User talk:Groupuscule

Hello!

Hey Groupuscule, could you please clarify why you added the {{Unbalanced}} and {{Advert}} templates to Johns Hopkins University with this edit? According to Wikipedia's policy for tagging articles, "anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag." I saw that a previous editor removed your tags earlier, and I would like to help you avoid the frustration of having future editors removing your tags if you have an important issue to address.

• If you have a general issue that you want to address, then please be helpful by leaving a message on Talk:Johns Hopkins University so that other editors can know how we can fix the article. Per WP:TAGGING, even if the problem is obvious it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how. If you leave a comment on the talk page, then other editors will be welcoming and help you address the article's problems.
• If you have a more specific issue, then feel free to use some of the section-specific templates or inline templates listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Inline templates are particularly helpful because they allow you to place captions within the text itself,(example: ^{[neutrality is disputed]}) thus increasing the chances that the problems with the article will be noticed/fixed.
• Even better, if you spot a particular error in the article and know how to fix it, then be bold and fix the mistake directly by editing Johns Hopkins University.
• If you are unsure which tags to use or how to use them, then Wikipedia:Responsible tagging provides helpful advice about how to maximize the likelihood that other editors will be able to address your concerns and fix the article's mistakes.

In general it is best to provide the fewest number of the most specific possible tags. Placing tags on an article is not a means of improving the encyclopedia: It is only a means of asking other people to improve an article that you cannot or will not improve yourself. Thank you for your edits, and feel free to leave your concerns on Talk:Johns Hopkins University. If you need help doing this, then you may read Help:Using talk pages or Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for assistance. --Apollo1758 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Apollo, but you'll notice we did leave a message on the Talk page. Granted there is more work to be done here, but it will take a little research. We don't use these flags lightly—in fact this is the only page where we've added them. Groupuscule (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my mistake! I forgot to check there and I read the article that you linked to. I agree that the page should detail the university's controversial relationship with the Baltimore community, including its actions in East Baltimore. But just try to be more explicit next time; it looks like maybe you can try flagging the History section for being unbalanced and creating a new Controversies section related to the university's controversial relation to the community. Though feel free to take your time to address the article's issues. --Apollo1758 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try Help:Citation tools --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link: WikiProject:Pollution --Ne0 (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested in this: Aam Aadmi Party --Ne0 (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only made the change for sake of accuracy. In a standard dictionary, "felon" is listed as a noun meaning a person who has committed a felony. "Ex-felon" generally will not be found in a dictionary. Of the two, the word listed in a dictionary is preferable in Wikipedia for obvious reasons. Even if "ex-felon" were a standard English language word, its meaning presumably would be a person who was formerly a felon. In the edited articles, this would be an inaccurate term to use, as the people addressed by that word are, in fact, felons - not people who were once convicted of a felony but then had that status changed so that they are no longer felons, as by an appellate court or a pardon. Using "felon" is not judgmental; it is the simplest and most accurate and specific term for what it means, and in fact is a rather sterile term that avoids connotations that come from terms such as "criminal" or "offender". "Felon" is also the term that is almost universally used by courts and statutes in addressing this class of people, and in most of those articles, the term is used because of its legal relevance: felons deprived of the right to vote by operation of law due to their felon status; difficulty in securing or retaining employment due to being a felon; etc. It is the most appropriate and useful term for what is communicated in those articles.

I would reiterate what the dictionary says as being the strongest authority on this topic, but I also want to share a few thoughts generated by your most recent discussion of this subject on my page. Your citation for negative connotations of the word "felon" ("evil, bad, immoral") cites its infrequent adjective form. In each instance we're discussing, the word was used as a noun, and as a simple, objective noun, signifying that the person or persons in question were convicted of a felony, and nothing more. If you want to differentiate between people who are incarcerated and those who are not, the term to use would generally be "prisoner", or in some instances "inmate". "Ex-felon" is not an accurate term to describe all (or even most) people who were formerly prisoners.

But I would suggest something else to consider. You are right that felons face stigma in society, but using a different but less accurate or precise word to describe them on Wikipedia isn't appropriate, even (or perhaps especially) if motivated by a good faith intention to lessen or combat that stigma, including for reasons I didn't mention earlier. I'd suggest that using the term "ex-felon" in place of the more accurate term "felon" will for some people confuse the issue - especially those who are casual readers or not invested or particularly interested in the issue. Using the term "ex-felon" indicates that felons somehow escape their felon status and the stigma and social disabilities that go with it, but as we know, for the vast majority of felons, that does not happen. Using that inaccurate term "ex-felon" could lead readers to the easy (as written) but inaccurate conclusion that felon status is not usually an inescapable lifelong designation, but instead something that is temporary. Perhaps worse, it could indicate to many readers that felons are prisoners and ex-prisoners are ex-felons, and therefore the stigma and disabilities borne by felons are only borne by prisoners. That, I think, would be at odds with the concerns you've mentioned.

I hope you'll give these comments some thought especially as they relate to your concerns about judgmental reading, conclusions drawn and recognition of obstacles faced by felons (often or usually for life). I'm not sure we're really at cross-purposes here, as you might have initially supposed.

I am writing to you as you have signed up to the Education Meetup at Wikimania 2012 and perhaps are interested in how Wikipedia links to education. Wikimedia UK is now running a education related event that may be of interest to you: the EduWiki Conference on 5-6 September in Leicester. This event will be looking at Wikipedia and related charitable projects in terms of educational practice, including good faith collaboration, open review, and global participation. It's a chance to talk about innovative work in your institution or online community, and shape the future of Wikimedia UK's work in this area!

