User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 2#Mr Bill Truth
{{Automatic archive navigator}}
Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the [https://archive.org/web/ Wayback Machine] is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Educationtemple/Sunil Kumar Verma
Hello Ivanvector. I have worked on this article after it was userfied upon your reco. Could you please have a look and comment? and please let me know what is the next step??? Please see the article here User:Educationtemple/Sunil Kumar Verma Educationtemple (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The ANI...
I write to tell you I appreciate your response on the ANI. You made several good points that hadn't been discussed I wanted to briefly address.
I agree that I do tend to be more verbose than I should be in these discussions. I learned to write in the days before the 140 character limit, and the approach these days is very different. I'm getting there.
I also accept that I can be perceived as out to "right great wrongs." I think my writing tends to come-off a bit bombastic.
My only agenda... well, I have some areas of interest, and one over-arching concept. The areas of interest are abuse of the wiki for PR self-promotion; financial frauds, and frauds generally; and the abuse of statistics in the social sciences. The overarching concept is that I object to bullshit. I think I'm pretty good at detecting bullshit. (A decade and a half investigating frauds, interviewing criminals, and deposing law enforcement officers, combined with an innate mistrust of others, and you start to be able to smell a lie.) I think people in general, including the folks who edit and maintain the wiki, drastically underestimate their susceptibility to manipulation and deceit, as well as the risks posed. Everybody does, or fraudsters wouldn't be able to operate.
BBR23 brought up Joseph Borg. When I saw Joe Borg claiming to have shut-down Stratton-Oakmont, which I know isn't true because I was there, I went through his other claims. I found that, starting with his web page and personal promotional materials, he'd been taking credit, falsely, for faux roles in shutting down major frauds. In a typical example, after other lawyers for other places shut-down and seized a building that had been used to operate a fraud, Borg rode to the building, apparently from Alabama, in a military attack vehicle and upon arrival declared that he and others had taken the building. That made it onto Borg's materials as "Borg led the seizure of... using an all terrain military vehicle." The same language, with very minor variations, appeared in Borg's materials and his page here, with excerpts on the pages for the individual frauds. I look at that and see "You know, the only way this could have happened, is if a politician was trying to take credit for a lot of things he didn't do, and he or his staff went out to journalists (which they have, we've seen this) to push that story in interviews, and the only way the talking points would get on here verbatim is if he and his staff were putting them up themselves."
Maybe I'm over-sensitive; but I think I know a good fraud when I smell one. Djcheburashka (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
:There are several over-arching concepts to Wikipedia. One is verifiability, and that is often mistaken as truth, but our meaning here is different. It is in fact a very important distinction - truth is a concept with a wavering definition depending on the observer, but verifiability is concrete. Thus, Wikipedia does not state what is true, Wikipedia can only document what reliable sources say about a thing. When sources disagree, we evaluate the sources for due weight and word our articles accordingly. I suggest to have a look at the essay "verifiability, not truth" for the Wikipedia community's long-established stance on this. My attempt to summarize it, which no doubt will sound brash: what you know is irrelevant. I find that the essay's example of Louis Pasteur and the theory of spontaneous generation is a very good example of this. In Pasteur's time, spontaneous generation was accepted as fact; Wikipedia's article on the subject would have presented it so, citing reliable sources of the time. Had Pasteur come here with the results of his experiments, claiming spontaneous generation false and adjusting the article to fit his results, he would have been immediately reverted and banned from the site, right though he was. Only when independent reliable sources picked up on Pasteur's work and confirmed it could we have adjusted our writing here.
:In Borg's example (I adjusted your wikilink to point to the correct person) you removed a significant portion of content which was cited to [http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/0812/044.html Forbes], [http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20050322/letters/successful-maltese-migrants.95605 Times of Malta], [http://blog.al.com/businessnews/2010/03/joe_borg_alabama_securities_co.html Birmingham News], and the [http://www.asc.alabama.gov/News/2011%20News/6-22-11%20M%20Keegan%20press%20rel%20-%20FNL.pdf Alabama Securities Commission], among others. Your rationale, according to the talk page, is that the sources are false, based on your own analysis and things you know to be true. You don't get to make that call. No editor does. Who are you? You're not a reliable source. If you have reliable sources that contradict these sources, you can present them on the article's talk page and suggest that changes are required based on new information. You cannot just remove sources because you think they're wrong or you don't like what they say. If the reliable sources say that Borg shut down Stratton Oakmont, then Wikipedia says that Borg shut down Stratton Oakmont.
