User talk:Steve Quinn/Archive 15

Steve Quinn/Archive 15

regarding Software resources in Hyperspectral imaging

Dear sir, I am new to wikipedia editing and had added a Commercial Software in the list which was edited by you. i had no intentions of promoting the software by it was for the knowledge purpose that this kind of tool exists in the market. i also searched the net and found an article on it of which i am sharing the link below, please do help me in how to add such sources to the page. (http://www.ravisaxena.net/wp-content/uploads/ISRO-and-Scanpoint-launch-version-1.pdf)(http://www.indiannewsandtimes.com/2016/02/18/isro-has-showcased-geospatial-technology-igis-in-make-in-india-week-mumbai/) thanks and regards, rakesh j sojitra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R sojitra (talk • contribs) 07:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• The links you provided don't seem to work. I plugged in one of the titles and found one of the following - is this what you mean? http://www.isro.gov.in/isro-participates-make-india-week
• Yes, Thanks this is what i was talking about. thanks, rakesh j sojitra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R sojitra (talk • contribs) 04:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's see if we can't get this sorted

Steve, I'd like to make one more attempt to resolve this issue amicably. I feel that you have greatly misrepresented my perspectives on the issue at hand--but the fact that you do so completely is giving me some hope that you are not doing so intentionally but have in fact just genuinely misread me, because of the high emotions that have gripped that talk page since before I arrived. Therefore, please be advised of the following, and please, please, please do me the credit of accepting that I have no reason to lie to you and would not do so just to do an end-run around your concerns.

To start, I agree that the notions put out into the public consciousness regarding some connection between Rich's death and his work at the DNC are accurately described as conspiracy theories. I also agree with you that these seem to be cynical and distasteful efforts on the part of partisan rumor-mongers to sensationalize the story such as to leverage these notions to damage trust in a political party. I agree that at least some of the reward offers are meant to stoke the flames on these theories and create an atmosphere of mis-insinformation surrounding this tragic death. We don't really know what happened to Seth Rich that night, but I tend to believe that ultimately, if the crime is resolved, it will prove to be an incidence of random street violence, or some other affair wholly unconnected to his work at the DNC. I'd put the chances of an actual murder conspiracy connected to his work coming to light here at about .0000001%. I thought that I could not possibly be more clear about that on the talk page, but you apparently chose to take my comments as sarcasm or lip service. Neither is the case. Please accept at least that much so we can move on.

Where we do part ways is on how we deal with this unfortunate state of affairs. You would have Wikipedia ignore any reference to the situation, even though it is most significant single aspect of the story that is discussed in our sources and which is permeating media discussion of this murder. Other editors working on that page, and the vast number of other respondents to the RfC (myself included) feel this is a poorly considered approach, and one which policy, including BLP, does not allow. Putting aside that we feel WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT require us to cover these aspects of the story, we also feel that ignoring these conspiracy theories actually harms the very interest you mean to protect. This story is out in the national media and the general populous already. It will get worse now that additional rewards are being offered. If we stick our heads in the sand as editors and ignore these realities, we lose a valuable opportunity to educate on the nature of these conspiracy theories, while they continue to spread. We cannot, in Wikipedia's voice, come out and say "This is absolute nonsense, who would have critical thinking skills so poor they would believe this crap!?" But we can do the next best thing and point to WP:reliable sources which do say that. This was what I was suggesting in the newest thread and I genuinely thought you would support it. I think you might have, if you hadn't programmed yourself to assume everyone who doesn't think exactly like you on the issue is out to further the conspiracy theories, as your comments to others increasingly seem to suggest.