The conference will be of interest to educators, scholarly societies members, contributors to Wikipedia and other open education projects, and students.

For details please visit the UK Chapter Wiki.

Please feel welcome to register or promote within your network.

Thank you, Daria Cybulska (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a lot of time recently working on the Monsanto article. I just saw your comment today in which you wrote "Strange how the article has gone from an anti-Monsanto POV to a conspicuously pro-Monsanto POV. Wikipedians worry about unsophisticated vandals, but need to pay more attention to corporate infiltrators who are savvy enough to use complete sentences and cite their sources". You are obviously talking about my work. 1) For somebody who proudly has the motto "I value fairness, truth, & justice!", you have made me feel like crap - unfairly judged and dismissed. 2) I am not an "infilitrator" - I have tons of edits all over. You can check them out. 3) The changes are not "strange" - I have carefully annotated what I have done and have engaged with people on Talk. 4) For the record, I work at a university, not at Monsanto. I am not a "corporate infiltrator". 5) The article is not pro-Monsanto. It is (becoming) free of vitriol and coming into line with wiki's POV policies. I have been careful to retain discussion of controversial and bad acts of Monsanto. Your comment has really stuck in my craw. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I'm sorry I made you feel bad. That wasn't my goal at all. That comment I made on August 1 was regarding changes in the Monsanto article over the last few years, not the specific changes you've made in the past few weeks. I think most of these changes have decreased redundancy and improved clarity, and I appreciate them! I certainly wasn't trying to direct it at you personally.
It is true that I fear whitewashing of pages about corporations on Wikipedia. For example, I do think it's important that Monsanto is giving lots of money to oppose Proposition 37 in California. But you'll notice I haven't undone Arc de Ciel's total rollback of my edits on the topic, even though they frustrate me.
I appreciate your response to my question about toxicity, and you'll notice I haven't made any reverts there, either. I need a little more time to think about the best way to talk about this information, and there's no reason to reactively protect a specific factoid that was on the page.
I think good faith is a great idea, on- and off-line. Please understand that when I attack whitewashing, I'm trying to think about the system at large and not call out one particular editor. I did look at your contribs, I think you have a neat set of interests. :-) love, groupuscule (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply. :) I hope we can work together to make this a useful page. Yesterday I started looking at the pages of other companies in the space -- Dow Agra, Dupont Pioneer, Syngenta... none of them seem to be the target of ire in the way that Monsanto (and its page) have.. I find this so strange since their business practices are exactly the same, and all of them, being big chemical companies, have terrible environmental legacies. This makes no sense to me, practically speaking. The only explanation I can come up with, is that Monsanto pioneered the biotech business model in agriculture (getting patents and enforcing them) - but unlike companies in, say, the pharma space who sue other companies when they infringe, companies in agbio sue their customers too (farmers). It would be like a pharma company suing a patient! But the structure of the businesses are different, so that is what happens (patients cannot replicate drugs, but farmers can replicate seeds) But it is still upsetting.. a huge adjustment. And maybe patent law should be changed so it can't happen.. but that is a different question. But in any case, they pioneered it, so the ire has stuck to them, while their competitors just waltz by. Do you see what I mean about the focus on Monsanto. and if so, how do you explain it?Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. If you have a problem with one of my edits, please just ask me about it and I'm happy to discuss. I wrote an explanation for that edit on the talk page (diff): my reason for reverting you, as I said (in more detail), was that the source is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist.

It's not as if the information on California has been removed from the article. In fact, I thought your version was better written than the version that was there at the time, even though I think "filtered through" is POV since it implies that they're trying to hide it. Also, I'm not sure why you used the term "total rollback" for a three-sentence paragraph - it was a regular revert (see WP:BRD), with an invitation to discuss. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, AdC. Partly at that time I was feeling frustration with the whole system, because of the idea that a news source could be on the 'spam blacklist' because its authors make money when people view their sites. Other newspapers make money when people view their sites, too... and (e.g.) 'blogspot' isn't on the blacklist, so this isn't about peer review. In any case I don't think we should be in the business of censoring edits to the encyclopedia at the software level.