:The threshold for notability of a claim is always reliable sources. If there is notable controversy about Borg's involvement in the Stratton Oakmont case, then reliable sources will have written about it. Find those sources. The one you gave from [http://www.finra.org/Newsroom/NewsReleases/1996/p010592 FINRA] is reliable I'd say, but it doesn't say anything about whether Borg was involved, or the case in Alabama at all. It can't be used as a source to negate Borg's claims. You've made a respectable narrative on Borg's talk page about how investigations proceeding at the national level predate Borg's involvement, so he must have been piggybacking on other regulators' work. What you've done is synthesize different sources into making a narrative that fits your view, and that is not allowed, again, because it is not verifiable. Your own research is not supported by reliable sources.
:You may very well be right. It is in fact very true that a politician may have constructed this particular narrative and convinced reliable sources to publish it. It is quite demonstrable that this happens time and time again. I'm from Toronto, I can tell you a thing or two about sources we consider reliable publishing [http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/17/left-bullied-rob-ford absolute garbage] and passing it off as fact. But we don't do that analysis ourselves. If you're convinced that a source is wrong, you can make your case to the reliable sources noticeboard, and if you can show that it is inaccurate, it will likely be removed. (I say likely because RSN, like most other Wikipedia processes, is based on consensus, which is not always what you think it's going to be. Your mileage may vary.)
:If all you have is a hunch, or knowledge based on your own personal experience, you're wasting your energy arguing here. If you're convinced you need to set the record straight, go write a book. When your book gets published and reviewed, and journalists or other respected authorities on this topic confirm your work, then it will be verifiable. When someone here comes across that, they will fix the article. Until that happens, what our article says about Borg will be considered right, by our standards.
:It's also true that editors here are very sensitive about biographies of living persons, because we are required to be. If you edit disruptively in that topic area you will very quickly find yourself blocked, and BLP transgressions are not forgiven easily.
:I'm not saying this to be rude, or to discourage you from editing. There is certainly a place here for an editor with an eye for puffery, but you must follow our rules or you will get nowhere. Your discussions reveal an "I'm right, now you have to prove me wrong" attitude which is not constructive here. If you don't believe that is your attitude, consider that several uninvolved editors (such as myself) have now told you this, and reflect on your contributions. Or consider that if you continue along this path and it results in you being blocked, we will simply restore the article to how it was before you edited, complete with all the verifiable mistruths.
:I want to make one more point about civility. There is an allegation at AN/I that you have been following Roscelese, interrupting her discussions and gathering evidence in an effort to discredit her contributions. Personally, I see the evidence of that as very weak (and I said so) but I want to tell you that if you are in fact doing that, just stop, now. I am guessing that in your legal experience there is a place for casting the character of your opposition into doubt in order to weaken their testimony, but there is no place for that here, at all. You must assume good faith unless you have very good evidence (not a hunch) of bad faith.
:I hope that this makes sense, because it took me an awfully long time to write. To summarize, in order to be successful here, you will likely need to abandon your notion of "truth" and accept Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. It is not optional or open to interpretation. I do hope that you continue to edit, keeping this in mind.
:Ivanvector (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I really appreciate your taking the time. Yes, it all makes sense.
Regarding "following Roscelese" -- not exactly. When the "edit war" began, I wanted to see what the deal was, so I looked at her page. I found all these warnings for stuff that seemed really similar to what I was experiencing. I didn't know who she was or what the sides were on these issues. So I started to look through some of her edits and what gave rise to the warnings. In most cases, I thought her contributions made perfect sense, or were within how I understand the wiki is supposed to work. So, cool. I also, however, found several instances in which there's a pattern I find disturbing: One or two editors will "camp" on a page, and a series of editors will comment about POV issues. Each time, however, the "camping" editors will very quickly accuse the new editor of POV, and disruption, because they're violating "the consensus." Everyone new who tries to come to the page gets bullied off, so at any given moment it seems like there's a consensus, when really there isn't. This seemed to always be about what, for lack of a term less likely to get me accused of something, I'll call "women's rights issues 80% of the way to the end of a broad spectrum." What I did when I found those, was add my comment to the effect that I agreed with the outside editor -- the point being, that the next time an issue arose, it would be harder to claim "consensus." I understand that there's some controversy caused by "mens rights movement" people, and I understand why we would object to that and find it disruptive. But that doesn't have anything to do with me, and I don't think showing POV by vandals demonstrates that the article is NPOV or unbiased to begin with.
Regarding Joe Borg, do all such issues have to go to the WP:RSN noticeboard? Can't I use the article talk pages, as I did in this case?