You lost on your effort to convince us that the article should not exist, per WP:NOTNEWS. You also failed to convince us that BLP required us to ignore the existence of the rewards. What I was trying to tell you and SpaceTime with the new thread is that you still have a way to fight these conspiracy theories, if that is the main thing motivating you on that page (which seems to be the case). That's a problematic approach to the content, if you want my opinion, but I'm not intending to fight you on it, because, at the end of the day, these are conspiracy theories forwarded by lobbyists to taint political dialogue, though undoubtedly some of them buy into the notion of a conspiracy sincerely as well. I want to approach coverage of that fact neutrally, but I don't blame you for wanting to take that kind of misinformation on. And I'm suggesting that you can do so, and find a way to work with the consensus, by using the sources we have to make it clear that they (the sources) view these notions (the conspiracy theories, and the way that they are supported by the reward offers) to be, as the charming American colloquialism goes "batshit insane".

If you are still not convinced this is the prudent course of action, so be it; I made my best effort to explain my thinking (and that of the majority as I understand it) to you. I can live with that and part ways amicably with you. But if you continue to suggest that I am lying about my "real" motivations on that page, without proof other than your own propensity to refuse to WP:Assume good faith, that I will consider a clear an unabashed personal attack. WP:NPA makes clear that accusing another editor of bad faith behaviour without proof is without question a personal attack as we treat them on this project. I can stand people disagreeing with me; it comes with the territory here, we both know that. What I will not put up with is having my thoughts distorted by another editor who let themselves get so worked up that they just assume I am lying to manipulate the conversation. That is uncalled for and unacceptable, in my view. I've now made my feelings as explicitly clear as any editor might in these circumstances, so please do me the courtesy of taking me at face value: we do not disagree about the facts or stakes here, only about how to approach them. Thank you for your time. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how you came up with me thinking that you are lying. That is not the case. I can't think of any phrase where I said that, but I will take a look at what I wrote. Also, I as far as I can tell I didn't let myself get to worked up or over emotional. H-m-m-m I'll have to take a look at what I wrote. Steve Quinn (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, just so long as you can now accept that I am not proposing coverage of this topic because I support and want to further these conspiracy theories, that is sufficient for me. Even if I did buy into these theories and support the culture of political/factual misdirection they are connected too (in fact, I find both highly objectionable), I would still not support their inclusion in the article on those grounds, because I take my dedication to this project (and the degree of neutral objectivity it requires) very seriously. Thank you for being willing to re-analyze your reading of my comments in light of my request. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Snow, the central issue is that this event is not "a story" in WP's sense. The crime is not notable and the coatrack of unrelated self-serving propaganda that's been attached to it, while it might be mentioned in a different article about the campaign, Clinton's opponents and their tactics, has nothing to do with this crime. You appear to be assuming the conclusion. I haven't followed all your comments on the talk page, but FYI there are several POV editors on this and other election-related articles who are NOTHERE and are using a variety of ploys to game the system and take advantage of a corps of Admins that seems unprepared to call them out. In their case, that's not an attack, it's just calling a spade a spade. SPECIFICO talk 11:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's a good idea to turn Steve's talk page into an extension of the talk page discussion about the merits of the article (which should remain there), but, just briefly--the consensus of involved editors (again, most whom responded via random bot notice and have no particular/SPA interest in the subject matter) is that the topic is notable. And I agree with that majority assessment--I don't see how one could possibly read our WP:Notability guidelines, look at the sourcing we have here for this article, and conclude that it fails to meet GNG standards.

Nor are the particular facts about the rewards WP:COATRACK, because they represent the very core of the coverage regarding the murder, not incidental facts tacked on merely to suit some editor's biased whim (again, the consensus view strongly supports this, I think there's no doubt). Putting that information in a different article "about the campaign, Clinton's opponents and their tactics" would be WP:synthesis at this point, because we do not (as yet) have sources which explicitly draw those connections (even though you and I may agree that is exactly what is going on here). It's possible, perhaps even likely, that such sources may be forthcoming if this story continues to gain traction in the media, but even then, that would not change the fact of their relevance to the article in question.