"Total rollback" referred to undoing the whole edit rather than (e.g.) replacing with citation needed or something like that. groupuscule (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's called a revert. (FYI rollback is not the same thing.) Anyways, from reading the archives, it seems to be that the website is almost never a reliable source. As I said, you can request for the blacklisting to be lifted (you can also request the specific article to be permitted) and if you can do this I will follow that decision. Blogspot isn't on the blacklist because it can be reliable in certain cases, mainly when citing the personal statements of a public figure or if the author is a known expert on the subject. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't necessarily have an objection to that individual edit, the user behind the IP is a serially blocked user who's been plaguing articles on the assassinations of Lincoln, King and Kennedy with some useful edits, some pointless, and a lot of "alleged assassin" edits for the past year and a half. They're currently on a spree of inserting unsupported commentary on Lincoln's death, and they've been spamming their Kennedy conspiracy theory site. Blocked means they can't edit, period, so they've been reverted when discovered. Sometimes that means reverting useful edits, and you're free to reinstate if you wish, but please review edits from that 92.x.x.x range very carefully. I tried to give them a break last week on the condition that they abide by sourcing, NPOV, etc., and they abused my trust, so I've lost what sympathy I had. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. The edit in question clarified that relevant witnesses saw King's shooting, not his death. A subsequent edit changing 'claim' to 'believe' is less obviously reasonable. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been rewritten.But i feel there is some problem in article.Please help through copy editing .Thank you 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 09:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be my pleasure! I'll give it a go in a few hours. groupuscule (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am back and will be able to reply your queries regularly.Please ask on article's talk page if you have any doubt regarding topics.dont forget to leave a message on my talk page after completing copy editing Thanks --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 14:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2012 Enterprise Zone Map.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the encouragement. I realized that he had a library named for him but little notice. He was so impt. to mid-20th century unionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmccook (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is garbage and needs to be neutral. Otherwise, it's just POV pushing. ViriiK (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that there are a lot of eager Paul supporters on the web and that their ideal page on the RNC would probably not be weighted well. And I'm totally open to the idea of changing or removing that particular quotation. But removing a whole section on rule changes that exclude Paul from the convention? Posting to the talk page without waiting for discussion? Immediately reverting back to your own edit after a compromise has been attempted? I find these edits be pretty inappropriate. Indeed, your general pattern of edits to the page hardly seems to reflect 'neutrality'. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have approved your DYK nomination for the Swift raids article but have suggested that the image is not used. Your comments would be welcome. If you do want the image used you need to include the word (pictured) in the hook somehow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think you're right about the picture. It's just a stock photo of a badge, not a picture of the event itself. groupuscule (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. I am sorry that it has taken this amount of time to attend to your request. Please be advised that we have been unable to close your request based on the information supplied. Please visit the whitelist request page and search for your name or the site you requested where you will see details of what additional information is required. Please note that replies here or on my talk page will not be taken into account. Please also note that if no information is received within two weeks from now, your request may be treated as withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message, "Stifle". I responded over at the request in question. I am really frustrated with the censorship that is being built into the cite. groupuscule (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but "Latin@s" is an extremely awkward and clumsy way of solving something which is not a problem with the English language at all, and which I doubt very much is any kind of prevalent Spanish-language practice (considering that padres is the Spanish word for "parents", and reyes the word for "king and queen"). The German "-Innen" thing is also quite awkward, but it attempts to solve an actual problem in the German language, while "Latin@s" isn't related to any difficulty in the English language itself. Some might call it phoney political correctness run amok; I'll just say that it glaringly calls attention to itself far more than it fulfills any valid or useful function. Furthermore the at-sign is the typewriter or 7-bit ASCII solution, while Wikipedia uses Unicode... AnonMoos (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, I think you are right about some of the disadvantages of "Latin@". It has become a fairly popular term in recent years because it quickly refers to a group of people (from Latin America) without using a male-gendered word as the default for referring to males and females. I would strongly prefer to avoid the use of a male-gendered term to describe a people in general—and I'd even say I don't mind it if the solution to this problem 'calls attention to itself' a little bit, since 'neutral' terminology has the tendency of reinforcing a viewpoint which is not neutral at all (i.e. 'the people' are primarily the men). I do agree that "Latin@" may be confusing, and you're right that the at-sign may be typographically inappropriate on Wikipedia and (on search engines). Can we come up with a better alternative? —Salaam, groupuscule (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The English language simply doesn't have many sex-specific nationality terms, other than obsolescent semi-relics (which now often sound pretentious and/or offensive and/or like they belong more to journalistic jargonese than ordinary spontaneous language), such as "Parisienne", "Jewess", "Frenchwoman" etc. The form "Latino" is definitely not sex-specific in the plural in the Spanish language (consult padres, reyes etc.), so why on earth should it be imported into the English language as a strictly and exclusively male-only term -- something which creates far more problems than it solves?? The whole question of "Latin@s"[sic] simply doesn't arise unless you try to force English to become "more Spanish than Spanish itself" and import a Spanish distinction into English in a way that's rather unnatural and artificial for English, and then enforce this distinction in a way which actually doesn't occur in Spanish... I'll freely admit we have problems with linguistic sexism in English (double meaning of "man" etc.), but trying to force Spanish distinctions into English in a way which does not fit with the spirit of the English language (and is not in fact the way things are done in Spanish itself), and then applying the at-sign "solution" to the problem which has been artifically created, strikes me as being pointless in the extreme... AnonMoos (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many Western languages don't have "sex-specific nationality terms", or, more accurately, legitimately sex-neutral nationality terms, because patriarchy has been in effect for a long time. (Padre - pater - patriarch - patriotism etc. etc. etc.) I don't think this justifies patriarchy or its linguistic relics. I don't want to distort language to unrecognizability, particularly on this encyclopedia, but I do think we should seek out terms that are more legitimately gender-inclusive. How do you feel about Latino/Latina? groupuscule (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign gender distinctions imported into English are somewhat exotic, and usually don't last all that long in common usage (blond/blonde, confidant/confidante, fiancé/fiancée etc). If in Spanish usage "Latinos" can refer to both genders in the plural, but "Latinas" can't, so that "Latino" is the more general term than "Latina", then that's really a problem with the Spanish language, not with the English language -- as seen from the fact that this same Spanish pattern applies to cases like "padres" and "reyes" which have no parallel in English. My guiding principle is that English should not be made to suffer for the sins of Spanish -- English already has its own long-standing problems, but new problems should not be created by trying to inappropriately apply Spanish rules to English... AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking them! Do you want me to give more suggestions for images? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! I like the idea of Wikimedia community across places. So please suggest away. (Prison food might be difficult, though.)groupuscule (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Here is a list:

• Baltimore
  • File:Mitchellcourt.JPG needs to be moved to the Commons
  • Maryland Department of Planning headquarters: 301 West Preston Street, Suite 1101, Baltimore, MD 21201
  • Baltimore City Public Schools headquarters: 200 E. North Avenue Baltimore, Md. 21202 - File:Balto ed building.jpg
  • Baltimore City Fire Department headquarters: 401 E. Fayette Street Baltimore, MD 21202
  • Baltimore Police Department headquarters: 242 W. 29th St. Baltimore, MD 21211-2908
  • Maryland State Department of Education headquarters: 200 West Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21201
  • Maryland State Highway Administration headquarters: 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, MD 21202 File:State Highway Administration Box.jpg
• Baltimore County
  • Rosedale
    • The McDonald's at the 6300 block of Kenwood Avenue - site of the 2011 Rosedale, Maryland beating
  • Towson
    • Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services headquarters: 300 East Joppa Road, Suite 1000 Towson, Maryland 21286
    • Baltimore County Public Schools headquarters: 6901 Charles Street Towson, Maryland 21204
• Anne Arundel County
  • Annapolis
    • Annapolis City Hall - 160 Duke of Gloucester St. File:Annapolis City Hall.JPG File:Annapolis City Hall 2.JPG
    • Annapolis Fire Department - 1790 Forest Drive Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Maryland State Archives - Dr. Edward C. Papenfuse State Archives Building - 350 Rowe Boulevard - Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Headquarters of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources - 580 Taylor Avenue - Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Headquarters of the Maryland Department of Budget and Management, Maryland Department of Information Technology, Maryland State Ethics Commission (located on third floor) - 45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401 File:45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401.JPG File:45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401 - front door.JPG File:45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401 - side view.JPG File:Department of Budget and Management.JPG File:45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401 - fourth floor.JPG File:State Ethics Commission.JPG
    • Headquarters of the Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs - 16 Francis Street, 4th Floor - Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Headquarters of the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund - 1750 Forest Drive Annapolis, Maryland 21401-4294 - See photo on the website
    • Annapolis Police Department - 199 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Anne Arundel County Public Library Annapolis Area Branch - 1410 West Street, Annapolis, MD 21401
    • J. Albert Adams Academy - 245 Clay St Annapolis, MD 21401-1000
    • Wiley H. Bates Middle School - 701 Chase Ave Annapolis, MD 21401-1000
    • Eastport Elementary School - 420 5th St Annapolis, MD 21403-2537
    • Georgetown East Elementary School - 111 Dogwood Rd Annapolis, MD 21403-2701
    • Germantown Elementary School - 1411 Cedar Park Rd Annapolis, MD 21401-3201
    • Walter S. Mills-Parole Elementary School - 103 Chinquapin Round Rd Annapolis, MD 21401-4003
    • Tyler Heights Elementary - 200 Janwal St Annapolis, MD 21403-1919
    • West Annapolis Elementary School - 210 Annapolis St Annapolis, MD 21401-1312
    • St. Mary's High School - 113 Duke Of Gloucester St Annapolis, MD 21401 File:St. Mary's High School.JPG File:St. Mary's High School 2.JPG
    • USPS Annapolis Main post office - 1 CHURCH CIR ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401-9998
    • USPS Legion Avenue post office - 210 LEGION AVE ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401-9996
    • USPS Eastport post office - 821 CHESAPEAKE AVE ANNAPOLIS, MD 21403-9998
  • Annapolis Neck
    • Annapolis Elementary School - 1399 Forest Drive Annapolis, MD
    • Annapolis Middle School - 1399 Forest Drive Annapolis, MD 21403
  • Hanover
    • Headquarters of the Maryland Department of Transportation - 7201 Corporate Center Drive Hanover, Maryland
  • Hillsmere Shores
    • Hillsmere Elementary School - 3052 Arundel On The Bay Rd Annapolis, MD
    • Eastport-Annapolis Neck Branch Library - 269 Hillsmere Drive, Annapolis, MD 21403
  • Parole
    • Headquarters of Anne Arundel County Public Schools - 2644 Riva Road Annapolis, Maryland 21401
    • Annapolis High School - 2700 Riva Road Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Headquarters of Maryland Department of Agriculture - 50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy, Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Headquarters of Anne Arundel County Public Library - 5 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Annapolis, MD 21401
    • Rolling Knolls Elementary - 1985 Valley Rd Annapolis, MD 21401-6753
    • USPS Naval Academy post office - 1 WILSON RD ANNAPOLIS, MD 21402-1205
  • US Naval Academy area
    • Naval Academy Primary School (NAPS) - 74 Greenbury Point Road Annapolis, MD 21402 - It is NOT affiliated with the US DOD

If you take photos in the Washington DC area, I could list those too. The University System of Maryland has its HQ in Adelphi which is in Maryland but in the Washington DC MSA. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, keep 'em coming. Baltimore proper is much easier for me than the county, and I don't get to DC that often, but it will be cool to have a mission when I do go to these places.

Thanks! I'll take a look at the category WhisperToMe (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else in Annapolis? I may visit soon. groupuscule (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I posted a large number - See which ones you want to do, or try them all if you'd like :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your contributions! Now, about the St. Mary's images, did you photograph the main high school? It can be seen at this view - I'm determining to see if St. Mary's Hall belongs to the high school or the church WhisperToMe (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want another one, the Howard County Public School System headquarters, is at 10910 Clarksville Pike (Route 108), Ellicott City, MD 21042 - Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello G,

I messed up the format on anticommuincation page -- I need a lesson -- ondixonhill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondixonhill (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Groupuscule,

Please feel free to edit the following entry as you please. I am losing my patience here. I am trying to chalk it up to lack of knowledge about the history of Black Casred music but am starting to get the feelinmg that it is something darker. In any event. I would appreciate if you would help format this enry so it conforms to Wiki "standards" Thank you.