Also -- how do I prove a negative? Someone puts up a claim, citing a profile-piece on Borg from, say, 2012, which is about something that occurred in 1996. The record from 1996, though, doesn't refer to Borg. As you say If there is notable controversy about Borg's involvement in the Stratton Oakmont case, then reliable sources will have written about it. But there is no notable controversy. The claim appeared in the "Alabama Business Journal" profile piece, and nearly verbatim on, I think five, wiki pages. That's it.
The cites to the Wall St. Journal and Forbes did not support the claim on the wiki article. There's a big gap between "Joe Borg was part of a task force of state attorneys' generals that sued Stratton Oakmont," which is surely true and what the Forbes and Wall St. J said; and "Joe Borg formed and led a task force of state attorneys whose investigation uncovered Stratton Oakmont's fraud and led to it and others prosecutions," which is what the wiki page said.
I think with Joe Borg, on the talk page I went through the record regarding the claims. The claim was, as I recall, that Borg had put together a task-force that led to the investigation and arrest of Belfort, because of complaints Borg received after taking office. The important part of the claim is causation, that a-led-to-be-led-to-c. I found WP:RS -- consisting of contemporaneous documents -- showing that (a) Belfort had been under investigation for 5 years prior to Borg having taken office; (b) Borg's task force was assembled at the conclusion of those other investigations, not before them; and (c) the event that led to Belfort's criminal arrest, was when the FBI (led by an AUSA who, contemporaneous sources said, had been investigating Belfort for five years) obtained the cooperation of a confidential informant. I also cited editorials in the NY Times and Wall St. J., and an interview on Bloomberg TV available on the web, by the lead AUSA who investigated and prosecuted Belfort, the SEC attorney who led their team regarding Belfort, and the FINRA receiver who took over Stratton Oakmont. None of them mention Borg's task force.
Is that not enough regarding the claim of causation? Is the issue that it should be taken to WP:RSN rather than the talk page?
This is coming up on a related page, Jordan Belfort. Belfort's memoir says that he went to work at L.F. Rothschild as a stockbroker trainee, then was laid-off following Black Monday, and then after that was taught about penny stocks, and after that founded Stratton Oakmont. This storyline is rather key to the portrayal of Belfort's character. It's so key that it became a memorable scene with Matthew Mcwhateverahey playing an L.F. Rothschild broker in the movie. The idea is that Belfort was a legitimate guy who went bad because of temptation and then got redeemed, and really wasn't different than other Wall St. people. The same FINRA document above shows, though, that Stratton Oakmont was founded six months before Black Monday. I think the FINRA document is WP:RS as to when Stratton Oakmont was founded.
Is that not enough to be able to say on the wiki article that the story of Rothschild-then-Black-Monday-then-penny-stocks-then-SO, as told in the memoir and repeated widely, is false?
The question of whether Belfort's memoir is true or another fraud is itself noteable. Its been the subject of numerous articles in the NY Times (including several editorials and at least one op-ed), the Wall St. J, slate.com, and is discussed at least briefly in many of the pieces covering Belfort or the movie.
Thank you again for your help and advice. Djcheburashka (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
:Sorry, I somehow missed that you had replied. My talk page has been unusually busy the past few days.
:With respect to Joseph Borg, as far as I can tell the sources you suggest only back up that there was a federal investigation, and that it occurred prior to the start of Borg's investigation. The missing link that is not supported by sources is that Borg's task force resulted from the federal investigation - even if it did, we can't publish that previously-unpublished POV. In this case, I'm by no means an expert, and if you wanted to you could take it up with RSN. You should try to take it up with the talk page first (it's considered polite) but I think you've done that already. My observation, as someone not particularly involved, is that the timeline and exact factual accuracy of Borg's own claims in relation to Stratton Oakmont and the federal investigation, is irrelevant - I don't mean that it's not important, but the fact that you have to compile these sources and draw connections between them to establish it (more accurately, the fact this hasn't been done by an external source already) means that it's just not important. And again, I mean not considered important by reliable sources, which is what we use as the benchmark of inclusion here. If Borg claims he was instrumental and reliable sources repeat the claim (and others don't refute it) we have no choice - we go by the sources.
:Not all sourcing issues need to go to RSN, it's merely there for that purpose, for getting a neutral second look at sourcing. It is often useful for resolving disputes, but it is not a court of last resort. Typically, an editor will present a statement and ask for an opinion on whether the source(s) support(s) that statement. It's not normally used to review entire articles or sections, though.
