcke just gives it a page or two IIRC, it is on Google Books and I'm the one who put it in there, again...despite appearances, I was trying to put it in perspective. Between you and I, apart from Henderson who admittedly was writing a book about Hathcock, if any of those other authors would have thought Hathcock fabricated the story, they would not have repeated it; if not called him an out and out liar. There's little room for BS about the War when those men in particular put pen to paper; or in Plaster's case, film an interview.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes, let me know what you think.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! Good luck on Howat. On a related note, I've been working on the Samuel Colt article for some time. He was a huge proponent for Labor Unions and the trades. Would you know offhand of any sources for that beyond the biographies of Colt (I may be leaning on them too much). Thanks in advance.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Business

The main problem with regards to the Hiss article is that the introduction fails to mention some rather important evidence from the Soviet archives. Another problem is the use of inappropriate sources by non-experts in violation of Wikipedia policy. CJK (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's hit these things one at a time. What precisely do you feel needs to be in the lead that is not there now? Let's leave the sources for later. Carrite (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to mention the consensus against Hiss in a more direct manner, rather than attributing it to one person, which is weasel wording. Furthermore, it should make mention of important evidence in the form of notes taken from the Soviet archives where Hiss is repeatedly identified as an agent. CJK (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be your precise preferred wording? Carrite (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, how far off is this? — "...On the basis on newly published transcripts generated by the top-secret Venona program and documents examined in hitherto sealed Soviet archives, from the 1990s onward there has been an emerging scholarly consensus among historians of Cold War counterintelligence that Alger Hiss was indeed guilty of providing information to the Soviet Union during the 1940s...." Carrite (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the exact nature of the evidence needs to be a little more clear.

