Archive 1: December 2006 – April 2010

Archive 2: May 2010 – December 2013

I don't know what else to tell you on this end, your comment is flattering, but I'm not an experienced editor.I just read the policies. There are procedures in place for dealing with perceived COIs, pursue those if you wish, or take it to user talk. Regardless: its counterproductive to make accusations every time we have a disagreement, and it doesn't help anyone to continually speculate about my motives on the article talk page. Nblund (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was reviewing something on state taxes and ran into this "DO TAX STRUCTURES AFFECT AGGREGATE ECONOMIC GROWTH? EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM A PANEL OF OECD COUNTRIES". Tax Foundation Chief Economist Dr. William McBride said of the OECD panel data analysis, they "found progressive income tax systems specifically are negatively related to economic growth. This may occur due to the way these systems disincentivize certain behaviors. According to Dr. McBride, the more we try to make an income tax progressive, the more we undermine the factors that contribute most to economic growth: investment, risk-taking, entrepreneurship, and productivity. This is because high-income earners tend to do much of the saving, investing, risk-taking, and high-productivity labor."[1] I mention this as we were involved in that dispute on Progressive Tax where that OR leap was made in the graph from progressive tax to increased equality to economic growth. I have not moved to add any prose to the article based on that dispute, because my position is to leave it out, but if something does get added, this material should be included as part of NPOV to counter the implied conclusion. Figured I'd share it before I forget about it. Morphh ^(talk) 20:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty confident from the RFC effort that a leap will not happen, absent of a reliable source that draws that conclusion, and then it would need to be something more authoritative than someone's blog. My personal opinion on this matter is that progressive taxes vary quite a bit by region and income type, so it's a bit ridiculous to generalize either way.Mattnad (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Morphh: have you found any secondary sources which agree? EllenCT (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, EllenCT also inserted that content here. I wasn't sure if the "supporting source" she referenced in the edit summary was her own, which we previously discussed was not supporting or if she was referring to the source you provided, which you seemed to indicate also did not support that conclusion. Since I haven't had a chance to read the link that you posted, it would be better if you reverted, being familiar with both sources. Morphh ^(talk) 18:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The supporting source she uses is the same one you read and commented on previously, as it appears in the prose, which essentially states that people with college education earn more, and therefor pay more taxes (Barry; Burtless, Gary; Steuerle, C. Eugene (December 1999). Lifetime Earnings Patterns, the Distribution of Future Social Security Benefits, and the Impact of Pension Reform (report no. CRR WP 1999-06). p.43) It makes no mention of public tuition subsidies. The content for P. 43 is "TABLE 10: TWO WAYS TO MEASURE REPLACEMENT RATES FOR MINT AND SSA, 1931- 1935 BIRTH COHORT (FIGURES IN PERCENT)" I think she is just randomly picking sources that are close to what POV she wants to push. The graph caption "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue" has no supporting source - probably because it's not true, at least not in aggregate. The source I introduced on the talk page indicates that often public tuition subsidies are enjoyed by students who would have gone to college anyway and paid themselves, among other reasons subsidies create distortions.Mattnad (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that neither of you have ever addressed the math in either of the law review articles from California or Michigan. EllenCT (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my agreement with you in Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Complaints about media coverage, with coatracking of unrelated political events can safely be removed. about your recent removal of items in the "Reactions and impact' section in the Bridgegate scandal article.

Hopefully, we can gain consensus, or at least a majority, who agree with you and me that these items should be removed. Feel free to add your comments to the Bridgegate Talk section. Wondering55 (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mattnad! I noticed your contributions to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Workshop#Topic_bans, and thought you might be interested in WikiProject Opera, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of all aspects of opera. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can find out more about the project. On the project's talk page editors working in the area can exchange ideas and ask questions. Thanks! – S. Rich (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977: - thanks for the invite. I have a wide range in music interests - however Opera is not one of them, although I suspect you suggested this in recognition of my reference to a classic tune from the Mikado. I was once given excellent tickets for the New York Metropolitan Opera production of La Boheme. I never slept so well ;). Mattnad (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Canadian Sales Chart 60 71.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Wonderbra at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Plexapp Logo.png. 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Plexapp Logo.png. 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. TLSuda (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her error is a combination of not realizing that there is reasonable disagreement on the matter of whether taxes on the top 1% are progressive, and not understanding "false consciousness". Karl Marx, who was a bad economist but a good theorist of history, understood a concept of false consciousness, in which a class or a segment of a class is systemically mistaken as to their class interests. The horrible example in US history is the Ku Klux Klan, which was founded partly by rich white Southerners, who recruited poor white Southerners, and persuaded them that the cause of their poverty was black Southerners, when the real problem was inequality, that is, the rich white Southerners. My own analysis is that the Tea Party movement is false consciousness. Middle-class Americans have been led by the Koch brothers and others to believe the Tea Party doctrine that all wealthy people are job creators (some are, and some are not) and that all taxes are job-destroying (mainstream economic analysis is that they shift jobs from the private sector to the public sector, and that there may be disagreement as to how effectively this is done). To champion the rich does not mean that one is being paid by the rich, only that one gives more credit to the rich than they deserve. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:, no doubt you are correct. For me, this is mostly an issue of having articles that represent the best available information in a cogent and well written fashion. I don't think providing CBO analysis of effective tax rates by income group is championing the rich. It's just providing a fairly authoritative reliable source which EllenCT does not like because it conflicts with her POV. EllenCT is hurting the project and wasting a lot of people's time.Mattnad (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My issue with her is that her allegations of paid editing are a serious personal attack. It may be POV editing, but, unless you have evidence, don't call it paid editing. (There is a special case of paid editing that is not commercial editing or paid advocacy editing, and which Wikipedia encourages. That is editing by professors in their areas of expertise.) Anyway, that is my issue. We can agree to disagree about taxes on the rich, but don't claim paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mattnad, on your recent reply you state the article is about progressive taxation, but I think you meant to say tax policy, perhaps thinking of the other article Ellen was referencing. Morphh ^(talk) 15:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping new people be integrated into the discussions on Wikipedia. Greatly appreciated. I am learning a lot.