In August of 2012, the book "We Shall Overcome: Sacred Song on the Devil's Tongue" (ISBN: 978-0615475288), was published. Written by author and 30-year music-industry veteran, Isaias Gamboa, the book proves in extraordinary detail that We Shall Overcome was actually derived from a popular copyrighted Baptist hymn entitled "If My Jesus Wills"; written by a Cincinnati, Ohio woman named Louise Shropshire. The evidence in the book clearly demonstrates that Shropshire's song was in fact COPYRIGHTED in 1954, proving her song to be the original source of We Shall Overcome -not Charles Albert Tindley's "I'll Overcome" as has been erroneously alleged for over 52 years. The book also reveals that Louise Shropshire was a close, influential friend of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth and Rev, Thomas A. Dorsey and features never-before-seen photographs of Shropshire with these historical figures. After thorough analysis, prominent musicologists, historians, copyright and legal experts have unanimously affirmed these extraordinary discoveries. In addition to the striking musical similarities, Louise Shropshire's lyrics expose and bare witness to this fifty two year old historical innacuracy. Shropshire's lyrics:

                      I'll Overcome, I'll Overcome, I'll Overcome Someday
                      If My Jesus Wills, I Do Believe, I'll Overcome Someday".

After numerous attempts, in August of 2012, Isaias Gamboa made contact with Pete Seeger and in a video-taped meeting at Seeger's home in upstate New York, Seeger was shown the overwhelming evidence of Shropshire's Music and Lyrics. Without hesitation, Seeger stated "This is Wonderful" and stated that Louise Shropshire "should be part of We Shall Overcome's history" ^[1]

A 2012 book by Isais Gamboa (We Shall Overcome: Sacred Song on the Devil's Tongue) argues that "We Shall Overcome" should be originated primarily to a popular Baptist hymn entitled "If My Jesus Wills". "If My Jesus Wills" was written and copyrighted in 1954 by a Cincinnati, Ohio, woman named Louise Shropshire. The book includes statements from musicologists, historians, copyright and legal experts. Gamboa also presents evidence that Shropshire was a close, influential friend of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth and Rev, Thomas A. Dorsey.

Shropshire's lyrics:

I'll Overcome, I'll Overcome, I'll Overcome Someday
If My Jesus Wills, I Do Believe, I'll Overcome Someday

Gamboa made contact with Pete Seeger in August of 2012. In a video-taped meeting at Seeger's home in upstate New York, Gamboa showed Seeger the evidence that Shropshire originated the hymn. Without hesitation, Seeger stated "This is wonderful" and stated that Louise Shropshire "should be part of We Shall Overcome's history".^[2]

OK, working on the text here is fine. We can also do on the talk page. The main issue is finding sources. I can't cite from a book I don't have. To cite from the book, the best thing to do is cite page numbers, and maybe even use quotations. If you are Isaias Gamboa (be honest!) it might not be the best thing for you to cite, either. Is the book available in any libraries that you know of, where maybe we could convince another Wikipedian to check them out? Are there relevant passages you could post or send? Or, better still, are there online resources that make the case? I am interested in helping with this and I want to do it right. I'll make a little effort at transforming the above into more encyclopedic language, and maybe you can help me with sourcing. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes above to get the language closer to encyclopedic tone. More references would still be good. I know this may seem watered down. Believe me, I understand what may be borne in those lyrics over 52 years. But this is a type of editorializing that will work better almost anywhere else on the internet than on Wikipedia. groupuscule (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITIONAL PRESS FOR GAMBOA BOOK / Hope this helps. P.s. I am Isaias Gamboa and would absolutely prefer for someone else to cite this very important entry. http://www.vibe.com/article/isaias-gamboa-explains-who-wrote-we-shall-overcome http://www.wsbradio.com/Player/101498721/ http://wchbnewsdetroit.com/2426934/book-review-we-shall-overcome-sacred-song-on-the-devils-tongue-by-isaias-gamboa/ http://sundaymorningliveblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/sml-88-99-no-show-labor-day-weekend/ http://www.eurweb.com/2012/10/new-book-reveals-the-untold-history-of-iconic-civil-rights-anthem-we-shall-overcome/ http://www.caribpress.com/2012/10/13/costa-rican-author-isaias-gamboa/