As to the difficulties of staving off bias in articles with political aspects during the election cycle, I appreciate the difficulties with NOTHERE editors--I answer a lot of RfC's, so I see a fair bit of it. But insofar as I've observed on that page, most everyone who has responded so far is a veteran editor or at least has betrayed no particularly strong political bias; every opinion I've seen seems to be rooted in an interpretation of policy, not a rationalization that we have to include it because it's the WP:TRUTH. And a little bit of AGF goes a long ways when contemplating the motivations someone who disagrees with you in a contentious debate; without AGF, disruption always ensues, as surely as it does if we leave SPA's unchecked.

Lastly, the inevitable presence of SPA is actually one of the reasons I think it's important that we cover this information now, so that we can establish a stable version of the article which refers to these conspiracy theories and clearly defines them as such. Otherwise, when they SPA's arrive (and you can bet, they will arrive on this topic at some point), they will be pushinfor to include mention of the conspiracy theories, only they will want them treated as "reasonable speculation", and we'll have to go through an even more contentious discussion to keep that out. However, if the editors currently in conflict come together to form a consensus about how to describe these conspiracies theories as conspiracy theories, our consensus for this middle-ground approach will be so large that the SPA/NOTHERE contributors can be kept from manipulating the article in that direction. That is how I view the situation anyway, and I think that matches the sentiments of others who replied during the RfC. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

There are several POV editors on this article and it's very clear that additional editors have been canvassed to join in, e.g. at the AfD. Some of the editors are concerned about specific issues, e.g. gun control, or abortion rights because a prospective Clinton Administration can be expected to nominate mainstream Supreme Court justices to replace Scalia, Thomas and others. I presume that others simply want to make America great again. AGF does not mean ignore conduct that demonstrates the contrary. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you have specific accusations of canvassing, disruption or other problematic behaviour, I'd recommend you report them to the appropriate forums. Granted, I just came in on these debates with the most recent RfC, and I have not done an exhaustive review of all previous threads (I did see one about "Democrat Talking Points" that looked problematic). But insofar as the RfC is concerned, and the discussions since, everyone I saw seemed to be contributing in good faith and with at least some sense of nuance. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Voting for lead picture at Donald Trump

You are invited to participate in the talk-page run-off voting for the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Archiving old discussions...

It's your talk page, so you do what you want, but it's getting pretty long now. I suggest setting up a bot to archive old threads. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Headbomb: OK thanks for the feedback. I'll look into it. I have become more "popular" since obtaining semi-automated tools, I guess it's time to acknowledge that. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump Pic

When you voiced your opinion for the picture you put it in the wrong subthread. This is the correct one. If you wish for it to count, please move your support there. Thank you. Chase (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michael Greger

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michael Greger. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please explain/rationalize what is so wrong with having the List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters article exist

I've noticed that you helped spear-headed the campaign to have that particular article deleted from Wikipedia. It isn't fair that the National Hockey League's premiere championship event doesn't have its own individual article for its broadcasters while other sports do. That article took a really long time to set up and put together to just let it go by the waste-side. And just because they aren't fully sourced on the proper article itself, doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't non the less, more thoroughly sourced on the respective articles for said television networks. BornonJune8 (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@BornonJune8: The topic was not an actual topic supported by sources per WP:GNG. There is no such topic in the media. This means it was WP:MADEUP and it was basically a page for fans of sportcasters. For something like this see WP:NOT. I am sure you are not going to agree with me, and I am not likely to argue with you. It was deleted according to policies an guidelines, and it was a community of editors that agreed strongly enough it should be deleted. So, it wasn't just me. You can talk to the Admin that closed the deletion discussion and deleted the page if you like and see if your arguments have any merit in that regard. I don't know who that is - you have to look at the deletion discussion or on the deleted page to see who it is. Sorry I didn't get back to you a couple days sooner. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Transport Layer Security

Sorry, maybe I dont understand... Can you explain this "Undo" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security ? Please? Here https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7905 lies RFC 7905, and exactly that link I have been added to edited page. Are you seriously want to say that IETF RFC is "not a reliable source"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.55.72 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Twin paradox

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Twin paradox. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

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.