JackGann (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how subcategories work? You should read WP:SUBCAT --80.193.191.143 (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Income Inequality in the United States". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 September 2014.

The request for formal mediation concerning Income Inequality in the United States, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hello, Mattnad. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Hi Matt, two sets of discretionary sanctions – gender-related controversies and BLP – apply to the above, and apparently you have to be alerted to both. I apologize for the templates and the repetition.

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.

Sarah ^(talk) 01:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. To avoid 1RR, I'd like to discuss a proposed change. The following language changes the first sentence (to include Operation Rescue), drops the second sentence on Slate, adds a sentence on Republican legislators, keeps the third sentence, and adds a fourth with a quote from factcheck.org.

In 2015, the Center for Medical Progress in partnership with Operation Rescue released videos that they said depicted Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of fetal tissue and organs.^[1][2] The videos were shown to Republican legislators a month before being made available to the public,^[3][4] allowing them to introduce bills to defund Planned Parenthood a week after the first video was released.^[5] In response, Planned Parenthood said that they may donate fetal tissue at the request of a patient, but that such tissue is never sold.^[6] Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories said that “$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.”^[7]

Would you remove or change any one of these sentences?

Please don't use rollback on this change without discussing first. Thanks. -- Callinus (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good digging Callinus. I'd leave them in as is. My previous objection was there was a lot of verbiage about the creator of the video which was overweight and undue. This is much more relevant and notable due to the collusion with GOP politicians. I think we might want to add a paraphrased point sourced from the NY Times editorial that the videos were highly edited. Here's what the NYTimes wrote about what was left out in the short video, "the shorter version was edited to eliminate statements by Dr. Nucatola explaining that Planned Parenthood does not profit from tissue donation, which requires the clear consent of the patient. Planned Parenthood affiliates only accept money — between $30 and $100 per specimen, according to Dr. Nucatola — to cover costs associated with collecting and transporting the tissue." [2]Mattnad (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know we've had our differences, but I think there's plenty of space for us to continue to collaborate. Posting on the BLP noticeboard after an RfC was not resolved in your favor seems like forum-shopping. You're unlikely to be able to accomplish many of your desired changes without working with the other people who are editing that entry. Including me.

As a secondary matter, I'd like to again ask you to try to find a way to summarize the criticisms of outside groups (like FIRE) rather than offering a laundry list of individual cases. The Campus Sexual Assault page, as currently written, is rapidly approaching the upper limit for a readable entry, and the amount of digital ink dedicated to claims of false rape accusations seems disproportionate to the amount dedicated to instances where colleges failed to protect students. There are certainly plenty of stories and anecdotes that might be illustrative of the campus sexual assault problem -- but they aren't included because I think they aren't really appropriate for an overview article. Nblund (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nblund, if you're looking to resolve difference, accusing me of forum shopping is not the way to go about it. Another editor restored the paragraph, not I. I simply asked the BLP/N what could be done with it to make it BLP compliant. Removing the direct links to the Sclove lawsuit is what's required. That's not forum shopping. That's looking for input on how to remove the BLP concerns which were the basis of excluding the entire paragraph. And frankly, neutral input is useful in these matters.

To argue that this is a "review" article, and then leave in the details of particular campus activism (Sulcowicz and Sclove) that has no counterpoint is somewhat one sided and not NPOV. But there is no other article on campus sexual assault hearings under the new Title IX guidance. So this is the only place, and it's not a particularly long article even as is. Having the counterpoint is very much part of the challenges in sexual assault matters. I'm not interested in false rape claim stories in this article as you've suggested. You may have noted I have not bothered with the Duke Lacrosse case or the UVA Rape on Campus material. I'm interested in how schools have been forced into the middle of this and are not doing well in handling it and it's a major issue in the news, and leading to pushes for change on balancing rights.

