User talk:BoboMeowCat

By way of explanation

See Talk:Sex-selective_abortion#Edit_Warring_Over_Categories and User_talk:7157.118.25a#1RR_violation. Binksternet is edit warring to remove the Abortion debate tag from multiple articles and trying to get me to violate the 1RR rule. Binkster was disproved by 20+ sources showing their argument that sex-selective abortion is not part of the abortion debate is stupid, and continues to remove the Abortion debate tag from multiple articles. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

7157.118.25a, thanks for explanation. I was surprised to see an edit war pop up on David M. Fergusson considering it seems such a low traffic article. I opened a talk page discussion. It's good that you self-reverted. I've noticed a POV bias regarding who gets blocked or sanctioned on abortion related pages, so please be vigilant to avoid any and all violations of any policies, even minor things like using the word "stupid" when faced with ridiculous seeming talk page exchanges could be called violation of WP:CIVIL, so try to remain polite, even when it gets ridiculous. Thanks for trying to improve WP. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Binksternet did that because I pointed out most pages in the Abortion debate category don't specifically mention the abortion debate, in arguing that his standard made no sense; which led to him edit warring on those pages as well to remove the category from them also.[1] Appreciate the advice though, there is a need for caution in tone given the bias that exists. --7157.118.25a (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It's gotten so out of hand that I am just taking the dispute with Binkster to AN/I. [2] Discussion really seems to be counterproductive with Binkster. --7157.118.25a (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Cheer up, dude! :)

MaRAno ^FAN 07:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

suggestions for edit on Emma Sulkowicz

New information hinting that her accusation is not as credible as originally was. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/columbia-student-i-didn-t-rape-her.html

The messages come in the form of amiable facebook messages that breaks her original narrative. She has refused to officially comment on the messages and explain their context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itmad2015 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Itmad2015, this reference is already used in the current version of the article. The current article mentions the seemingly friendly fb messages. If you have other suggestions regarding this source, maybe bring them up on talk:Emma Sulkowicz. Also, there is currently a discussion regarding moving the page to "Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight" because it's not really a biography. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Seems you had a rough start - but it looks like you're going to fit in just fine. Don't get discouraged - we all have bad days here. Best of luck, and happy editing.

— Ched :  ?  23:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance

I'm sorry about the situation there. I'm just feeling increasingly uncomfortable that we're publishing those allegations. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi, sorry I have not yet edited on the Campus Accountability and Safety Act page we had discussed about a month ago. My partner is laid up in the hospital so editing has been sporadic. Thank you for creating it. I will contribute to improving any page dealing with the topic, as I have in the past with several related articles. Ping me if needed. I agree eyes do need to be watching carefully for POV-pushers inserting misinformation in any article on this topic, such as what happened (and may still be ongoing) in the campus rape article. Ongepotchket (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ongepotchket, I'm sorry to hear about your partner. I hope they are feeling better. I actually didn't create the Campus Accountability and Safety Act article, I created Campus Safety and Accountability Act (the press oddly describes it both ways) but my stub was deleted and redirected the existing article. I think that article needs work, but haven't had time. I can imagine that Campus rape is a POV-nightmare, considering Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) seems to be drifting further and further away from neutral as those with strong POV against Sulkowicz seem to have dominated the editing lately, but i haven't had the energy or time to attempt to balance it lately. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Here kitty, kitty...where are you kitty, kitty? I always wondered why WP had user sandboxes.

Atsme☯^Consult 04:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting news article

Just a quick thanks for posting the News article[3] in the discussion on astroturfing. It should be made essential reading for all editors and perhaps even readers of Wikipedia.__DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

apology

I apologize for screwing up your explanation of the vote. I was trying to move a lengthy discussion into the discussion section, but did so poorly. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 15:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Flowery Language in Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

I just wanted to be clear, I'm legitimately thankful, The only reason I used that turn of phrase is because I wanted to make sure I wasn't committing a copyvio by being too close to the source material. But your wording is better.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Nungeßer

See his mother's name and the articel ß.--Cyve (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Cyve, zero English language sources have spelled name that way, and you are also attempting to restructure the section headers without any discussion. Worst of all, you are currently in violation of wp:3rr. Please self revert, or I'll file at wp:AN3.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he's going to listen, just take it to AN3.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

He's definitely being disruptive and is over 3rr, but at least this edit didn't change the spelling of all of the names this time, and what he added from the lawsuit in his most recent revert might be correct [4]. Cyve really should be getting consensus before continuing to revert, but I'm not going to file yet because I hate those boards and hopefully he will stop at that edit, but I will support report if you file it User:Shibbolethink.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, after looking at how it is now, I think it's fair to include the Eszett in his "given name" parenthetical. I mean why not, it encourages people to learn about german culture, and it doesn't really affect readability or googleability of the article. Pragmatism! Hopefully everyone else agrees and this little editwar can be over :P --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Why should we discuss. He is simply Paul Jonathan Nungeßer from Berlin. There is no "name transliterration" from German to English, it's not Russian. Greetings from Germany. --Cyve (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)\

Cyve this would probably be considered original research, if the legal document you are referencing doesn't spell it that way. Shibbolethink, I'm kind of distracted with real life right now, so if he keeps on aggressively reverting and won't discuss this should probably be filed at AN3. It appears he's also been warned about edit warring by User:Mr. Granger [5].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean, after coming to the US, he's clearly decided to transliterate it, as every name he's given in every interview in a WP:RS has not included the Eszett. It makes sense to keep it untransliterated in the parenthetical, let's just leave it at that.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize for being disruptive (saw it on the edit log). I'm new to editing wikipedia. Long-time reader. It was not intentional, thanks for pointing out that rule. Hope we can work out something regarding the NPOV. NPOV Ninja (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Meghan's discography

Hi Bobo, Winkelvi is trying to get the article unstable again, the best thing to do is to not revert him. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 14:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For putting up with everything that has happened regarding Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), putting up good arguments and not losing your cool about it (as I imagine many others would!) - RatRat- Talk    02:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks RatRat :) That article was insane today!--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Casey J - The Truth.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Casey J - The Truth.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks

Just a quick note to say thank you for your contribution at ANI.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Where do I request a kitten

Though allergic, the stress of this place demands something. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Josh Duggar page!

you actually beat me to it by a few seconds lol76.7.5.182 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Mattress

Hi Bobo, hope you don't mind me asking this here, but I'm starting to find that talk page disturbing. It's this edit. It's something people are going to continue wondering, i.e. who the other party was, and that newspaper has been the most detailed source for much of this situation. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV), maybe we should add "anonymous actor", which is supported by reliable sources, so in case people are wondering, they will know it's an actor, but per BLP, I really think we need a better source before we say Sulkowciz had what appears to be unprotected sex in that video with a guy Lawson apparently found on a fetish website to act out the rapist role. While that might be true, because the Columbia Spectator has tended to get correct info on this case, I don't really feel comfortable sourcing something like that to only a student newspaper. Also, I kind of think it's undue to get into the casting of a separate performance art piece in the main Mattress Performance article, but if art critics start weighting in, we might have enough sources to start a break away article soon for the new piece, where all those details about casting etc would seem very on topic.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV) Add- I tweaked it to "anonymous actor". It does seem important to stress this is an actor. In case those familiar with the video, but not really paying attention to her disclaimer, assume this is the accused student, especially given that Sulkowicz timestamps the video with the date of the alleged sexual assault. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I won't restore the other thing for now, though I think the source (the director) is authoritative for that issue, as he seems to have helped to find the actor. But I take your point. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You done good on Josh Duggar

I know that popular opinion is that Josh Duggar is a paedophile, rapist, child molester, etc, but Wikipedia isn't about what is popular, and in cases of BLP we need to err on the side of protecting the living person. Since he wasn't charged with anything, let alone found guilty of anything, we can't say that he did anything more than what he has admitted himself to doing, which is that he molested 5 girls, 4 of whom were his sisters, the other being a babysitter. Had any of the victims said anything to the contrary, we could have included that too, but to date all of the victims who have come forward have agreed with him. While we can debate personally whether they might be "brainwashed" or coerced into it in some way, because they are his sisters, and that has some merit, we are treading on some seriously dangerous water by speculating on things that may not be true.