Hey, here is Mark Yoffe from GWU's Gelman Library's International Counterculture Archive, interested in doing a personal article for Wikipedia on myself. Would you mind to collaborate? If yes, what's the next step? Should I send you a write up?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toastormulch1 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the kind words. I don't believe we've interacted before and I haven't seen you on ancient Egypt-related talk pages, so I'm mildly curious as to how you became aware of my work. A. Parrot (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was browsing through articles for peer review and saw Egyptian mythology. And I read it and thought, 'wow, this article is really good'. Looking into the history, I saw that you pretty much created it out of whole cloth and have been working all year on the expansion. And I was all like, holy cow, this editor has been working really hard on this article without major collaborators. Then I looked at your "contribs" and saw that you actually work on maybe a hundred other ancient Egypt articles, too. That's awesome! Awesome -> barnstar. groupuscule (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mostly I just edit those articles occasionally to keep them from getting worse; I can only concentrate on a couple at a time. But I have created or rewritten a few fairly important articles. It's all a product of my long-standing ancient Egypt obsession, which may be getting crazier as it goes along. I'm always glad when someone appreciates the outcome. A. Parrot (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, one of my target articles for next year will indeed be a holy cow. A. Parrot (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool neckwear. groupuscule (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left my responses here. I'll work on some of your points tomorrow; on others I'm not so sure and would like your replies to my replies. A. Parrot (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining WikiProject Freedom of speech! :) — Cirt (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating it. It's an interesting topic that touches on many different articles. For example, there is a free speech zone in Baltimore's Inner Harbor, which I've been doing a little work on... and would love some help. The page on freedom of speech itself could also really use some work. It's also a really important and really difficult topic. groupuscule (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! In the future you can post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech for ideas on collaboration projects going forwards, or just simply to list important pages that could use improvement. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. The reason I put Jews there is because Israel is in West Asia, where the Jewish diaspora (except black and Indian Jews) originated. Putting Jews in the European section wouldn't have made much sense, especially considering that a large portion of Jews aren't European at all (Mizrahi, Ethiopian Jews, etc).69.248.98.23 (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...I understand and mostly agree, as I said in my comment to you. No offense, but your response to me does confirm the view that your edits are a little one-track-minded. You might consider working on some unrelated less controversial topics—for a while—to get a feel for collaboration and Wikipedia's trademark "neutral point of view". Good luck, groupuscule (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Can we interpret your remarks as supporting the move from "entailment" to "logical consequence?" This issue has plagued that article for a long time now, and I would like to move forward with it. Would you be willing to clarify your position by appending Support to your remarks? It is not clear at all that it will work at all out yet. Anything you could do to help move it forward would be greatly appreciated. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm really surprised that no one has weighed in on this question. But in fact I would suggest re-splitting, creating a new article for logical consequence or logical implication (I'm curious to learn why you prefer the former) and leaving "entailment" for anyone who wants to work on it as such (as some sort of 'relationship between sentences and operators' and not simply a logical operation). And in the process excise content from the 'entailment' page present and past that would be more appropriate for the new consequence (or implication) page. groupuscule (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support having two articles for the same concept, but even so; I had tried spliting the content into a newly expanded logical consequence article. However, my contribution was reverted. So there is a political environment going on here that we have to overcome. The original move was done without consensus, and my proposal to move it back failed because I didn't lay out a big case (in my mind it should have been very clear). I prefer the term "logical consequence" because it is more common in the scholarly literature (65k v 53k on google scholar). Furthermore, most of the most notable experts, (Quine, Carnap, Tarski, Russell, others) use the term "logical consequence" as well as all four of the reference resources I provided. This should be a slam dunk, and I really would like it resolved after years of being hindered by it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Greg Bard (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to create too much of a factionalist split among those wishing to change the current hegemony of the "entailment" article, but: not only is that not a very big difference, on Scholar, but also many of those articles refer to X as a "logical consequence of" Y; whereas "logical implication" unambiguously refers to the operation taking place. Eh? I mean, this page looks very nice, as someone mentions on entailment talk; why not simply restore that?

No, I don't support "logical implication" at all. I have never seen it used in any of the literature I have studied. I think the main supporting issue is the use of "logical consequence" by the other philosophy reference resources (SEP, InPho, IEP and PhilPapers). I have communicated with the editors of these resources, and I would like to have the philosophy department at WP as consistent with them as possible, and that is what I have been working on.Greg Bard (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Added a comment explicitly supporting the move to "logical consequence". groupuscule (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Feminist Africa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to losing my temper a little in response to your edits. groupuscule (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so did I, I guess. Let's start over... :-) I really am sympathetic to this journal, given its origin and subject matter. Let's see whether we can find good sources and if such turn up I'll withdraw the AfD. However, I really have to apply the same standards that I apply to other journals here, too... In addition, I'm not all that familiar with this field, so I'm afraid that the sources will have to come from you... Do you know of any database that this journal is indexed in? For that matter, do you know its ISSN? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Feminist Africa 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/Feminist Africa 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 template from the top of the article. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Guillaume2303, I find your choices here to be rude and unproductive. (See talk page for more.) groupuscule (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Groupuscule for your comments. From your interests, I think one article that might benefit from your attention concerns the Death of Mark Duggan. I'll be able to improve it eventually, I think, but overcoming the inertia of the "official" story has been impossible so far. -Darouet (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe just drop me a line if you think the Death of Mark Duggan page might be improved, or if you have any ideas! -Darouet (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification and the review. I've proposed an alt hook on Template:Did you know nominations/List of Intangible Cultural Heritage elements in Eastern Europe. Hope that works. Cheers,--xanchester (t) 03:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Groupuscule, Thanks for your review of The Making of a Teacher, and for your kind and thoughtful comments. I've recorded on the review template that I like and prefer the Alt1 hook you proposed... so when you get a chance, you can indicate if you think the hook is ready to go. Thanks! -- Presearch (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that you missed the clearest statement about the mound not being a mound; I've quoted it in the DYK discussion. Thanks for the praise for the hook! Nyttend (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#White Privilege". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 21:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed this article. What a great contribution—thanks! --BDD (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stopping by to say so! :-) groupuscule (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thanks for the DYK reviews for Art and emotion and Psychology of music preference and for the comments at Talk:Art and emotion. The class is Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Cognition and the Arts (Greta Munger) and is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/APS-Wikipedia Initiative. The professor, User:Greta Munger, has done 3 courses over 3 semesters involving the wiki...and there are some fairly interesting topics. If you're interested in participating in similar courses in the future, see Wikipedia:United States Education Program and Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Apply. Cheers.Smallman12q (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yum! Thanks, I'll check it out. groupuscule (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2012 (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.