I'll add that this edit suggests you don't understand what "exculpatory" means. Just to explain a little if needed, "exculpatory" refers to evidence that favors the defendant. Quoting the Boston Globe article that's the reference, "In the lawsuit, Stern argues that the texts contain evidence that make it clear the sexual encounter with Doe was consensual and initiated by Jones; that she deliberately misled the college’s investigator and the hearing board; that she was motivated to make the allegations so her roommate would not blame her for what happened; and that Doe, who was incapacitated that night, is the real victim in the case." So, does that favor the defendant? I think it does. I'm going to presume you don't understand what exculpatory means, and restore it. However, if you insist on the details, we can quote the Boston Globe, as well as as several sources that go into even more gory detail, and we can include those, with quotes including how in some of her text messages included details of her intent to have sex with, and did have sex with the man she immediately invited over after the alleged assault. But I was keeping it pretty high level and avoiding adding material to further illustrate the basis of the lawsuit.Mattnad (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to talk about balance, I've noted you have never once including a stat about the rates of sexual assaults on males in the many bits of unverifiable/reviewable research you put in. Unless someone happens to have university library handy, there's no way to verify the accuracy of what you've included. However, if we're going to work together, you might want to use your more ample resources to include a broader view.Mattnad (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but seeking out comments from a noticeboard after shortly after a lengthy RfC decided against including the material certainly fits the bill for "forum shopping". This is disruptive, its counter-productive, and it disregards the views of other editors -- all of whom participated in an RfC at your request and who remained civil even when things got dicey. If you won't cut it out for my sake, then consider this: its entirely possible that this conflict may end up in some sort of formal dispute resolution process, and this sort of stuff will look very bad to an outside arbitrator. Just be civil, assume good faith, and stop bad-mouthing people just for disagreeing with you.

Academic articles are not "unverifiable" just because you personally can't access them (see: WP:PAYWALL). If you're interested in reading some of the papers, PM me your email address and I'll send you a pdf, or make a request through the Wiki project resource request page. I can recommend this report, from the National Research Council as an excellent (free and ungated) overview of the existing research. I'm not concealing anything from you, the scholarly research just really doesn't favor the view that the rates of rape and sexual assault are significantly lower than the levels reported in the CSA. Its really not even a debate among scholars. For all I know, the conventional wisdom may be completely wrong, but I genuinely can't find scholarly evidence that supports that view.

The remaining stuff is probably better discussed on the talk page, given that there are other editors involved in the dispute. Nblund (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mattnad, since you're putting the table together I thought you might find this useful: http://www.tablesgenerator.com/mediawiki_tables

I found it to be wayyy less of a pain in the ass to create a table in that rather than trying to write out the code by hand. Nblund (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I had looked for something like that, but didn't find this one.Mattnad (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mattnad, I recall you previously avoided being blocked for edit warring, by assuring admin Darkwind that you would no longer be editing the article Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) [3], but not only have you been actively editing the article, you seem to have been editing it disruptively, such as edit warring [4] and posting misleading inaccurate comments about fellow editor A21sauce on WP:BLPN [5], which seem to border on WP:UNCIVIL. A21Sauce’s rationale for deletion was not that the editor who added it was male, and she opened a talk page discussion regarding her deletion [6]. The comment you linked on BLPN from a user talk page, not the article talk page, seems to be a reference to a discussion on Sarah's talk page which included this: “the talk-page atmosphere, which has included a comment about a woman leading someone on, and asking that it be unprotected so that anon IPs can comment on a video of a rape reenactment, after a beer. (One woman referred to this exchange as a mini Elks Club gathering.)” [7], [8]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:BoboMeowCat, what I recall is that you tried to get me blocked on a technicality, and what I said is that I would not edit for a while and did not. But you knew that, or have a poor memory. That most recent edit warring notice was based on a single edit I made after a days hiatus and A21sauce was out of line putting a 3RR notice on my page. Based on her criteria, you've edit warred many times. As for A21sauce's comments on SlimVirgin's talk page, those were gender biased on face value, "Hi, the boys have put in a Camille Paglia quote, lengthening the section on responses" and "The editors chiming in are guys". There is none of the quote you referenced above in that talk page section. Perhaps you should reread it.Mattnad (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mattnad, you avoided a block for a clear violation of 3RR, not a technicality, by saying you wouldn't edit the article. The admin's 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.[9].