:On Belfort's article, of course there is significant controversy over the accuracy of his memoir - it is highly suspect, and reliable sources say so. However we typically don't devote an entire article to calling out controversies about a person - even if it's true, doing so casts a negative view on the article. A good and relevant example is Bernie Madoff - most of the article is simply about him - facts presented neutrally without any sort of commentary, other than what might be offered by sources if it's relevant. Of course there are many details included about his massive fraud, but it's not up to us to paint him as a liar and criminal - if we present the reliably sourced information in a neutral manner, we will mirror whatever picture the reliable sources paint.
:Probably more importantly, if we present negative articles about living persons where we are making negative claims that can't be backed up by very good sourcing, we open ourselves to legal action because we are in fact publishing unverifiable slander, which I'm sure you know is against the law in many jurisdictions. This is a big part of why even articles about people who are demonstrably very bad persons (not naming anyone because doing so would definitely violate policy) are presented in very neutral light. And we err on the side of caution.
:Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dasha_Zhukova&diff=next&oldid=614264953 this edit] at Dasha Zhukova, you were rightly criticized for doing this, because you changed a neutral and accurate summary of the article with one which was unduly negative. The neutral lead gives reasons (supported in the article) why she is known, with no commentary. Yours suggests that she is known just for being the girlfriend of another person, and casts an unnecessary allegation in Wikipedia's voice that her entire career is a fabrication. You might believe that but we can't say it. Saying "she is described as..." makes a suggestion that she is in reality not those things, and "none of Ms. Zhukova's organizations appear to have any existence" is an entirely unsourced negative statement which seems to back up the (also unsourced) implied assertion that she has no career. If a source publishes that (and in very clear language that that is their intended meaning) then we can repeat it, but we can't be the original publisher of that thought (or any thought for that matter).
:One more thing, because I see this continuing to come up: WP:BRD means "bold, revert, discuss". It is typically the first step in the consensus building process here. In a number of instances, I've observed that you make a WP:BOLD edit, often with rationale presented on the talk page, and that's fine. However, when another editor disagrees and reverts your edit, that is also fine - it's the way things are done here. It is then up to them or you to engage in a discussion about the edit and the disagreement which led to the revert, so that you and the other editor can come to an understanding. What I see you doing is immediately reverting the revert, and that is the start of an edit war, and other editors are rightly put off by it. I suggest you attempt to meet common ground with someone who reverts your edit, as a first step. If they fail to respond in a reasonable amount of time then you can assume that their objection is without justification, but also keep in mind that there is no deadline.
:Again, I hope this helps. Ivanvector (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
:: Thanks again. In particular about WP:BRD... I did not know that.
:: A couple things... You say The missing link that is not supported by sources is that Borg's task force resulted from the federal investigation - even if it did, we can't publish that previously-unpublished POV. But my edits don't assert that the federal investigation caused the task force. My edit only removes the contention that the task force caused the investigation to be successful. Put another way, I'm not asserting a causal sequence -- I'm disputing a claim of causation. I'm content if the article says nothing about causation. I only object to an assertion or insinuation of causation that's contradicted by the facts. Given that distinction -- do you agree with the Joe Borg stuff?
:: Bernie Madoff is actually an interesting example. Bernie's very different from Belfort in that Bernie doesn't have a paid PR team on the outside of prison trying to sell a memoir. There is a different issue with Bernie's page, which is that there are groups not affiliated with Bernie who are currently struggling very intensely to influence public opinion as they struggle over the allocation of professional fees (to the tune of a few billion).
:: Does it solve some of these issues if claims are simply removed? WP:V doesn't require that everything said in a typically reliable source be included in an article.
:: Regarding we open ourselves to legal action because we are in fact publishing unverifiable slander, which I'm sure you know is against the law in many jurisdictions, my view is actually quite the opposite:
::: Its very American to assert that verifiability relates to slander. That's the American perspective, that truth or a belief in truth or a good faith attempt to find the truth are a complete defense to an accusation of defamation. This is something so built into our culture it doesn't occur to us that it might actually be unique to us. Anyway, if we're going to take the American perspective, then the wiki has no liability at all because of CDA 230. And if the subject is notable, then the test for whether an editor could have committed defamation would require that they were reckless as to truth or falsehood, which means (basically) that they consciously did not care whether what they said was true or false.
::: If we don't take the American perspective, though, then verifiability doesn't matter. In many places they still say "the greater the truth, the greater the libel." Verifiability is, as I understand it, not a defense to defamation in China, in India, or in countries applying Islamic law, which together account for half the population of the planet. Nor is truth always a defense to defamation claims in the U.K., or under EU law. (I just don't know the answer for South America, Russia, or parts of Africa.)