Teneo

added links pointing to Republicans, Republican, PGA and The Journal

Tutankhamun's meteoric iron dagger blade

added a link pointing to Artifact

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting fiction sections in century etc articles

I'm not really happy about them, especially as they seem to duplicate other lists. See for instance Category:3rd century in fiction. Do you know if this is discussed anywhere? Or if there are guidelines? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Doug, hello, thanks for contacting me. I am not sure what this is in reference to. I am guessing it is in regards to editing an article, but I have edited so many lately I cannot recall which one.

Perhaps you can refresh my memory? Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This.[1] I'm just saying that as we have separate fiction lists, the ordinary century and millennia articles shouldn't have fiction. They tend to be a mess anyway the further back in time you go due to both pov editing and outdated material, so maybe I shouldn't worry about not very good lists having fiction as well. Life's too short. Doug Weller talk 07:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Sorry it has taken me this long to get back to you. Besides my normal life, I've been involved in one thing after another here on Wikipedia.

Anyway, I copied this section and slightly varied the section title - so this is easy to find. Maybe we can some work done on these types of articles. I am also concerned about POV editing. Specifically, the long(ish) lists without citations. This edit [2] brought this back to my memory. I mean, who knows if Iran actually began celebrating the birth of Persia in 1971, on October 15th, or celebrating the Persian Empire, or 2500 years ago and so on. The diff shows this last entry to be really unclear. But this is just one item on a seemingly long list. Take a look at the page. Who is going to verify each item on this list? Then multiply this by how many articles? Steve Quinn (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Periodic table

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Periodic table. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dental caries

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dental caries. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

TMWRNJ

The addition I made was solely to clarify what was already entered in "quotation" - your removal was IMO unnecessary - See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fist_of_Fun#Major_characters

All you've succeeded in doing my fine friend is make me less likely to edit/contribute in the future... GG.

Have a pleasant pedant weekend.

194.73.161.50 (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

All that was needed was a source to back up the claim that this nickname is self-proclaimed because I have no way of knowing if this is true. I don't have time to search through random sources that might have this information. And the onus is not on me to do so. If you have a source that backs this up, then I will be glad to restore the content. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Answer

I answered to your bot message on my talk page, regarding edits in Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre. Perhaps you should look through edit summaries before mindlesssly reverting edits. Also if you had any interest with the subject of the article, you'd know it wasn't a "mistake" or "experiment". I reverted back to my version of the page, please refrain from editing it again since you clearly have no idea what you're doing. Thanks. Doradafan (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I see that you did provide an edit summary. This was an oversight on my part. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Steve Quinn. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cinchona

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cinchona. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:KIC 8462852

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:KIC 8462852. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Milky Way

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milky Way. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the support on the AfD for the trump article. The AfD lasts 7 days, and I'm confident there is going to be even MORE material on the leaked documents than today (I think of course that it's already notable) Ethanbas (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:University of Liverpool faculty has been nominated for discussion

Category:University of Liverpool faculty, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion Review

I hadn't realized that the DRV noticeboard existed at the time of the first two AfD's. Actually the closes of those were questionable. Maybe the first AfD should be disputed? SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO If you would like to open up a DRV, pertaining to this AfD or the others, I'll be glad to get on board. Just let me know. I was going to Ivote "Delete" for this last one, with a pretty good rationale, but as you know it was closed too soon. I looked at the DRV templates and haven't figured them out yet.

As an aside, check out this new article I just created: [[3]]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that it would be tough to review a close from several months ago, but I wish I'd known about that DRV page at the time the first AfD was closed "no consensus". At any rate, this last one is dead and the closing Admin seems unwilling, as is his right, to explain what drew him to that AfD and to close it. I've asked him twice on his talk page and he declines to explain. Of course he's not obligated to explain, even when it's obvious that his action has baffled editors active on that article. SPECIFICO talk 03:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Yeah, trying to DRV a close from months ago probably would not go over too well. It is interesting that you say this recent AfD is dead. I got the same response when I went over to ANI to find an Admin to reopen the AfD (here is the link), since Tedder was OK with this. I got the same response in a brief period - to let it go. But, two respondents would seem to be in favor of keeping the article anyway. So later, I was thinking I backed down too quickly.