Another editor has already pointed out your error on this matter on your talk page. And I noted how you've avoided the more salient issues regarding A21sauces' postings. Did she, or did she not reference the "boys" and "guys"? Did she or did she not post a 3RR warning after a single edit? Come on User:BoboMeowCat, inquiring minds want to know.Mattnad (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mattnad, glancing over the edit history, it hasn't been a single edit. If you've decided to go ahead and edit there again, contentious reverts honestly seem to be an odd way to start. Article history shows reverts beginning August 10th--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:BoboMeowCat, your still avoiding the questions and point. I did not violate 3rr, as A21sauce suggested anymore than you have. And you're not addressing what was really posted on SlimVirgin's talk page by A21sauce. Why is that? Do you endorse that kind of thing?Mattnad (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For your work putting the table together. LavaBaron (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:400px-Canadian-Lady-Logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mattnad, the RfC, which you wrote, asks whether we should:

1. ...add language with some of the multiple cites including the AAU study along the lines of, "The survey also reported that the majority   of students whose responses were classified as sexual assault did not think their experience was "serious enough to report"."

or

2. Only include this finding in the 2015 Campus Climate Survey if it includes criticisms/counterpoints to these kinds of finding about surveys in general...-

Its clear from the RfC (which, again, you wrote) that the edit you're attempting to re-instate would not be consistent with option #2. I understand that the process is not moving very quickly. I believe we can re-open the RfC for more input by changing the timestamp on the request. I think it would help matters significantly if you would edit your initial RfC proposal to be a little less verbose, and place your argument in the comments section instead of in the actual request.

Regardless: simply attempting to unilaterally reinsert the disputed content is not the way to go about it. Nblund (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and re-issued the RfC template. I still would appreciate it if you would put some of the commentary that you added to the original RfC in collapsed box so that editors don't have to wade through the minutiae to understand the question. Nblund (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look, as I've just seen your ping. I've been offline most of the week for RL reasons, so I wasn't precisely chased away, but I am surprised at the resistance to a better quality image here. I'll read up and evaluate. Best, Kafka Liz (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Via some odd navigation, I caught your recent contribs and noticed the edit on Bra, which I curiously clicked through. Maybe it's weird, but sometimes I like to see what others are contributing to. I noticed the caption on some of the pictures could be improved and thought I would mention it. For example, one just says "Amy Winehouse, 2007".. ok, so what's the point of inclusion? The caption needs more to explain why it's there. Another "Ladies' Home Journal, October 1898"... probably should include it's showing a corset? Anyway, since you were editing. Morphh ^(talk) 03:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Morphh: I've mostly stopped editing that article. It's the locus of ideologically oriented folk who basically want to present the Bra as a patriarchal tool of oppression. Those captions came from one self described feminist who has fought tooth and nail to eliminate anything resembling a woman in a bra, and how some (many) women buy them as expressions of female sexuality (if Victoria Secret's sales growth is any indication of that).Mattnad (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mattnad, I went ahead and reverted this edit since I didn't get a response on the request for a self-revert. Three editors (including myself) have voiced concerns about these edits, and there clearly is no consensus for this material, and, indeed, there is substantial opposition. The edit doesn't seem to address the concerns that were voiced in either the RfC, the dispute resolution, or the discussion on the talk page. I am open to working on a compromise, but it is edit warring to continually insert material that clearly is not supported by consensus. Nblund (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nublund, there is no consensus against this either. The RFC was equally balanced. You have done one revert. I'm counting your edit warring as it's without foundation except your biased POV.Mattnad (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When a consensus isn't reached, the general practice is to maintain the status quo (See Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS. The DRN is still open, and if you self-revert, we can go back to this conversation. As it stands, though, I think you're already engaging in behavior that meets the definition of edit warring by inserting material that has already been repeatedly reverted, and there's really no need to wait for three reverts to take this to ANI. Nblund (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. DRN is voluntary, and you're the one who has not discussed this at all in good faith You are completely unwilling to compromise and have pushed for something based on a political views rather than what's in reliable sources. Of the two of us, you are at greater risk than I. I've tried to reason with you for months on this. So be careful with where you take this.Mattnad (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN is voluntary, but initiating a process and then backing out doesn't mean you're freed of the obligation to seek consensus. Are you backing out of the DRN process? It doesn't seem like that's clear to the mediator yet. Nblund (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made it clear. And you're an experienced enough editor (a lot more than you let on) to know you're out of bounds here. I'm not playing your games anymore. I've more than bent over with compromise, and frankly your POV pushing is pretty clear.Mattnad (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference between the current version and the one that was reverted previously is that you included a longer quote from the person whose notability was already a subject of dispute. Be real for a second: do you believe that's reflective of a compromise? Nblund (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted to create an expansive discussion of how feminists think the response "may merely" be due to cultural factors. Go for it. That's the compromise. It's a POV perspective for sure, but if cited can be included. It's called balance and NPOV.Mattnad (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted the comments from people like Taylor (which echo previous comments from people like Christina Hoff Sommers) to be mentioned in the context of a broader discussion of how experts interpret that finding. Are you saying you're open to that? To be clear, I'm talking about moving the comments from Taylor to a section, mentioning that other critics of these studies have made the same critique, and discussing how experts generally interpret that finding. Nblund (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the AAU section is fine, well sourced, as is. You are free to develop your section. The thing is that what's in the AAU section now is firmly grounded in WP:RS guidelines. The sourced content is directly related to that study. I've looked for other reliable secondary sources that say what you propose about the AAU study and have failed. I would have included them if available. If you can find some that do, bring them in. But so far NONE have surfaced that support your point directly. At best, we have an oblique reference to it in the AAU study (primary source, which is not ideal), which may refer to a generalized theory on why some women might say that (but not men, who are also in the tabulated high level results). On the topic of how this is common in other studies, well that's not quite complete. This dissonance does not appear in the NCVS surveys which use a narrower definition and clearer set of questions to respondents. Based on that survey, the equivalent answer rate is 10.6% of victims chose not to report because it wasn't serious enough. That's very different from the up to 80% you've mentioned. At the crux of this is reality that as you expand the funnel of who is classified as a victim, you're going to get more people who did not think is was that serious. That's Taylor's point about the AAU study. I vaguely remember Summer's comment - I think that was related to the Koss study. Sommer's point is best in the Koss section if I recall correctly. You have a POV you'd like in the article and that's fine if properly attributed.Mattnad (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Koss asked this particular question, but Sommers does make really similar arguments about Koss' methods. Cathy Young makes the argument about the CSA in this article, and Heather MacDonald makes an almost identical argument about the NCWSV in this article. Here's another recent editorial from the Washington Examiner where Asche Show discusses a sexual assault survey in Michigan and note that "in most other studies" victims who did not report a crime give this same response. It seems like this argument could be in virtually every subsection with similar sourcing -- but why? Wouldn't it make more sense to put these arguments together in a single subsection?

Again, i'm not talking about removing Taylor's arguments, I'm just talking about placing them in a way that makes it clear to readers that they are part of a debate between sexual assault researchers (like Fisher and Koss) and their critics (like Taylor, Sommers, and Young). People like Stuart Taylor Jr. think that the NCVS approach is correct, people like Fisher think that the AAU approach is correct. We don't need to take sides, but the section doesn't really even acknowledge that another side exists. Nblund (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out the lede, which right now makes no mention at all about this either? May I point out how you personally argued how common and dominant this answer is when it suited you on talk pages, but removed it from the article several times? Your keen on a POV, but it's distorting the article. Look, I know where you're coming from. It's OK to be an advocate for a position, so long as it doesn't go too far. But can you acknowledge that as you expand the definition of sexual assault, a greater proportion of victims will have experienced what they perceive as a less serious assault? It seems clear to me from the NCVS vs. other studies that argue 1 in 4/5 etc. News sources picked up on this precisely because it qualifies the what is a very large reported prevalence rate. And it's that qualification, in context, that you seem to want to avoid. Mattnad (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that I just said we could expand this debate, pointed to additional instances of pundits making the argument, and said that we should move, but not eliminate, your own edit, and that you're still saying that I want to avoid this being in the article? It seems like you've so thoroughly convinced yourself that I must be pushing a POV that you're reflexively disagreeing with me even though I'm saying we should add more here. I've never argued for eliminating this info, and, out of the two of us, you're actually the only person who has opposed the inclusion of a particular perspective.

I don't think this is really a matter of what I believe personally, but, since we're on a userpage: the question doesn't ask whether or not women thought their assaults were "less serious" or "less harmful" than anything else, so that's not really a conclusion that can be drawn from these data one way or another.

Clearly, this method captures more women who give the "not serious enough to report" response. The AAU method captures more incidents where people were raped by acquaintances, or assaulted/raped while incapacitated and unable to consent. Its also true that these studies capture more assaults that women do not describe as rape or sexual assault. Still, the overwhelming majority of women do say that these experiences were unpleasant or harmful, and report actual direct consequences like PTSD or dropping out of class. There's some evidence that those "unacknowledged" victims experience higher incidents of things like depression, PTSD, and substance abuse problems, and there is some evidence that they experience less psychological harm. So there's a real debate on that end.

In terms of objective differences in the severity of the crime itself: the NCWSV actually did a field experiment where they administered NCVS-style questions to one sample, and administered the Koss-style questions to another sample. They found that the Koss version found more sexual assaults overall, but the biggest discrepancy was actually highest for completed forcible rapes compared to attempted rape or rape threats. So, at least on that measure, the methods used by the NCSV fails to capture sexual violence of across the board, not just for more minor incidents.