But anyway, though I suspect that you disagree with my perspective on the whole issue, I think that you did well in how you finished up displaying it.

While popular media has tended to avoid the decision by Judge Stacey Zimmerman, which ordered that all copies of the police report be destroyed, the fact is that that is a legally binding decision. And Wikipedia cannot have a copy of that police report. We can't reference to it either. If, in the future, another court order is made that says that they can be displayed, then we can, but we have to be very careful.

Not just because of the laws surrounding this, but also in relation to protecting the identities of people.

It is becoming a major debate right now as to whether juveniles are protected at all, and I suspect that soon that will be the major element of this, not about trying to determine just how bad Josh Duggar's offences were. But I am happy if we wait before diverting discussion to being about that. Wait a week and it probably will be all that anyone is talking about, I suspect. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Mister Sneeze A Lot, thanks. I agree it's a complicated issue, but I'm not sure setting up a separate section header as you did regarding the legality of it and its impact on the girls is a good idea at this point. I'm concerned such a section will only serve to invite non-authoritative quotes from tons of op-eds regarding the legality and also quotes calling the girls "brainwashed", which I'm hoping we can keep out of the article because diagnosis per op-ed is a BLP concern.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Image query

Hi Bobo, there's something I'd like to ask you about an image, but it's better not to do it on talk, so I've sent you an email. Thanks for your comment, by the way. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Pings

Pings won't work if you add them the to post after. A ping and a new signature must appear in the same single edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, thanks for the info. If I edit my comment to delete my signature and then resign, will that work, or do I need to add a new comment to ping after the fact?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Notifications/Archive_6#Linking_and_signing: "Re-signing your post isn't enough if the re-sign merely overwrites the original signature. A signature needed to be added in the same post that the link is added; so yes, you can post a ping underneath with a second signature. Alternatively, you can revert your post and re-add it with the link in place that had been omitted first time..." If I mess up I usually delete my post, save, and re-add or I add something like ExampleUser1 Missed ping --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC) at the end. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Meghan Trainor page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

This looks like canvassing to me. I think others would agree. Lips Are Movin and I are working things out, cooperating with each other, and trying to create a productive editing environment. I've been very clear in my comments that I'm fine with others adding their thoughts on the content issues I saw. But you seem hell-bent on creating more drama and trying to shift things in a direction that feels comfortable for you, in spite of what's happening at the article talk page. Why is that? Why can't you just join in and comment and add your own two-cents instead of trying to tip the scales? I seriously don't get you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I started this discussion yesterday regarding adding back the early life section, because I think it's more productive to work on much less at a time and Lips Are Movin agreed (11,000 characters is a lot, and it seems like too much to debate productively at one time on talk page). You never objected until now, despite being pinged and active on page. I also incorporated suggestions from your comments/concerns. I do not believe that brief message was canvassing. He's an experienced editor who has been active on that page in past, and most importantly, he has expressed neutrality regarding past length/bloat/fancruft concerns, acknowledging issues on both sides. He's also an admin, so I would think he'd let me know if it was against policy, but I've read WP:Canvassing and I don't see where it was.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the canvassing, there is also the issue of you stirring the pot. You asked someone to step in, when it is no longer necessary. NeilN was already taking care of the issue, both Lips and myself are working together, but it seems to me that isn't enough for you and I have to wonder why. It's as if you are trying to undermine the progress that's occurred and will hopefully continue to occur. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I think you may have misinterpreted my motivations. I’m just interested in editor retention and reducing battleground. I think some of the problems on Trainor articles are related to the fact that Trainor’s fanbase tends to be very young. I agree there have been fancruft issues in past, but I also think it’s a problem for Wikipedia, if these editors keep leaving in frustration. Only fans seem motivated enough to read the reliable sources needed create a comprehensive article on a recording artist. Personally, I’m not going to spend my free time reading all about Meghan Trainor’s early life, and I’d be willing to guess you are in the same boat here :) Basically, I just want to work with editors who appear to be editing in good faith, and hopefully incorporate some of their relevant sourced content in an encyclopedic way to improve these articles. I do appreciate your efforts to work collaboratively with Lips Are Movin and also your recent collaborative contributions to the talk page [6] and article. Thanks, and I look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with you on the talk page and article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Women's rights in 2014 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Women's rights in 2014 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/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Women's_rights_in_2014 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abaget (talk • contribs) 12:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Abaget, Thanks for the notification. It's standard to notify article creator regarding nomination for deletion, but I'm not the article creator. The article was created as a collaborative effort of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. Placed notification of deletion nomination on wikiproject talk page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions relevant to Mattress Performance

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I'm notifying you of discretionary sanctions pertinent to this topic because of your recent un-reversion of edits which included the accused's name in the article, and cited a legal document for a controversial claim about a living person; both of these actions were contrary to BLP policy and established consensus specific to the topic. I recognize you are doing your best to deal with a fraught issue and I apologize if this comes across as unfriendly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339, my edit did not include the accused student's name. The edit, which I explained on talk page removed a BLP violation which inaccurately stated in Wikipedia's voice that Columbia's lawyers agreed with the lawyers for the accused that Sulkowicz made "false allegations", when they did not agree she made false allegations. They agreed: "that Ms. Sulkowicz did in fact become a prominent figure in the context of sexual assault on college campuses". I see you have reinserted this BLP violation regarding the lawyers supposedly agreeing Sulkowicz made "false allegations" twice now, which seems an odd thing to do...considering you're obviously aware the article is under discretionary sanctions. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The name was in the reference title and was visible both with a mouseover and in the reflist. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As I've responded on talk page, just redact that from the reference. A simple redaction of ref title seems a much better option than blanket reversions which restore BLP violation to article text.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk page of Editor to Mattress Performance

Thanks for that. What's the next step? The guy can't even spell drunk correctly on his own Talk page.--A21sauce (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A21Sauce, that's a template and it makes a joke about being drunk while editing by misspelling drunk, "druck". That you you didn't get it is priceless ;)Mattnad (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Another illustration of what I complained about in the first place. Go play some video games, Mattnad, and leave the adults to talk.--A21sauce (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The guy's German. And to be honest, I hope the next step is for everyone to holster their pistols and back off slowly. Hopefully you can come to some sort of compromise about attributing Paglia's contrarian tendencies without starting a litigation process. Something like "professor at UArts, known for her controversial views on gender issues." Really, it's not the biggest deal ever. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339, I don't really get why it's a big deal either. I'm hoping we can come to a consensus on this without too much battleground or drama because it seems a relatively minor thing. A21sauce, I remember Sarah mentioning ArbCom as an option for ongoing issues on that page, but honestly, I'm not inclined to go there, mostly because ArbCom confuses me, and also because I'm starting to find that article exhausting again, and may seriously need a break. My main confusion is why Mattnad is editing the article at all, let alone contentiously, when he avoided a block for violation of 3RR by saying he would no longer edit the article at all. [7]. Maybe we should just wait and see how he responds to inquiry on his talk page regarding this first.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad didn't say that: he said he had no plans to edit the article further. That's not inconsistent with his much later, arguably spontaneous edits. A21sauce's allegations of subsequent edit-warring on his part were exaggerated. You don't have any case against him, just an honest content dispute - one on which I think he is wrong in this instance, even though I'm usually on his side. And with SlimVirgin and Bus stop also expressing surprising opinions, I think this complicated minor point is not the right issue to make a last stand on. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, I'm not really interested in a case against him, but the closing admin said he did not block Mattnad because Mattnad said he would no longer edit the article. The closing statement included: @Mattnad: You clearly broke 3RR in this case, and it is not at all clear that the BLP exception to 3RR would apply in this case. However, given that blocks are not punitive and you have stated that you will not continue to edit this article, I don't see that it would be productive or helpful to block you from editing.[[8]]. Either way, if he's decided to go back to editing there, contentious reverts honestly seem to be an odd way to start. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that was the admin's mistake. Mattnad never agreed to a topic ban. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I interpreted his statement's the same as the admin did, but if it was mistake, I didn't see Mattnad correct him.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, so can we get him blocked? It will help prevent the article from having to be under semi-protection for awhile.--A21sauce (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I also noticed he took off his editing warring warning. Classic. Are you even allowed to do that?--A21sauce (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Carry that weight

I think you didn't finish your last post on the talk page. The final sentence is a fragment. Phiwum (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Domestic Violence article

Hi. I just restored the long term status quo to the article page, prior to it now being discussed at the reliable sources dispute resolution page. If you want to revert it again, I will not follow, as I do not want to get even close to edit warring over a source that some other editor added months ago. However you added no explanation as to why you deleted long standing referenced material from the article on the talk page? Charlotte135 (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte135 I removed it because GandyDancer and Flyer made solid arguments on talk page that it was WP:Undue and a POV attempt to present men as primary victims of IPV when bulk of research shows opposite. I explained edit in edit summary. I may revert again, if talk page consensus continues to support removing it, but I don't have a lot of time for Wikipedia right now, and I'll chime in more fully on article talk page later.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not what source said? However this is a significant viewpoint and reliably sourced, long standing edits should not be deleted because someone doesn't like them?Charlotte135 (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And it was not me who added that reliably sourced, long standing edit. However like many other editors on this article page, I am seeing reliably sourced material presenting significant viewpoints being deleted, like you just did) from the article and contrary to Wiki policy of presenting "significant viewpoints," albeit in a measured manner? It makes for a very, very biased and unbalanced article indeed. Comment?Charlotte135 (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't removed because "I didn't like it". It was removed per WP:UNDUE and talk page consensus.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No one mentioned due weight of that British Psychological Society reference added by someone else months ago. You originall quoted MEDRS as an attempt to delete this reliably sourced long standing material from the article because it was a primary source. Now you say due weight? Could you explain your sudden shift of reasoning?Charlotte135 (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Review talk page [9] Gandydancer wrote "it was done by one researcher who used a questionnaire to gain her information and presented as one of several lectures at the annual BPS symposium. It should not be used to refute findings of most of the research". That's pretty much the definition of WP:UNDUE. Will continue discussion on article talk page when get a chance. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Winkelvi! Happy New Year to you too...I wish you all the best in 2016! --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about User:Winkelvi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_interaction_ban_with_User:Winkelvi

Deletion Discussion: Columbia University Rape Controversy

Hi,

I'm sending a notice because you previously participated in a move discussion on the page for Mattress Performance (Carry that weight). A new article was created Columbia University rape controversy as a spinout entry, and there is an ongoing discussion here regarding whether the article should be kept, moved, merged, or deleted. Letting you know in case you want to put your two cents in. Thanks. Nblund (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hear This Well

The article Hear This Well has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not assert how or why this hashtag is notable, in other words, an almost forgotten hashtag per WP:N(E)

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donnie Park (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BoboMeowCat. 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)

Wanted to let you know that I'd retired

Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 22 Weeks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 22 Weeks 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/22 Weeks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:22WeeksPoster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:22WeeksPoster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

AN notice

Please see [[10]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Melissa Ohden

The article Melissa Ohden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability. Many of the references are from appearances on talk shows. Several other references are from the subject's own personal website and blog. A Google search on this person returns mostly a list of talk show appearances and hits to the subject's personal website and blog posts.Many of the television appearances are on shows that aren't notable enough to have their own wikipedia article.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StarHOG (Talk) 18:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)