::: If we did care about things like publication liability outside the United States (which I don't think anyone actually does), then we should be checking things like whether our WP:RS relied on a source that was obtained consistent with foreign law. Because that would actually be the test in many jurisdictions. For example, if we repeated something from a news article in an American newspaper that was sourced to a private e-mail that was transmitted in Germany but disclosed in American litigation, that might well be a violation of German criminal law. But, I don't think we actually do care about these things.
Djcheburashka (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} Again, with Joe Borg, I don't agree. I see where you're going, and my analysis was possibly incorrect. Disputing the claim of causation is fine, but the problem is you are disputing it based on your own research. It's good research, but it's still your own, and not published in a reliable source. WP:V doesn't require everything to be included, but WP:NPOV does require all reliably published viewpoints to be considered, so no, you can't just remove reliably-sourced claims that you disagree with; that's cherrypicking. If a reliable source publishes the claim, and no reliable source disputes it, then it goes in. You could challenge the reliability of the source, which is where the RS noticeboard would be of use. You might find more editors there with a sense of detecting PR promo pieces than I do (I tend to give sources leniency in this area unless they are obvious press releases, but many others don't) and you might find more supportive voices. Or at least, more comprehensive advice than I'm able to give on the subject.
Your analysis of the international legal interpretations of slander is over my head, to be honest. I'm not sure about CDA 230 with Creative Commons licensing in effect here; it's my (not particularly informed) understanding that all submissions here are considered to be published by the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than by the user who clicked the "save page" button, and I think it would be a stretch to claim that Wikipedia is an internet service provider (though maybe that's not required, I'm not very familiar with CDA 230). At any rate, the biography of living persons policy follows from recommendations of the WMF's legal team (as I understand it) and that's good enough for me.
In terms of what's acceptable as general notability and neutrality go, something I found immensely helpful when starting out here was following and participating in articles for deletion discussions. It's a good way to see how more experienced users formulate articles based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and what general thresholds are considered for notability and verifiability. Just a thought. Ivanvector (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Your comment to re-write
The comments of @Ivanvector from the week-end suggest that the last two sections of the History section at Ukraine are far too long. This seems an accurate summation and the shortened edit would reduce the size by half titled: Euromaidan, Crimea, and the Secession Crisis. The short version is on Talk:Ukraine. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
:Thank you for the notice. I'm busy at the moment but I'll take a look when I have a bit more time. Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#rfc_0B8EC8F|Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see {{section link|Wikipedia:Requests for comment|Suggestions for responding}}. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ivanvector&diff=prev&oldid=630589135 Still a hearty no]. Ivanvector (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Please revert
I object to your refactoring and as per WP:REFACTOR, you should revert it. The hatting usage notes to follow WP:REFACTOR. I request that you revert it. Tutelary (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}} as noted at ANI. Ivanvector (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright
Goes both ways. You reject refactoring so I won't redo it. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks. I get your point about duplicate !voting and I'll see if there's a way that I can rewrite those comments to be more clear. I mean, I think it's pretty clear where I stand on this, but I'll try to straighten it out. Ivanvector (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Mr Bill Truth
Re your post on his talk page, as far as I'm aware he's not actually posted in regard to homeopathy - just other fringe 'alt med' stuff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:Well, then that base is covered, I guess. It was my interpretation that Essiac falls under homeopathy. If not then I've made a mistake, but the alert is valid nonetheless. Alerts are not meant to imply misconduct, in fact the alert template specifically says so. Ivanvector (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
::I noticed this at ANI. Please examine the docs at {{tl|alert}}—the only thing to do is place the correct alert template while putting a heading like "Notification" before it, and a signature after it. Looking at your edit shows "(Tag: discretionary sanctions alert)" which is the magic used to record the fact that a user has been notified. In typical fashion, the docs give a warm glow rather than the facts, but there must not be a separate log of the notification, so please undo your edit. There is no need to worry about whether the alert should have been posted, or whether it should be unposted—there is no procedure for that. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Thanks for this note. I've undone the edit and I'll pay better attention to the procedure if I'm inspired to use the alert function again. Ivanvector (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on [[Talk:Hotter than July (album)#rfc_44EFF54|Talk:Hotter than July (album)]]
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hotter than July (album). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see {{section link|Wikipedia:Requests for comment|Suggestions for responding}}. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
RfC United States same-sex marriage map
Seasonal Greets!
| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | 211px |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!! |
| style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
---- '''Hello Ivanvector, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, Vjmlhds 16:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC) {{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.}} |