1949 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Inauguration of Harry S. Truman

Oregon State Penitentiary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Adlai Stevenson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Aerial view of Oregon State Penitentiary.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I have emailed the Salem Public Library to make sure they are okay with an acceptable Creative Commons license. groupuscule (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Amina Mama at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Harrias ^talk 15:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the nomination further, and there are still some outstanding issues in Feminist Africa. Harrias ^talk 11:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, at Template:Did you know nominations/Civil Rights Congress I have come up with three issues, one bit not expanded enough and some duplicate sentences with other authors, which may be an infringement. So you may be able to sort this out. Since you have a quadruple hook, I would also like to see you review three other articles worth of DYK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Groupuscule. Many thanks for your thorough review of the DYK nomination. I've responded to the issues you raised at the nomination page. Many thanks again. Yazan (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: Template:Did you know nominations/Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center

First, thanks for your recommendations, especially about the lede... I never would have noticed as it was the only part I did not completely rework. I've made some progress and comments. Thanks again. -- THMOPENREECYRA (public) 02:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to do anything with this article hook now that it is approved for DYK? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are welcome for the review! Second, no, you shouldn't have to do anything; someone should promote the hook soon. I'll put another green tick mark on it just to make that more obvious. groupuscule (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Groupuscule, just wanted to say thanks for your improvements to Jane Jacobs! You're right that it still needs a lot to do, but would be great to see it at WP:GA one day. Cheers, --ELEKHH^T 04:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! That's about the best thing anyone has every said to me on Wikipedia! You made my day! Thank you! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you appear to be familiar with the gated MacKinnon article on the case, could you perhaps provide a better summary, or perhaps a direct quotation? The sentence currently reads like emotionally manipulative propaganda, and is not readily verifiable. I'd do it myself, but don't currently have access to my university's VPN and journal subscriptions. 207.118.6.35 (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree with you that the description could be more neutral. I read the law review and a fair amount of side research on it some time ago; unfortunately I also cannot access the full text right now! Maybe one of us can find someone who can and we can go through it carefully. Here's what I remember now:

MacKinnon's argument is that the legal system embeds patriarchal assumptions in its understanding of definitions and basic comments. She talks about the commerce clause and the 14th amendment arguments in U.S. v. Morrison. She critiques the way that interstate commerce is defined to include traditionally male economic activity and exclude traditionally female economic activity. Similarly, she critiques the court's interpretation of the state action doctrine and Congressional power of enforcement, arguing that women's issues are treated prejudicially as "domestic" and therefore unworthy of rising to the level of federally protected civil rights.

The law review is really detailed and I'd love it if we could get ahold of it somehow to provide a more detailed exegesis, but that's my paraphrase. I'll revisit the article right now. Love, groupuscule (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I would like to request your assistance with drafting an WP:RfC/U, at [1]

Thanks!

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Riki Ott article. Also, while here on your talk page I read the above exchange re Monsanto. I have followed Monsanto related articles for years and I share your concerns. The attempts to whitewash can be subtle or blatant, as is the case of the BP article where we've been arguing for months trying to get more than one sentence in the lead regarding BP's environmental history even though a good portion of the article is devoted to the fact that they have been found to have the worst record in the oil business. Gandydancer (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're welcome. The story of her life is actually pretty amazing. She acquired two degrees in marine toxicology, then moved to the future site of the country's biggest oil spill.

Whitewashing... yeah... it's a problem. And who really wants to spend their time policing a page that has become someone else's turf? I don't know the solution. groupuscule (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Groupuscule, I've tried to jumpstart the discussion of this DYK submission. As you were the one who argued for removing it from the queue for the main page at the time, I do hope you'll contribute to it in the hopes of finding a satisfactory solution. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For helping to expand the Human rights movement article!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! We can share the kitten, since you originated the article in the first place. Have a great solstice and here's hoping for a better baktun.

Thanks for uploading File:A. F. James MacArthur on WOLB.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I put the "disputed" tag on there because I see no way of finding a comparable free use image. Obviously a free image would be preferable but I'm not sure how to find one. (As you can see, MacArthur is incarcerated and incommunicado.) Please let me know if you have any ideas! Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Groupuscule, I made some revisions on the Zizek page in the hopes of cleaning up and clarifying. If you have a chance can you take a look and remove the tags if you deem that the revisions address the concerns? Cheeers, Archivingcontext (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you sign this post: here ? thanks. PumpkinSky talk 20:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Groupuscule, I found your name on the Peer review/volunteers page and am hoping that you might be interested in reviewing the C-SPAN article for me. With this peer review I hope to prepare this article for submission for Featured article review. Would you be interested in helping with this? If you have the time to review the C-SPAN article, please do so. The peer review request is here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/C-SPAN/archive1.

A little background on the project: I have been working on this article off and on for several years now, expanding and improving the article as part of my role as a consultant to C-SPAN. I should note that prior to December 2011 I did make direct edits to the article, but now, given my COI, I strictly follow Jimbo's "bright line" rule and only participate in Talk page discussion. Since I won't be editing this article directly it is my plan to make a copy of the current article in my user space and make any suggested changes there. This way we can review the changes once I've finished reviewing feedback and can discuss replacing the current article with my updated and corrected draft.

Thank you for taking the time to read my request. I'd really appreciate it if you were interested in reviewing this article. Please let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look soon. Aloha groupuscule (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I'm currently working on a version offline, implementing the citation-focused feedback I received recently. However, since those comments were so narrowly focused, I could use some feedback on content and structure, when you're able. Let me know if you have any questions! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Groupuscule. I wanted to let you know that I believe my Peer review request for the C-SPAN article is likely to be archived any day now. I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that requests without new feedback for two weeks are archived, and I think I'm just about at that point. Anyhow, if you still would like to review it I would appreciate the help. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, saw you'd done the review, and looks quite thorough—thanks! I'll get to work on it this week, and hope to make some updates (to my userspace draft, of course) soon. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adrian Schoolcraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Browne (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) 23:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Groupuscule! I'm so happy to see you signed up to join the project - welcome. You can dive into our to-do lists here. Be sure to watchlist your favorite to-do lists, as they will continue to grow as new content gets added to the WDL website. Also, you can always search the WDL website for something that you're interested in. And be sure to share your outcomes here. If I can help with anything just ask and welcome aboard! SarahStierch (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement 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(Click show ⇨)
*20 January – [[Civil Rights Congress]] protests [[second inauguration of [[Harry S Truman]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you meant to have the requested move in the same section as this. If so I would suggest at least giving it a secondary "=== header ===" as there is quite a lot of information to reply to and it could derail the move discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, good idea, I have done this. I hope folks will discuss the other points in my post, not just the possible name change. I guess I understand if people would rather have an article on the press/spin/hype whatever that accompanied the Séralini study. If this is really the desire, maybe another article on Séralini is in order. At any rate, an article on press/spin/hype around the 2012 study should at minimum be fair in describing the GM lobby as a source for the attacks on Séralini. Based on third party sources, the severity of the attack on Séralini equals or exceeds the elusive wrongdoings. I mean, this guy didn't fake his results or anything like that. Some people made arguments mitigating the strength of his conclusions; much of the mainstream "science press" reporting their criticisms as scandalous, for whatever reasons. A lot of the arguments against Séralini's study originated with people who were paid (directly or indirectly) to discredit him. Meanwhile, we're still talking about whether a particular poison chemical, capable of killing virtually any species of plant, might have some effects on the health of humans and other animals. groupuscule (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adrian Schoolcraft, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that New York City police officer Adrian Schoolcraft was confined involuntarily to a psychiatric ward after criticizing the city's "stop and frisk" policy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adrian Schoolcraft. 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) 16:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Recent edits and the chaos surrounding the March Against Monsanto article showed me clearly that on Wiki there is a slant - a heavy and very obvious one - towards GMOs and Monsanto. I think it is so obvious, ithe subject may be ripe for an administrator's noticeboard. Particularly, the "global scientific consensus" for safety of GMOs, it's to continue to be the focus of every article mentioning GMOs, needs to be corroborated. With so many non-US countries banning them and requiring labels, it seems the pro-GMO slant on wiki is very much a US-bias, and that is clearly a violation of wiki's NPOV policy. The larger wiki community should take a look at this and determine whether "GMOs are safe and everyone who's anyone knows this" is a meme this encyclopedia should embrace. The Séralini "affair" is just one (heinous) example of this slant, imo. petrarchan47tc 22:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A network of user accounts have been working together on dozens of pages to ensure a pro-GM and pro-Monsanto bias. They use any means necessary to ensure that this viewpoint prevails. (Just look at the interaction on my talk page, above, where two familiar users lay a guilt trip on my about some comments regarding Monsanto.) I think you are also correct to identify a USA bias. As I commented here, the status quo perspective is not only slanted but topsy-turvy given worldwide resistance to Monsanto & GM.

I am not good with Wikipedia bureaucracy but I would definitely assist with a formal complaint/investigation. I think should be a centralized place for discussion, since the users in question use divide&conquer tactics, playing a shell game with the different articles.

This systematic manipulation is really a bummer because, you know, most of us don't get paid to edit Wikipedia... and we would prefer to spend our time expanding articles through honest collaboration Thanks for bringing this up. groupuscule (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a first for me too, but after a week or so (busy plate) I'll look into this and leave a link here for anyone wanting to participate. A centralized discussion is a must. Time is precious, for sure. There is no reason to repeat arguments all over wiki talk pages. petrarchan47tc 01:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy hornets nest, look at the attack on March Against Monsanto that just took place. petrarchan47tc 02:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to note which of the editors appear to be scientists, and those who aren't. It's also interesting to note those who have expressed very strong opinions on GMOs, and those who haven't, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many things are interesting to note, and I would invite broad public scrutiny of the whole situation. groupuscule (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're discussing "interesting things to note," I have an interesting question (open for anyone, not just Groupuscle). If you go to a noticeboard and the consensus is against you, will you agree that it is evidence in favor of the position that the articles aren't biased? Or will your opinion continue to be that the articles are POV? In terms of trying to reach a rational conclusion, it's good to answer these questions for yourself beforehand. Feel free to ignore this, of course, or to keep the answers to yourself - although I'm also genuinely curious about your answers.

On the same token, even if you don't escalate, I'm always happy to discuss any of my edits, or the articles more generally, with you or anyone else. I am always open to being convinced by sufficient evidence, or at least I try my best. Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:56, 3 June 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.

Adolf Eichmann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Walter Kaufmann

Genocide Convention (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Patterson

Steve Cokely (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Thompson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You commented on an RfC/U involving Apostle12 and his behavior at White privilege some time ago.

Subsequent interactions with him eventually led to an ArbCom case and it appears he has now retired. Even though the case is only suspended for the next two months, at the moment I feel it is unlikely he will return anytime soon.

Just in case you were interested is all. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 21:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]