I think its legitimate to ask whether or not we think that it's appropriate to make major changes to college misconduct policies because of these incidents, but Taylor is actually arguing that these women weren't raped at all, which is pretty exceptional. Some women may find an assault traumatic, others who experience a similar incident may find it fairly minor, but that question has no bearing on whether or not they were actually victims of a crime, and Taylor's view is not something that is supported by any research at all. Nblund (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor didn't say that. He casts doubt on the breath of the finding, but never says there weren't victims of rape. It's well trodden territory that studies like the AAU have more ambiguity and broader definitions than the NCVS. However arguing that everyone was a victim of a crime as you have is overstating it. The BJS paper on this takes great pains to explain the differences from the criminal definitions, and "health studies" like the CAS. There are pros and cons to both approaches. I'll acknowledge the headlines, and an article like this one, don't capture all of the little nuances. Likewise your preferred texts don't either since they are oriented towards studying the more serious sexual assaults (at least from what you've quoted). So you've had no reservations about the large 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 numbers, even though those include instances of minor sexual contact like an unwanted touch or kiss (which I personally experienced on the receiving end 5 times in college, didn't report, or have PTSD afterwards). That's conflated with the most horrific assaults. I don't disagree with you that some victims answered "not serious enough to report" when the did experience something that harmed them, even seriously.

However, you have a tendency to emphasize those who have been seriously harmed as if they are representative of all victims rather than a subset. Thein lies the rub. The 80% (in some of your sources) who responded "not serious enough" includes some women who were in denial about a serious assault, so you want us to present that as if all of them were in similar denial. That's POV. Some of them had to have perceived it as not serious, even in retrospect, particularly since the high level stat includes sexual misconduct rather than assault. And then look at the lede which says only "Many victims completely or partially blame themselves for the assault, are embarrassed by the shame, or fear not being believed which may lead to underreporting. As remarked in one study, "Women generally do not report their victimization, in part because of self-blame or embarrassment,". That's not a complete presentation of what most of these quant studies say. You've left out the "not serious enough" reason even though you've demonstrated high awareness of that response and provided multiple citations.

In the end, I'm not arguing against you having a discussion on the kinds of response and what some writers think about them. I do think you should include NCVS in that as an example of what we get with a tighter definition and population (10.6% rate), and we can bring in Sommers' views as well. But given the large numbers of reliable sources that commented on the AAU study specifically, per WP:RS I think it should stay there, in context.Mattnad (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a key point: The AAU does not measure mere "unwanted" kissing, or even being groped on a bus, as "sexual assault". It asks about incidents where the kissing resulted from force (defined as someone "holding you down with his or her body weight, pinning your arms, hitting or kicking you, or threatening or using a weapon against you") or while incapacitated (described as "being unable to consent or stop what was happening because you were passed out, asleep or incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol"). These were the sexual assaults, 23.1% of undergraduate women experienced this since entering college (see table 3-2).

They ask additional questions about incidents of kissing and groping that were simply "unwanted", but those incidents are measured under "sexual misconduct". 23.6% of female undergraduates experienced any form of sexual misconduct (see table 3-1). If you give that editorial a careful read, it's pretty clear that Taylor recognizes that the AAU distinguished between the two numbers, but he really words his editorial in a way that makes it sound like the study conflated a bunch of stuff that they actually didn't. Those more minor forms of misconduct are certainly important -- because they are behavior that would violate student codes of conduct at most universities -- but they aren't measured as "sexual assaults" by the researchers, and I think Taylor and others have been a tiny bit disingenuous in making that argument. The AAU researchers argue that their measure of sexual assault generally conforms to the legal definition of rape and battery -- some people might disagree, but we shouldn't present that argument as though it's an uncontested fact.

I don't want to present this as if "all of them" are in denial about the assault. What I have said is that we should include the ways that experts interpret those results, and we can contrast it with the way that critics view those results. Fisher actually doesn't cite "denial" as the primary motive in the section cited in the entry -- she argues that it's a rational cost benefit calculation for women who just don't believe they will benefit from going to the police. Most of the quantitative studies don't see that all women are in denial, but there are no studies that make the argument that Stuart Taylor makes. Whether it's correct or not, it's just not a mainstream viewpoint. I didn't write the section of the lead that you're discussing, and I agreed with you that we could take it out and put it in the body. My view is that this statistic is fine to discuss in the lower sections, but it's very easy to mislead people with this stuff if you aren't careful about providing adequate context, and I think you, of all people, should be sympathetic toward that concern.

There are reliable sources that mention this in relation to the AAU, but the problem is that you quote Stuart Taylor's argument -- at length -- but it doesn't really leave space for the rebuttal from experts. I could add in the response from people like Fisher, but it like that discussion is outside the scope of the AAU subsection. I can sort of see your case for including this stat in the AAU subsection, but, by including Taylor's assertion alongside it, you allow one particular side of the debate to make a claim without acknowledging the existence of a debate. Nblund (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we introduce the debate beforehand, that shapes things so comments like Taylor have some context. Also, doesn't the high level stat in the article "It found that more than 20 percent of female and 5 percent of male undergraduates said that they were victims of sexual assault and misconduct" conflate "Assault" and "Misconduct"? Although we have disagreed, I am not ignoring your points. For instance, the article doesn't say the "majority" responded that way, even though it would be factually accurate based on a weighted average. Taylor isn't the only one questioning this. Yoffe in Slate looks at reporting rates between the NSCV and AAU and notes the same detail, and remarks, "Even given the established reluctance of victims to report, there is an inexplicable chasm between the depredations that the survey portrays as a common experience and the low rate at which women go to the authorities." Regarding your preferred experts, "experts" can have a POV and Fisher certainly does. I took several of women's studies course in college (it was called that, in the day) and I read a lot of academic work that was firmly grounded Feminist theory. "Expert" doesn't mean unbiased.Mattnad (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really: 23.1% of women experienced sexual assault, 23.6% experienced sexual misconduct. It does help to add context, but it sort of seems like it gives the last word to Taylor, and, it also seems like it would be redundant to repeat the same argument twice. I agree with you that a number of people make this argument, which is why I think it's notable enough -- even though it's basically unanimously disputed by experts -- to be mentioned in the entry, but at a bare minimum, don't you think that it should be acknowledged that Taylor is making an argument that experts explicitly disagree with?

I never asked you to refrain from saying "a majority" give this response -- its factually correct to say that a majority gave this response and there's absolutely zero reason not to say so in the article. I am wholeheartedly opposed to fudging numbers, and it's not a compromise to offer to do so. You have let the totally unfair assumption that I am POV-pushing butt your ability to recognize common ground, and even when you're trying to compromise, you're still not even entertaining the idea that I might just be sincerely concerned about accuracy.

Here's what I'm hearing: you disagree with the views of experts in the field, and believe that they are biased and/or conducting agenda driven research. That's fine, and maybe you're right, but NPOV doesn't say that we discover the objective truth about a topic and then report it. Nor does it say we should reject experts because we suspect that they're feminists or that they are biased. We report the relevant viewpoints in accord with their prevalence among the best sources. I think you keep thinking I'm POV-pushing because you believe I'm arguing with you about who is right and who is wrong, but I'm really just saying these views are more prominent among experts and so they take precedence. Right or wrong, the overwhelming majority of experts who study rape and sexual violence in the US subscribe to the Fisher/Koss model, and there is no research that supports the arguments advanced by people like Taylor. Nblund (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about what has precedence in wikipedia, then we turn to WP:RS. We we have ample RS discussion about the AAU study in particular, including the quote from your expert Bonnie Fisher as originally quoted in the Washington Post (rather than being misinterpreted by other sources after the fact). Furthermore we are told to rely more on secondary sources, which gives priority to news coverage of the same. To apply older texts to a new study requires interpretation and assumptions on your part, which is WP:OR. Since you don't like Taylor, I'm open to using Yoffe's commentary instead.Mattnad (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't especially dislike Taylor, my problem is with presenting only one side of this debate. They're all making a variation on the same argument, one which has no support in empirical research and that has been specifically rebutted by experts. I haven't disputed the reliability of your sources, and I've said that we can include those arguments, so I don't think RS has much bearing on this issue. Since we aren't presenting Fisher's claim in Wikipedia's voice, it doesn't seem like RS is really an issue for any of the sources I'm discussing either, nor is the issue of primary sourcing vs. secondary. It's very difficult for me to see how you can justify presenting one side of the debate in that section while avoiding another -- it seems like you could use the same logic to insert all sort of pseudoscience and fringe theories in to scientific articles -- because academics either haven't engaged the argument explicitly, or simply because critics can produce editorial far more quickly than researchers can produce scientific rebuttals.

If you really think that we must include an argument for one side in that section while excluding the other, I don't see a good ground for compromise. I went ahead and made some minor changes to the wording, but I think we probably should post an RfC. This is what I have in mind to propose for options:

• Create a separate subsection that addresses the how academics who study sexual assault interpret the "not serious enough to report" response, and how critics of these studies in interpret it.

• Or mention Taylor's argument in the AAU subsection, but also cite arguments from past research that disputes his claim.

• Leave the entry as is.

Are there options that are missing or that you would prefer to see added or re-worded? Nblund (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and posted it. I also posted requests on the user talk pages of the editors who participated in the RfC and the DRN. If things appear to be deadlocked or are moving slowly, I think it might make sense to also post a notice asking for responses on the original research and/or the NPOV noticeboards. Nblund (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that I wasn't misrepresenting anything here. I would appreciate it if you would strikethrough that comment and try to be a little more civil during this process. Nblund (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Your comments about the clery act is a red herring. Yoffe cited the BJS as a foundation for comparison, and it indicates a far lower incidence rate than the 1 in 5. Your focusing on the later Clery Act details to disqualify her observations for the reasons for non-reporting (the core issue in the RFC) complete misdirection and misrepresentation of her argument. In other words, it's a deliberate attempt on your part to muddy the waters, no matter how egregious it is.Mattnad (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nblund's comment was completely accurate. It doesn't completely refute the arguments of Taylor and Yoffe but Nblund never claimed it did. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is a red herring and not topical to the content of the RFC. Basically what Nblund was insinuating is that Yoffe doesn't understand the reasons people under report because she separately cited overall under-reporting data from a yale Clery report. It's like saying we should ignore all of Yoffe's view, even those that are not related, because of this issue. That's misrepresentation, and misdirection. I'll add that the Mother Jones article did not address how Yale handles it's sexual assault reporting, so it's not at all accurate to apply it to Yale or to Yoffe's comments.Mattnad (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read Nblund's comment that way. It seemed to legitimately point out that some of the criticism in Taylor and Yoffe's analyses was much less damning than it appeared. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice it to say I've had a lot more experience with Nblund than you. Nblund has worked very hard to keep out the plain language of the AAU report says, as well as multiple reliable sources on the topic. Take a look at the links to major news sources I provided in the RFC and draw your own conclusions. You can also see the table transcribed from the AAU report in the previous RFC here. Nblund didn't want that data reported at all, and had since taken the position that it only can be reported if she gets to use a single sources she likes to explain it away. However, when you actually look what the source says, it's speculative reasoning, opinions, coming from "Feminist" opinions on the matter (per a quote from Nblund herself). And then we have Bonnie Fisher herself quoted saying this finding is new, per the Washington Post. Mattnad (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Mattnad: if you think there is misconduct going on, by all means: you should take it to a relevant venue and we can sort it out. Otherwise, you need to just drop it. Nblund (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my talk page and you are unwelcome. Your selective RFC that ignored my repeated position on the matter is evidence of your very bad faith. When you didn't like the RFC I constructed, I changed it. You on the other hand did not offer the same courtesy. Now, please stop stalking my talk page.Mattnad (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the wording of the RfC on your talk page and waited several days for your input before posting. That's not standard practice, but I thought it would be a good way to ensure that your preferred options were presented. What you wrote here isn't really neutral, and it seems hastily written and a little confusing. Since i'm not quite sure what it is you're trying to say, and I don't want to mischaracterize your position, I think it's better if you add the additional option yourself. Nblund (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As you have previously provided comment on the discussion in his article, I invite you now to please review and provide comment (if any) to the proposed alternatives located here. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until there is consensus to include the last name do not add it anywhere on Wikipedia. You can discuss it and link to articles to prove your side without actually adding it to the discussion. I have redacted the inclusion on the talk page and suppressed the edits that contained it. -- GB fan 14:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mattnad. 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)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Kathleen Kane Booking.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Majora (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note in addition to the auto-message above in case you don't see it on the file page before it is deleted. The public domain nature of government works is only automatic at the federal level. The states have their own rules and most of them maintain copyright protection over their work. Pennsylvania is not among the states that put things in the public domain. Only AR, CA, FL, and MA do that. See c:Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal) for the list of non-federal public domain related tags on Commons. --Majora (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AppleTV3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ADVERTISING AGE.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) 17:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Nathanson 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/Paul Nathanson 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.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Katherine K. Young 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/Paul Nathanson 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.

Hello, Mattnad. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dressed to kill book.png. 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) 18:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mattnad. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:400px-Wonderbra-TV-1975.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) 02:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I said I was open to working with you here, I meant it. If you want to try to propose something else, I'm open to it. If you want to open an RFC on the DOJ stats and get something more definitive, I'm open to that as well. But right now you're edit warring over a cleanup tag, and claiming that obvious opinion pieces are something else. That's not constructive, and it's not justifiable, especially in light of the response at WP:NPOVN. Nblund ^talk 15:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nblund The responses did not address the topic at hand. You were trying to remove some content related Hoff-Summers et al, without any context. You characterized them as inexpert which is your opinion, and people responded to your framing. Now you are using a couple of responses as justification to go after the BJS findings. No survey method is perfect, but the NCVIS is not like climate change denial. The NCVIS data leaves no room for ambiguity, or self selection bias and accordingly shows lower incident rates. The Koss-like surveys use extremely broad definitions, purposely as one person stated, to get to that 1 in 5 stat. And they overstate the prevalence accordingly. The realistic number is somewhere in between. You can't assume your preferred methodology is perfect when a majority characterized as victims of rape don't think what happened was serious. Adding that Dubious Tag is poor form IMHO.Mattnad (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Hoff Sommers is not an expert in any relevant field. That's a fact. It's also a fact that people like Mary Koss and Bonnie Fisher are experts. So they should be given greater weight. If you want to pursue that line of argument about expertise, I think you should take the initiative in opening that discussion somewhere, because I really think it's so obvious that it would be a waste of time to even debate.

Regarding the BJS: obviously there is no perfect method, but there are several bad ones. Reliable sources indicate that the NCVS is one of the bad ones. We can make some note of the discrepancy between that method and other surveys, but we can't give readers the impression that it is equally valid for measuring sexual violence unless you can support that claim with reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 16:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Wonderbra for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 20:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mediastream.png. 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) 17:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Selwinglogo.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) 17:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]