There is a scholarly consensus that Hiss was a Soviet spy. Venona transcripts and the private testimony of Noel Field, released in the 1990s, are considered by many to implicate Hiss. Moreover, he is repeatedly identified as a Soviet agent in notebooks of transcribed documents from the KGB archives. CJK (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as an overstatement of the situation. I guess I didn't make an impression on the matter of "scholarly consensus" vs. "growing scholarly consensus." There's no doubt that there is very broad agreement at this point, but those who contend that the "Hiss=Ales" equation upon which everything rests is incorrect are not tin-foil hatters, they include serious scholars (see: Chervonnaya and apparently Hartshorn, no doubt among others). It's simply not correct to assert or to imply that there is 100% unanimity of opinion among serious people on this question, although there has been a very great shift in that direction since the 1990s. There's pretty much no chance that the unambiguous wording you propose is going to gain a consensus; is there any way for you to make this a less unilateral statement? Carrite (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what exactly the difference between an "emerging" consensus and an ordinary consensus is. A "growing" consensus was identified as far back as 2001. Also I said that "many" consider Venona and Field to implicate Hiss, not "everyone". CJK (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that when you make it out to be an "academic consensus," full stop, you relegate those who do not agree that "Hiss=Ales" to the status of a wacky "fringe" status. Theirs is actually an academic minority viewpoint. Carrite (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this: "...On the basis on newly published transcripts generated by the top-secret Venona program, documents examined in hitherto sealed Soviet archives, and the testimony of a contemporary, a consensus among scholars of Cold War counterintelligence that Alger Hiss was indeed guilty of providing information to the Soviet Union has emerged in recent years. This conclusion, while supported by an overwhelming majority of serious scholars, is not universal..." Carrite (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Fixed: Carrite (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" does not mean 100% support. CJK (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how close is that wording to something you can live with? Carrite (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the formalities of punctuation are not my strong suit, this first sentence is long and complex. I have no issues with the content, and think that Carrite has packed a lot of accurate summarization into a couple of sentences. But I do think that a semicolon rather than a comma between "contemporary" and "since" might work better. It would serve to separate the summary of the evidence from the conclusions a bit better, in my opinion, and would therefore contribute to clarity for readers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Carrite (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that didn't work grammatically. I've tried to simplify. Carrite (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it needs to be a little more specific as to the exact nature of the evidence that the consensus is based on. CJK (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the "exact nature of the evidence" belongs in the body of the article, rather than the lead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There should be a brief summary of what the evidence says, in particular with regards to the notes which contain extremely important information. The reader shouldn't have to have to go through the entire article first to find it. CJK (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short summary in the lead, detail in the body is the way to do something like this, in my estimation. The lead is already pretty damned long. Coming up with a short summary that all parties can agree upon seems to be the way forward. How exactly might you add the specificity that you favor in a way that won't utterly alienate others? Carrite (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victor Kamkin Bookstore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Billington (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) 10:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but I've responded to your point on the Ironholds/Kiefer evidence talk page. Basically, I consider the context of the dispute to be important. Kiefer's abrasive communication style has put him at odds with the community, which is an important aspect of Ironholds's frustration. Obviously that doesn't encapsulate the whole situation, but I am limited in the amount of leverage I can give for both parties, so I presented important tidbits regarding Kiefer's history. As a disclaimer, I've had issues with him in the past. Maybe I should mention this on the evidence page? Kurtis ^(talk) 04:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, your comments (such as this) on the evidence talk are becoming disruptive. Also I will point out that some individual Arbitrators have stated their view on whether IRC is on or off wiki, as a whole the Committee generally doesn't make a statement such as this until the decision stage. Please stop asking/demanding questions about this as it becoming POINTy and disruptive. If your disruptive comments continue I will restrict your participation in the case and/or you may be blocked from editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Carrite, I got a similar notification. This is nothing but arbitrators wanting to save space by avoiding what they term "meta-discussion", even though it is specifically relevant to evidence standards for the case. They hatted both threads that we started; look at your hatted one for my post stating that freenode, where many of the "semi-official" channels operate, has a dedicated prefix built into MediaWiki (see this: freenode:wikipedia-en-admins). This is a status that few external sites, and none otherwise so closely related to Wikipedia (such as Wikipediocracy) are afforded. Thus the only reasonable conclusion, baked into the software built by the same people who are denying it, is that IRC channels are official—the primary topic of discussion is Wiki[p|m]edia, Wiki[p|m]edians constitute the overwhelming majority of members and operators, and with the freenode prefix the relationship between Wikipedia and its IRC channels is tacitly accepted. However, Wikimedia employees and Wikipedia power players are being massive hypocrites in misrepresenting it as a non-official channel, and by hatting the discussion the Arbitrators are pulling off a classic case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Wer900 • talk 04:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've said my piece in the KW/Ironholds case and it's time for other people to say theirs. I appreciate that you did also, WER. In my opinion it is completely bogus to represent IRC as non-official for the purposes of evidence against one party, while at the same time kowtowing to the "no publishing any logs" rule of this purported "off-wiki" site. Tell me that's not treating IRC as if it were an official arm of WMF/En-WP, please... So we are in a position where there is secret evidence being heard (or ignored) by a Star Chamber instead of a transparent case, which is exactly how ArbCom prefers to operate, judging by my experience with them in a case earlier this year... A pesty editor who has made a pain in the butt of himself on other matters is clearly going to be indeffed for having been dumb enough to rush onto WP proper in response to a provocation made on the so-called "off-wiki" site. The guy who created the provocation will receive a slap on the wrist or a mild scolding, at most — the provocation was made "off-wiki," after all, ha ha. The entire case stinks to high heaven. All we can do is wait for the next elections and make sure that no ArbCom incumbents are returned to office, with perhaps two or three notable exceptions. Carrite (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for Casliber, he's actually a content writer unlike most people on the committee. Wer900 • talk 16:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My house in New Jersey doesn't have a basement.

No, in all seriousness, my gratitude to you and some of the other folks at WO for standing up against some of the more unreasonable attacks against me. It's nice to see how some people there are able to disagree with me without thinking that I'm the epitome of evil. It's funny, right now I'm in this pro-anonymity position, when I actually think that a lot of things would be simpler if everyone would just be up-front about who they are. (I've updated my userpage to reflect my opinions on the matter.) Anyways, thanks for the kind words (though I'm not sure that not being a sockmaster should be characterized as "impressive"). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've handled everything 100% the way I have or would have (I've never had another account name): linking to real name and connecting accounts in plain sight. In my opinion, if transparency like that were required instead of just a good idea, WP would have fewer problems with secret editing agendas and edit warring and massively fewer problems with vandalism. I find your defense of IP editing a little puzzling, I'm completely on the opposite side of that question — but honest people may differ, eh? Don't get sucked into the dramah warz too deeply, adrenaline is an addictive drug and it frequently ends badly for Wikipedians who get themselves strung out on dramah juice... There's a time to stand for principle, there's a time to be a smartass, and there's a time to tip one's hat and move along — which are the three stages of my participation at the current case against my content-creator colleague Kiefer.Wolfowitz before the Star Chamber. Being able to know when to say when is the hard part. Maintaining emotional distance is the key.

My apologies for those at WPO (KW among them) who look down upon younger-than-average Wikipedians. I was doing atypical forms of writing for an audience at age 16 and 17 (albeit in a modest venue) and I know damned well that a person can produce seriously at that age. It is insulting to pretend otherwise. (Sorry, KW, it's true...) Good luck to you with your content writing — try to get that salmon-colored piece of your "pie chart" bigger and bigger. That's what this project is all about, ultimately. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're such a realist that you cause big problems for the Wikipediocracy/Scientology people and the Wikipedia people, Tim. Why are they so upset? Well, that should be obvious.

Just before Wer900 was given advice about his manners at Wikipediocracy and his relevancy at an arbcom case, he made this comment. Ignoring the childish namecalling, I'll first address the demand to consider "OKeyes's ANI friends". Well, OK-yes doesn't post to ANI hardly at all, so he would need to explain who he thinks OK-yes's friends there are. People who dared to disagree with his party line? Nice :)

But also, he asked me to look at my own contributions. So I did. Well, I've made over 7000 mainspace edits, as against just over 1800 that Wer900 made. In the course of those edits, I've helped get three articles to featured status (soon to be four), and fifteen to good article status. That's against his getting one article to GA status - I do admire his persistence in trying to get it promoted to FA, but it hasn't paid off just yet. (Apologies Tim, I know you reckon such baubles as nothing.)

By contrast, User:Ironholds has made more than ten times as many mainspace edits as Wer900 (and approximately three times as many as I have), and taken more articles to GA and FA than I care to count. So it's really very unclear what, exactly, Wer900 is on about. He tries to paint soemone as not being a "content creator", then when confronted with that person's excellent content creation record, he tries to deflect onto something to do with his "friends". Is this some weird ironic reference to guilt by association, or just something near desperation? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I presume you observed at WPO, I've got nothing against Mr. Keyes personally — if memory serves he's the guy that bestowed Autoreviewed rights on me out of the blue, and I did appreciate that very much. I do have a problem with IRC, which I perceive to be a factional weapon and would like to see that neutered if not abolished. I consider KW a friend, I comprehend that he's burned many or most bridges already; nevertheless it seems important for the betterment of the encyclopedia to defend even his latest foolish dash on-wiki to reproduce Tough Guy Movie Quotes (which is what I assume is what his retort to Ironholds was). I wish he'd stop that shit. It didn't serve Malleus/Eric and it doesn't serve him.

I don't think dick-measuring about content creation serves any good purpose in this instance. I am in extremely high agreement with WER on structural/meta type issues with respect to WP and that is the main thing with respect to him. I don't know what he edits about or what Keyes edits about nor do I think it ultimately matters that much, just as long as they're working. I do know what KW edits about (since much of it is in my field), and of course a bit about you also since you were under the WPO klieg lights recently. I don't have any problem saying that neither of you are drone bees and that's the bottom line for me. My views on GA/FA are well enough known, disagree with them as you will... Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so Tim, just so. It's particularly hilarious that the Wer900 kiddie, he of the Wikipedia:Charter of the Council of Wikipedia where we must all bow down to him and his randomly selected set of laws, is so crawlingly desperate for GA and FA recognition, all at the same time he is trying to suggest that OK-yes doesn't have that. I am sort of waiting to see how he justifies this sort of childishness. Not being mean, I should say; just he needs to grow up a little. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what percentage of your edits just create drama, Demigurge? Wer900 • talk 00:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it in yourself to actually contribute to Wikipedia, rather than focusing on drama. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WER. I've written a little for a Lakers basketball blog and they've got very few behavior rules. One of them is "no making demeaning names for the opponents." You can say, "The Sacramento Kings fucking suck!!!" (which is true!) but if you call them "The Sacramento Queens" or if you call the Atlanta Hawks "The Atlanta Hicks," the mods will block yer ass so fast that you'll need seasick medicine. I advise you to take this to heart and give the "Demigurge" stuff a permanent miss. Deal with ideas — and don't hesitate to say what's what about those — but do it in a dispassionate, non-demeaning way. Carrite (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

posted by Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an opt-in section for those interested in receiving TAFI notifications on the project's main page, located here. Those that don't opt-in won't receive this message again. Also, a revised notification template has been created, located at Template:TAFI weekly selections notice. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote for option C was in the option B section, so I move it. I hope that's OK. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

at WP:AN3 in reference to your interactions with LesLein.

-- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carrite. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kicking Zombie Ass for Jesus.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• I think a redirect to the director is fine for now as I aded sourced information to that article. We can always undelete if this thing begins filming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rocky_IV#Merge_for_Ivan_Drago_into_Rocky_IV An AFD you participated in that just got closed today, is now at a merge discussion. Dream Focus 19:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Labor Defense, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tom Mooney and The Communist (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) 10:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to resolve the discussion at AN/I regarding Wer900, I have offered a new proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints. Since you have weighed in on previous proposals regarding this user, I am notifying you of the new one in case you wish to opine. Regards, alanyst 19:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA TAKES PORTLAND 2013! You're invited to participate in the upcoming "Wikipedia Takes Portland" campaign, to be held during the month of September. The local campaign occurs annually in conjunction with Wikipedia Takes America and Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States. Photographing sites included on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the main focus of Wikipedia Takes Portland. In typical Wikipedia fashion, you can work individually or create a team. Details and signup here!

--Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the Wikipediocracy forum you posted a comment which implied that Doritos are not readily available in the United Kingdom. This is highly inaccurate, and potentially damaging to the UK's prospects as a destination for tourism, employment and entrepreneurship by individuals who subsist entirely on snack foods. It has also come to my attention that an editor with checkuser and oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia made a subsequent forum post apparently supporting your implication.

For the record, Doritos are even more widely available in the UK than Krispy Kreme doughnuts which are a favourite snack of the heroic Edward Snowden. I walk past at least one Krispy Kreme franchise most days of the week, but Doritos are even more widespread, appearing in a substantial proportion of snack vending machines. (Doritos may be slightly less unhealthy than chocolate or standard varieties of what you would call "potato chips", and thus perhaps benefit from UK rules specifying that some proportion of products in certain vending machines must be "healthier options"). They claim to be "the UK's number one tortilla chip", although I can't immediately recall any other tortilla chip sold in the UK.

Given your editing history, I am sure you are well aware that snack food availability is a topic of great sensitivity, and I fully intend to pursue this matter at all relevant levels of dispute resolution if necessary. The Doritos article has templates indicating serious issues with it, and perhaps in your voluminous archives you have documentation or sources that might be used to improve it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frito-Lay off with the personal a-snacks on Carrite, Demiurge1000. It is obvious you have a large chip on your shoulder regarding this topic. alanyst 23:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may base my decision on whether or not to visit London next year on how this matter is resolved. I will be watching. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Doritos must be held in the absolute highest regard by the people. Denial of the greatness of such a snack chip must not be tolerated whatsoever." -- Kim Jong Il

• @Demiurge. You lie! You lie! They don't even use the word "chip" in the UK in the proper sold-by-the-bag context, let alone use that word prefixed by "tortilla." Nothing but that "crisps" nonsense... Next thing you will be saying is that they are selling "french fries" there, which is most assuredly also bunk. And god only knows what is being foisted upon an unsuspecting public in lieu of ketchup. AN/I is thataway----> and we'll soon be tangling there if you persist in this sort of public pseudoamerican falsification of England's certifiably abysmal snack food culture. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carrite. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative press (U.S. political left).
Message added 07:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• Please see my comment at the following discussion. Thank you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carrite.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind remarks about the George E. Nowotny article. Do you think it would fit into DYK? I am blocked from DYK and was wondering if you could use it on DYK. Of course, it might not be suitable for DYK. Thanks, Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, DYK is very time-consuming since the requirement was added that we check someone's nomination too for each entry of our own. It does though cause about 500 to 1,000 to see articles that otherwise would not be seen. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The drafting arbitrators have requested that you be formally added as a party to the Manning naming dispute case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment at the above AfD discussion about ARS. Actually, the project does have a Rescue list page where requests for article improvements can be made. Just some FYI stuff, since it appears you weren't aware of the Rescue list page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the CM talk page you said "This presumes that gender is exclusively a matter of self-identification ... there are a wide range of analytical, philosophical, and ethical views among Wikipedians". Given that I'm curious to know what is your view on the matter.

Specifically,

• Does a transgender person get to assert their own gender identity?
• If they do, to what degree are others obliged to respect it?

Chris Smowton (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Workers Defense Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roger Baldwin (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) 11:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Devere Allen 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:

• of the governing National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party.<ref name=EAM>Tim Davenport, [http://www.marxisthistory.org/subject/usa/eam/spaofficials.html "Socialist Party of America (1897-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hector Macpherson, Jr. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Distinguished Flying Cross, United Presbyterian Church and Army Air Corps

War Resisters League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Sutherland

Wheeler School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paul Corrigan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Social Democratic Party of Lithuania, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Polish and Lithuanian (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) 11:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Socialist Sunday Schools, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latvian (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) 11:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI LOVES LIBRARIES 2013! You're invited to attend the upcoming "Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon. The event will be held from 1–4pm on Sunday, October 13, 2013 at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library, located on the second floor of the Museum's Mark Building (formerly the Masonic Temple). The edit-athon will focus on the local arts community (but you can work on other topics as well!). It will also kick off the Oregon Arts Project, an on-wiki initiative to improve coverage of the arts in Oregon. Details and signup here!

Hope to see you there! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

union of workers
Thank you, Tim, for quality articles such as Union of Russian Workers, for a wealth of political biographies, for surviving RfA, for "NPOV ... simply requires that one be fair and proportionate to all sides of a debate and dispassionate in the delivery", for "Infoboxes, if small and concise, can add value to a page" , for collecting happy thoughts, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carrite. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Union Movement.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cavarrone 18:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While not always the best reference, findagrave shows Birch's marker with both parents, and Lilith Mae here. :) Looks good. Dru of Id (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
2. IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
3. Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
4. Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
5. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).
7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
8. The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:IWW-headquarters-1917.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For this accurate, clear-eyed comment rebutting the notion of Wikipedia's "good old days". NeilN talk to me 02:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve this one, Tim. Wikipedia has had "problems" since the beginning, and we have intense battlegrounds now, and always will. But millions of articles are pretty good, and slowly getting better. Collaboration is great when it happens, but I agree with you that the best work here is mostly done solo by either experienced generalists or highly motivated specialists, mostly working alone. The low-hanging fruit is long gone, Abraham Lincoln and Saturn are well developed, and our new content is mostly about "obscure", "niche" topics. Some people walk around with a chip on their shoulder, frequent the drama boards, push "the truth" on articles about highly controversial topics, and then complain about how terrible Wikipedia has become. I read the negative stuff, but contribute mostly (I hope) to the positive stuff, and think that this is a highly complex but mostly great project. Thank you, Tim, for all the volunteer work you've done here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, you guys are swell... Carrite (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ramparts (magazine) 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:

• | image_file = <!-- cover.jpg (omit the "file: prefix -->
• ''Ramparts'' was established in June 1962 by [[Edward M. Keating]] in [[Menlo Park, California] as a "showcase for the creative writer and as a forum for the mature

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifully said. Really. I wish everyone on the project would read that, especially the long-time contributors, the more burnt-out ones. Antandrus (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it very much, you're one of my Wikipedia heroes. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After you gave me a barnstar, I remembered that I have seen your username around quite a bit and took a look at your userspace to learn more about you. I came upon the section on POV warriors and thought I would share a few comments, not with any particular intended outcome in mind, but just to share some rants.

It mentions that POV pushers will try to delete sourced material, and it reminds me of my experiences on the article on the International Association of Business Communicators, where a PR rep kept deleting well-sourced critical material. When they finally learned how to create a username, I was able to actually talk to them, and it turned out I made a factual error they were trying to "correct".

In my position as a PR rep, I have seen lots of corporate stakeholders with a COI self-rationalize overt COI edits and genuinely believe whole-heartedly in their arguments. I'm dealing with a POV pusher myself right now who has accused me of being a part of some complex conspiracy to scratch other PR reps' backs, etc. and I believe he genuinely thinks that.

I guess my point is, while POV pushers can be damaging to the project, I don't think they are evil or deserve harassment. I have probably been the POV pusher myself a few times and the POV pusher often thinks everyone else is bias. CorporateM (Talk)

Hello, Carrite. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Kallis.
Message added 04:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

	WIKI LOVES LIBRARIES 2013! You are invited to attend the upcoming "Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon. The event will be held from 2:30–4:30pm on Sunday, November 17, 2013 at the Vancouver Community Library (901 C Street) in Vancouver, Washington. The edit-athon will focus on creating and expanding articles related to Vancouver and Clark County. Details and signup here!