But if you think it won't accomplish anything to go over to WP:AN to find an Admin (in lieu of WP:ANI), or to DRV to challenge the close, then I will go with that. I think this is one of those areas where I don't have a lot of experience. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any such experience either. To be clear, I held back commenting at the latest AfD because my views are already known and I thought it would be more constructive to wait until there might be specific "keep" arguments to which I could respond. We know from the article and talk pages that there are many editors who favor deletion. I am surprised at Tedder's unwillingness to explain what brought him to perform this close. I mean, it wasn't open for very long. He's not a very active editor, he doesn't do AfD closes as a rule. It's strange and it's not made less strange by his immediate defensiveness and denial of engagement on this when he referred us to DRV on a matter he could simply have resolved himself. Of course he's a volunteer like the rest of us so he is the boss of him, but there are strange unexplained circumstances here. It's hard to see what harm it does to let any thread remain open for more than a minimal amount of time. It was clearly not frivolous, given the past and current discussions about the topic and the article. SPECIFICO talk 04:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I agree it was clearly not frivolous, and I don't think it should be treated as such. By the way, I dropped you a line via email. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Birds by location

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Birds by location. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Point particle

Hi Steve, do you have any comments on my Talk:Point_particle#please_remove_.7B_.7B_Standard_model.7CcTopic.3DBackground_.7D_.7D_which_is_not_a_good_fit_for_the_topic_and_content_of_this_article? (proposing removal of that infobox/image that you restored in Point particle) DavRosen (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@DavRosen: Thanks for contacting me. I will come to the discussion soon. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Oscar Gobern

The reason for my edits to this page were- Main article: The player had transferred clubs, so the article was updated to reflect this. This was referenced within the article. Career Statistics table: Hadn't been Updated since May 2016 and had a note underneath saying that Football League Trophy appearances were only included in the overall totals, when they should also have been in a separate column. Can I ask, if you didn't know what the edits were for, why would you have reverted them? - A Well Fan (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@A Well Fan: Actually, I would have done a more in-depth analysis, first. If I couldn't find any references to support the changes, I would have considered reverting them. And I probably should not have that I would have outright reverted them. It was off-the-cuff thinking. Rather, experience has taught me when I see a large change in an article, especially in a sports related article, I should contact the editor who made the change and see what it is about, if I don't understand it. The sports editors usually know what they are doing when it comes to teams they are familiar with. Sorry I said that. If I ever did do stuff like that, it is no longer the case. But, I don't think I did (hopefully) Steve Quinn (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@A Well Fan: Also, thanks for coming to talk my page and explaining this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Marshall Jr. - edits

Hi Steve,

Thanks, I am new to this, so I appreciate you linking me to the help page. That said, the source for my edits was the case cited in the paragraph. If you read the SCC case, which had actually been mis-cited as [1999] 3 SCR 45, but is indeed [1999] 3 SCR 456, you'll see that Marshall was acquitted because the defence established a right under 1761 treaties for Mi'kmaq people to trade. Since they had a right to trade, they must necessarily have had a right to harvest/hunt/fish for items to trade, and thus the right to fish eels, and sell them is a protected treaty right for those Mi'kmaq people under those treaties. I realize my phrasing of the edits wasn't A+, but all the content was accurate and verifiable in the case, if it's properly cited as [1999] 3 SCR 456. Literallawyer (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Literallawyer. Thanks for contacting me. I reverted my edit. Have a nice day. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:The 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Mr Trump Tevfik Arif Felix Sater.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Mr Trump Tevfik Arif Felix Sater.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:JavaScript templating

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:JavaScript templating. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Coal pollution mitigation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Coal pollution mitigation. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk page comment

Hey Steve sorry for delay - will respond tomorrow. -Darouet (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC