Hello, I saw you listed as a peer review volunteer and am wondering if you would be interested in reviewing [Draft: Christopher Hollins]. It is about an American policitian who is leading the charge in making sure all Harris County, Texans are able to vote by mail in the upcoming election. Harris County is a major county to watch because it is slated as a County that could determine whether Texas goes red or blue in November 2020 and Mr. Hollins' work will be instrumental in the outcome. BostickLaw (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:St Ives.JPG. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marshall46, I'm sure if one replies on the subject's discsssion page alone or to each contributor's own page, but there are a couple of comments over there about formulations, raw materials and pyroplasticity.ThanxTheriac 14:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Nantgarw bottle oven.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marshall46. You are off to such a great start on the article Tin-glazed pottery that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- JayHenry 04:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would have liked to nominate it but I was away. - Marshall46

Please can you take a look at Leach Pottery someone added a large chunk of text full of peacock terms and marketing copy...I edited it down but it got reverted...what do you think? Teapotgeorge 13:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:C100.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Set up the discussion page section, & links, correctly, & I will support (not sure about Japan). Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've started a basic portal? here... Portal:Ceramic Art Lots more to do... I've got to instruction number 3 Basically we need to follow the red links to create sub-pages that will fill the boxes. Teapotgeorge (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more in a random sort of way just to try and fathom how it all works. If you have any thoughts about what you want on the portal I'm happy to add it and feel free to change what I have done...it's your baby really! Teapotgeorge (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, your comment is by any measures fair. My original edits to that article were made before various current WP policies either existed or were widely enforced. I have been picked up on this before, but the "shifting sands" of the Internet have failed me in my attempts to locate the original documents from which my asrsertions were culled. I will once again attempt to find confirmation for my statements, but ultimately you must feel free to remove my (as they are now deemed) weasel words. PS4FA (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marshall46. Thank you for your note on the mysterious IP edit warrior. I understand that blocking editors working from revolving IP numbers is very difficult. The current best bet is to "protect the page" from being edited by anon IP users. This must be done by an administrator. If you have documented this user's pattern, please contact the administrator bishzilla _ROARR!! aka User:Bishonen. When I alerted her to this problem, she very kindly protected some pottery pages for me, at least for a short time. If you provide her with this documentation, perhaps we can impose on her on all the appropriate pages. Thanks for your interest. WBardwin (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks a lot better than it did a few days ago. Great work! I fixed a few minor typos and so forth, but nothing major. The only thing I would suggest is "ibid" shouldn't be used in the citation tags, as some other editor may introduce a different citation between the two, and the connection would then be lost. Other than that, it looks pretty good. I've removed both templates, as they are no longer needed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dopn't think you are meant to blank & copy a talk page like that - for one thing it means those with it on their watchlist lose the new one. I think you are supposed to go through Wikipedia:Requested moves. But really this should be discussed first. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, messages go on the user's talk page, not on their user page. I've moved your message to Johnbod to his talk page for you. Just remember this in the future- Thanks, Lithoderm 00:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - didn't see you were adding - I'll stop for now. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit. You did not move the text; you copy&pasted. You should have moved the text so that the edit history went with the text. No great harm done - at least you acknowledged the previous edits when you created Alfred Reynolds (writer) - but please remember that there is a move facility. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marshal, Check this link of the same website you removed ! Future Comic Art--Wiki4ata (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, with regards to this site, there have been a series of single-purpose accounts created exclusively to add links to it. At this point, it should be considered spam unless you see some value to it. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You might be interested... Rothorpe (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marshal, Regarding your comment on the page, which I really liked..."Just thought I would point out that the article on Tony Blair refers to critics or criticism of him 20 times and the article on Adolf Hitler refers to critics or criticism of him three times. Shurely shome mishtake."

I would like to be able to search things like that too. How do you do that? (Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Ah...easy peasy. Thank you. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Am intrigued by your edit to the George Orwell article. Your edit summary says "consolidating..." whereas in actual fact you deleted a substantial part. Neither my Oxford nor my Merriam-Webster give that nuance. Am therefore reverting your edit.--Technopat (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Marshall46. Sorry for not replying sooner. Just had a look at your new edit - have just added one bit that I thought curious and which helps explain matters to people who haven't yet read much on that particular issue. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Marshall46. Thanks for your latest comment. As you point out, context is key and it's all-too-easy to use things out of context. Great for soundbites but not much else.--Technopat (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw you listed as a peer review volunteer, and I thought you might be interested in giving Frenchification of Brussels a peer review. It details the process through which Brussels went from an all Dutch speaking city to a mostly French speaking city with a small Dutch minority, and the linguistic tensions associated with it. If you could lend a hand or some comments, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! -Oreo Priest ^talk 05:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might not know much about it, but then again almost no English speaker does. It's not as much the factual content that we're worried about as it is the language. It'd still be nice if you'd like to review it, but if you don't want to, that's ok too. Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 01:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall explain if necessary, but this is what I believe is verifiable in the article; the title should be changed to the above, or probably Conspiracy theories of Soviet influence on non-Soviet activist groups. Anarchangel (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would look at this, I would be most grateful. Seems almost finished to me...93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - it is an amazing piece, in my opinion.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to hear if you'd be interested in taking a look at the article Per Ahlmark, which I've submitted for peer-review. /Slarre (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ceramicsarticles.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claims about the KGB's supposed influence on the development of the nuclear winter hypothesis has been put on several Wikipedia pages.^[1] The claim originates in a book by journalist Pete Earley about the Russian defector and double agent Sergei Tretyakov.^[2] Tretyakov is the source of the claim. Here is a critical account.

Treyakov says that "nuclear winter" was a malicious invention of the KGB, involving faked data and a campaign of disinformation designed to mislead Western scientists. The entire programme of research into nuclear winter is supposed to have come about only because Western scientists were deceived by the KGB. The operation was supposedly carried out at the bidding of Yuri Andropov, at that time the head of the KGB. Tretyakov was not involved and says he was told about it by an unidentified former KGB official^[3] and that he researched it at the Red Banner Institute, the Russian spy school. He does not say when the disinformation campaign took place but from the context it seems that it occurred some time between 1979 and 1982.

Tretyakov says that the KGB started the campaign by commissioning two fraudulent scientific papers about the cooling of the atmosphere after dust storms - one allegedly by physicist Kirill Kondratyev, the other (which Earley calls "the Andropov doomsday report") allegedly by physicist Georgii Golitsyn and mathematicians Nikita Moiseyev and Vladimir Alexandrov. Tretyakov does not give the titles of the papers and says that they were never published because the KGB believed that Western scientists would think them "ridiculous".^[4] Instead, they disseminated their contents by "covert active measures".

Tretyakov says that Kondratyev's allegedly fake research was about the cooling effect of dust storms in the Karakum desert. Earley comments that "Konrayev's [sic] dramatic discovery was not the result of painstaking research, but the first step in a carefully orchestrated KGB propaganda campaign."^[5]

In fact, Kondratyev was an internationally respected member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences^[6] and his work in the Karakum desert was part of the Complex Atmospheric Energetic Experiment (CAENEX) project, which he had been working on between 1970 and 1975, outside of Tretyakov's time frame of 1979-82. Far from being part of a "carefully orchestrated KGB propaganda campaign", CAENEX was a joint Soviet/American exchange program between the U.S. National Science Foundation and the U.S.S.R. Hydrometeorological Service. A paper identical in content to the one that Tretyakov describes was published by Colorado State University in 1976 (outside Tretyakov's time frame) and was co-authored by Kondratyev with an American scientist, R.M.Welch: Kondratyev, et. al., Comparison between the measured and calculated spectral characteristics of shortwave radiation in the free atmosphere over the desert (1976). It is available online here.^[7] No-one other than Tretyakov has ever suggested it was fraudulent, written at the bidding of the KGB, "ridiculous" or unpublished.

There is no record of any paper written jointly by Golitsyn, Alexandrov and Moiseyev. The "Andropov doomsday report",^[8] which has never been produced and whose title has never been cited, is probably Tretyakov's confusion (deliberate or otherwise) of Golitsyin, Alexandrov, Moiseyev and Stenchikov's published papers.

These scientists published a number of papers that may be said to have played a part in the development of the nuclear winter scenario:

• Alexandrov and Moiseyev, "Model 'klimata i global' naya ekologiya", Nature , 9 , 1981 (an exposition of climate model and global ecology)

• Alexandrov, Moiseyev, et. al., Global models, the biospheric approach (1981)

• Alexandrov and Stenchikov, On the modelling of the climatic consequences of the nuclear war (1983)

• Moiseyev, Alexandrov, et. al., Global models, the biospheric approach: Theory of the Noosphere (1983)

• Alexandrov and Stenchikov, Numerical modeling of climatic consequences of nuclear war (1984)

• Golitsyn, Consequences of Nuclear War for the Atmosphere (1985)

But they were all published in academic journals or presented to international conferences, so they can't be the faked reports.

In 1981, Moiseyev and Alexandrov presented a paper on global atmospheric models to a forum held in Austria.^[9] Golitsyn's interest in global cooling following nuclear war dates from 1982, when he began to be involved in international discussions on the topic after reading articles in Ambio about the aftermath of nuclear war.^[10] Alexandrov and Moiseyev published "On the modelling of the climatic consequences of the nuclear war" in 1983.^[11] In 1983 they published "Global models, the biospheric approach" through the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.^[12] The key paper by Alexandrov and Stenchikov, "Numerical modeling of climatic consequences of nuclear war", was reprinted in the refereed journal USSR Computational Mathematics and and Mathematical Physics in 1984.^[13] Although actively involved in research, Golitsyn did not publish "Consequences of Nuclear War for the Atmosphere" until 1985.^[14]

Tretyakov claims that "Information from the study's key findings was distributed by KGB officers to their contacts in peace, anti-nuclear, disarmament, and environmental organisations in an effort to get these groups to publicise the propagandists' script."^[15] There is, however, no record of any discussion about nuclear winter outside of scientific circles in the West until late 1982, when the research on nuclear winter by Carl Sagan, Richard P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T.P. Ackerman and J.B. Pollack^[16] - the so-called TTAPS study - was publicised. Tretyakov does not specify what the "key findings" were.

Sagan, an anti-nuclear campaigner, spread the findings of the TTAPS study through the news media in order to influence public debate. Earley implies that Sagan's public role, which was unusual for a scientist if it did not actually breach scientific ethics, implicates him in the alleged KGB plot. To suggest that the authors of the TTAPS study relied on forged KGB data, Earley says that at a press conference in 1983 Carl Sagan cited "the Soviet study" in support of the TTAPS research,^[17] The paper Sagan was referring to was Alexandrov and Stenchikov's On the modelling of the climatic consequences of the nuclear war,^[11][18] which had been published in 1983. This makes nonsense of what Earley says for three reasons: (1) Sagan could not cite an unpublished report by the KGB or anyone else, (2) the paper he cited was published, and (3) it was published after the TTAPS study so it could not have influenced TTAPS.

Tretyakov says that the KGB then "targeted" Ambio, a refereed academic journal that published a key article in the development of the nuclear winter scenario. He suggests that the article would not have been written without the intervention of the KGB. According to Earley, in 1982, Jeannie Peterson, an editor at Ambio, asked Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen to write about the impact of nuclear blast on the atmosphere.^[19] His article, co-authored with John Birks, was called "Twilight at Noon". By April 1982 a draft of the Crutzen and Birks paper had been presented to a meeting of the US National Academy of Sciences by Turco.^[20][18] "Twilight at Noon" is mainly about particulates from large fires, nitrogen oxide, ozone depletion and the effect of nuclear twilight on agriculture. The "twilight at noon" of the title is not nuclear winter - that is to say, not a cooling of the global climate - but absence of sunlight, which they thought would reduce food production. All that Crutzen and Birks have to say about atmospheric cooling is contained in one sentence: "The normal dynamic and temperature structure of the atmosphere would therefore change considerably over a large fraction of the Northern Hemisphere, which will probably lead to important changes in land surface temperatures and wind systems."^[21]

Tretyakov does not explain in what sense Ambio was "targeted", but he implies that it commissioned articles as a result of receiving fraudulent, unpublished data that was circulated by the KGB, and that Crutzen and Birks used this data (despite the fact that, according to Tretyakov, the KGB judged it to be too ridiculous for any Western scientist to take seriously.) If Crutzen and Birks did use the data, there must be some trace of it in their paper, but there is none. Crutzen and Birks cited only data in Western publications and did not cite any work by Kondratyev, Alexandrov or Moiseyev. Nor did they make use of unattributed research or unsourced data that might conceivably be the KGB research. "Twilight at Noon" was refereed independently and if the paper made use of data for which Crutzen and Birks provided no citations - i.e., fraudulent data circulated to them by the KGB or, even more unlikely, data planted by the KGB in the peace movement and then picked up by them - one would expect the referees to have commented on it, but apparently they did not. Crutzen and Birks also acknowledge, in addition to the reading by referees, critical reading of the article in draft by another nineteen scientists. Apparently they did not notice the insertion of unreferenced data either. Tretyakov does not say which data in the article is fraudulent and neither Earley or anyone else has been able to identify it. It is hard to avoid the impression that neither Tretyakov or Earley have made a close reading of "Twilight at Noon". Earley admits that "There is no reason or evidence to suspect that Ambio, Crutzen or Birks knew the KGB were trying to instigate anti-US feeling by circulating fraudulent scientific data,"^[22] and he concedes that Peterson acted independently.

Two of the authors in the Ambio anthology were indeed from the Soviet Union: E.I.Chazov, a senior physician and a member of the Praesidium of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and M.E.Vartanian, a senior psychiatrist. If the KGB wished to influence Peterson, Crutzen and Birks they would have been a good conduit. Chazov and Vartanian wrote about the effect of nuclear war on human behaviour, not on global climate, citing only Western publications. Tretyakov does not mention them, nor do Crutzen and Birks. Not only is there no evidence of Chazov and Vartanian being used to communicate faked data by Golitsyn et.al., to Crutzen and Birks in order to encourage them to write about nuclear winter, it was the Chazov and Vartanian paper in Ambio that inspired Golitsyn to start researching the topic.^[10]

Tretyakov's story about an "Andropov doomsday report" pre-1982 is contradicted by no other than the CIA, who have said that there was no Soviet research on nuclear winter until 1983. They identify Alexandrov as the leading scientist in this field and say he was directed to shift his research to climatology in 1976, was sent to the US in 1978 to develop a computer program compatible with Soviet computers and in 1983, after the findings of the so-called TTAPS study were known, was directed to work on nuclear winter, "probably by Yevgeniy Velikhov, a vice president of the Academy of Sciences". According to the CIA, "Velikhov's interest in Nuclear Winter stems from his participation in international scientific forums and his responsibilities as director of the Soviet effort to develop supercomputers. He probably learned of Nuclear Winter at one of the numerous international conferences he attended and recognized its potential to contribute both to the Soviet knowledge of computer science and to influence international public opinion on the nuclear 'arms race'."^[23] Tretyakov does not acknowledge the importance of international conferences in disseminating scientific knowledge and the degree to which Soviet interest in nuclear winter developed from Soviet-American collaboration and comes across as singularly ill-informed about the development of the concept of nuclear winter and the scientists who worked on it.

According to Starley L. Thompson of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, the nuclear winter model was developed in the United States in the early 1970s.^[18] In the early 1980s, Western modeling of the atmosphere after a nuclear exchange was ahead of Soviet achievements, which Turco described as "weak" and "primitive".^[18] US scientists had been publishing reports on similar topics since the 1950s - e.g. S.Glasstone in 1957, R.U.Ayers in 1965, E.S.Batten in 1966 and 1974, J.Hampson in 1974 and the US National Research Council in 1975.^{[24][25][26][27][28][29]} In Earley's time frame of 1979-82, work on the role of aerosols in the climate system was already underway in the West.^[30] Work on the effects of nuclear war had been initiated by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences journal, Ambio in 1980, and the United States National Research Council had set up a study panel on the dust effects of a large exchange of nuclear warheads in December 1981.^[31] In 1985, Leon Gouré (a critic of the nuclear winter hypothesis) argued that the Soviet Union was promoting the nuclear winter hypothesis in order to demoralise the West, but, from an analysis of Soviet publications, he found that Soviet scientists had made no independent contribution to the study of nuclear winter and had uncritically taken worst-case scenarios from Crutzen and Birks, TTAPS and other Western sources.^[32]

Tretyakov claims only that the KGB influenced the Crutzen and Birks paper, but that was not the only Western research on nuclear winter before 1981, and his claim that the KGB initiated research in the West implies that it must have "targeted" not only the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences but also the US National Research Council and the US National Academy of Sciences. The lack of evidence and the assertion that influence was exerted via the peace movement makes this, to say the least, extremely unlikely. Tretyakov claims, essentially, that Western research on nuclear winter was based on Soviet propaganda; the evidence points in the opposite direction: Soviet propaganda about nuclear winter was based on Western research.

Tretyakov's conspiracy theory that the nuclear winter hypothesis was a KGB fraud is often repeated along with claims that the peace movement of the 1980s was backed by Russia. But repetition is not corroboration and it has never been corroborated. Concerning the peace movement, Tretyakov himself says that the Soviet Peace Committee, a Soviet government organization, funded and organized demonstrations in Europe against US bases.^[33] Investigations into these claims have been inconclusive^[34] and the judgment of the CIA and MI5 is that the KGB probably did not influence Western peace movements, but whether the claims are true or not, they have no bearing on the origins of the nuclear winter theory.

Tretyakov goes well beyond the reasonable and demonstrable claim that the Soviet Union promoted the nuclear winter scenario and the more doubtful claim that it promoted peace demonstrations in the West to say that the nuclear winter hypothesis was fabricated by the KGB. There is enough in his story that is true for it to be credible to people who are not familiar with the subject: Crutzen and Birks did write a key paper in Ambio; there was a Western campaign against Pershing missiles at the same time; Kondratyev did write about dust and climate in the Karakum desert; Alexandrov did produce a mathematical model; Golitsyn did write a key paper; Sagan was in touch with Golitsyn and Alexandrov and he did promote the nuclear winter hypothesis. But none of these facts, alone or together, are evidence of a KGB plot.

Much of the story is vague:

• an absence of of dates and names,
• no sources or documents cited,
• no citation of any of the discussions in the peace and environmental movement about nuclear winter that are supposed to have taken place before before 1982,
• no explanation about how these supposed discussions influenced Crutzen and Birks's researches into particulates from large fires,
• no information whatever about the way in which Ambio was targeted, or even what "targeted" means in this context;
• no identification of the allegedly fraudulent data in the Crutzen and Birks paper.

Most of the work leading up to the nuclear winter hypothesis was initiated in the West, mainly in the United States, and dates from the 1960s and 1970s. Kondratyev's work on dust storms was part of a joint US-Soviet project and was published in a refereed journal in the West in 1976. The key Russian research on nuclear winter by Golitsyin, Alexandrov and Stenchikov was started after the publication of the relevant edition of Ambio, and it was also published in refereed journals. The Crutzen and Birks paper in Ambio cites only research published in the West. At the time that the key TTAPS paper on nuclear winter was written, Soviet work on the topic lagged behind that in the West and Soviet interest in nuclear winter developed from their reading of Western papers, attendance at international conferences and a degree of Soviet-American scientific collaboration

Tretkavov is wrong about nearly everything concerning the development of the nuclear winter theory: wrong about the sequence of events leading to the development of the nuclear winter scenario, wrong about the work of Kondratyev, Golitsyin, Moiseyev and Alexandrov and wrong about Crutzen and Birks. He is the only source for the story and it has never been corroborated. It is impossible to investigate because Tretyakov does not give any sources.

There are several possible explanations for its inclusion in Tretyakov's narrative:

• First, it could be true, but there is no evidence whatever that it is. The supposedly bogus research cannot be identified apart from the Kondratyev paper, which was openly published and which no-one other than Tretyakov has said is bogus. There was no reference to any such research either in peace movement discussions, in Ambio or in anything Sagan wrote or said. If this KGB disinformation ever existed, it seems to have vanished without trace. The probability is that it never existed.

• Second, it could have been made up by the CIA, who fed Tretyakov to Earley, in order to discredit the peace movement. This is unlikely for two reasons. One, by the time the story broke in 2008, nuclear winter was old hat, the Cold War was over and the peace movement of the early 1980s was no longer important. Two, the CIA, in a paper published under FoI, are now known to contradict Tretyakov and to say that Soviet research into nuclear winter did not start until 1983.

• Third, it could have been put together by Tretyakov to ingratiate himself with the CIA. In view of the above, this is also unlikely. Tretyakov was a highly valued and well-paid defector and had no need to impress the CIA by making anything up.

• The fourth possibility is that the story began as empty boasting by an ex-colleague of Tretyakov's, that Tretyakov was gullible and that either he or his informant muddled the Soviet research on climatic modelling, dust storms and the aftermath of nuclear war and sexed up his account for Earley, and that Earley accepted it in good faith without critical examination. Tretyakov says he was told the story by an ex-KGB agent and that he read about the operation in the Red Banner Institute.^[35] It would be interesting to see what documents he read in the Red Banner Institute but he does not identify them and he is now dead. Until they are produced one can only conclude that the story was a fabrication. This is the only credible explanation. As was said of another Communist defector, Ion Mihai Pacepa, “It is necessary to take into account that spies need to justify their existence and must give value to things that have very little importance or none at all.”^[36]

Finally, it is important to note that most of Earley's account actually doesn't come from Tretyakov and it isn't about the supposed KGB fraud. It's about Carl Sagan, whom Earley appears to have a particular animus against and whom he singles out for special attack. Earley quotes only critics of the nuclear winter hypothesis and not the scientists who support it. Most of his account is unoriginal and its lifted from "The Scandal of Nuclear Winter" by Brad Sparks (National Review, November 15, 1985), and "The Melting of "Nuclear Winter" by Russell Seitz (Wall Street Journal, December 12, 1986).^[37][38] Marshall46 (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A further motive might have been to elevate the status of Soviet research in the field, which lagged behind that in the West. As it could be easily established that the Soviets had published nothing on the topic, it could only be claimed that they had carried out unpublished research. Tretyakov finally turned against the Soviet Union, but his sources for this story were active agents, who remained loyal. The aim may have been to denigrate Western science. Pelarmian (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ [1][2][3][4][5]
2. ^ Pete Earley, Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia's Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War, New York: Berkley Books, 2009
3. ^ Earley, p.177
4. ^ Earley, p.171
5. ^ Earley, p.170
6. ^ Cracknell et, al., "The Seminal Nature of the Work of Kirill Kondratyev", Global Climatology and Ecodynamics, Springer, 2008
7. ^ K.Kondratyev, R.M.Welch, O.B.Vasiliev, V.F.Zhalev, L.S.Ivlev and V.F.Radionev, "Comparison between the measured and calculated spectral characteristics of shortwave radiation in the free atmosphere over the desert", Atmospheric Science Paper No.261, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 1976
8. ^ Earley, p.175
9. ^ Alexandrov, V. V., Lotov, A. V., Moisseiev, N. N., and Svirezhev, Yu. M, Global models. The biospheric approach: Theory of the noosphere, paper presented at the Global Modeling Forum, Global Modeling at the Service of the Decision Maker. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 14-18 September 1981.
10. ^ ^{a b} Vladimir Gubarev, "Tea Drinking in The Academy. Academician G. S. Golitsyn: Agitations of the Sea and Earth", Science and Life, (Nauka i Zhizn), No.3, 2001 In Russian
11. ^ ^{a b} Alexandrov, V. V. and G. I. Stenchikov, "On the modelling of the climatic consequences of the nuclear war", Proceeding of Applied Mathematics, 1-21, The Computing Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1983
12. ^ N. N. Moiseev, V. V. Alexandrov, V. F. Krapivin, A. V. Lotov, Y. M. Svirezhev, A. M. Tarko, "Global models, the biospheric approach: Theory of the Noosphere", International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, July 1983, CP-83-33, p. 1-50, 01.1983
13. ^ Zh. Vychisl. Mat. i Mat. Fiz (USSR Computational Math. and Math. Phys.), 24, No. 1, pp.140-144, See Stenchikov's CV.
14. ^ G. S. Golitsyn, "Consequences of Nuclear War for the Atmosphere", Priroda (Moscow, Russ. Fed.), No. 6, 8 (1985). For a complete list of Golityn's publications see "On the 75th Birthday of Academician Georgii Sergeevich Golitsyn",Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, 2010, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 1–5
15. ^ Earley, p.171
16. ^ Brian Martin, "Nuclear winter: science and politics", Science and Public Policy, Vol. 15, No. 5, October 1988, pp. 321-334
17. ^ Earley, p.175
18. ^ ^{a b c d} Laurence Badash, A Nuclear Winter's Tale, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2009 Cite error: The named reference "badash" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
19. ^ In fact, Crutzen was invited to contribute by Peterson in 1981, not 1982.
20. ^ Paul Crutzen, Nobel Prize Lecture
21. ^ Paul J. Crutzen and John W. Birks, "The Atmosphere after a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon", in Nuclear War - The Aftermath, Pergamon Press, 1983, pp.73-96
22. ^ Earley, p.172
23. ^ [http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000284025.pdf The Soviet Approach to Nuclear Winter], CIA, December 1984
24. ^ S.Glasstone (ed.), The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1957
25. ^ R.U.Ayres, Environmental Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Vol.2. Hudson Institute, 1965, report no. HI 518
26. ^ E.S.Batten, The Effects of Nuclear War on the Atmosphere and Climate, Rand Corporation Study RM-4989-TAB, 1966
27. ^ E.S.Batten, The atmospheric response to a stratospheric dust cloud as simulated by a general circulation model, 1974
28. ^ J. Hampson, "Photochemical war on the atmosphere", Nature 250, 189-191, 19 July 1974
29. ^ US National Research Council, Long-term worldwide effects of multiple nuclear weapons detonations, Washington DC, National Academy of Sciences, 1975
30. ^ Ruth A. Reck, "The role of aerosols in the climate system: Results of numerical experiments in climate models", Advances in Space Research, Volume 2, Issue 5, 1982, Pages 11-18
31. ^ The Effects on the Atmosphere of a Major Nuclear Exchange, Committee on the Atmospheric Effect of Nuclear Weapons, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Resources, National Research Council (National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1985)
32. ^ Leon Gouré, Soviet Exploitation of the 'Nuclear Winter' Hypothesis, Science Applications Internations Corporation, 5 June 1985
33. ^ Earley, pp.169-177
34. ^ John Kohan, "The KGB: Eyes of the Kremlin", Time, 14 February 1983
35. ^ Now the Academy of Foreign Intelligence [AVR]
36. ^ Victor Gaetan, "'Disinformation' and a Dubious Source", National Catholic Register, 8 October 2013
37. ^ "Debunking Pete Earley's Comrade J
38. ^ "The Melting of "Nuclear Winter" by Russell Seitz

I'd like to commend you on your efforts to flesh out this claim.

As I too agree that Tretyakov's claim is suspect due to the chronology of the published papers.

However it should be in the article page as the FBI also seem to agree with Tretyakov's claim.

The Targeting of Sensitive, Proprietary, and Classified Information on Campuses of Higher Education-

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence/higher-education-and-national-security

The KGB had the report published in a Swedish journal. In the intelligence world, this is called disinformation. Disinformation may be blatant deception or small fabricated kernels in a large milieu of reliable facts. In the academic arena where research is often based on previous research, when results from a study can be shared quickly and easily with other researchers, it is important to science that people share accurate results. If subsequent research is based on incorrect data, many of those subsequent conclusions could be inaccurate as well.

The same document but in PDF

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/counterintelligence/higher-education-national-security

Further references can be found on the page Soviet influence on the peace movement and yet more are linked to it in the nuclear winter talk page. There is now certainly sufficient support for Tretyakov's claim to be included in the article, despite the chronology not being right. However I agree that any addition of this claim to the article should include that Tretyakov gets the Chronology of events wrong. Though simply because the Chronology is wrong doesn't mean it isn't worthy of addition. The FBI are certainly not a fringe organization.

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again I wish to commend you on your efforts but seen as this appears to be the most, repeatedly edited issue, on the nuclear winter article along with having noticed you only appear motivated to edit the article when it has something to do with this shaky claim. I'll first start by expressing that I don't think it even really matters if the KGB fed disinfo to western scientists. However for arguments sake, and in the same vein of piercing speculation, which you engage in above. I have noticed were there is a possibility for this "KGB disinfo" to have occurred, which you may have overlooked.

Essentially what I'm speculating is, even if we throw out Tretyakov's claim and we instead assume good faith from the beginning, believing for talks sake that Kondratyev's 1976 desert sand/dust storm, Soviet-US research paper really was initially conducted with noble intentions.

Let's assume that, Kondratyev, or someone else in the Soviet sphere, then noticed that the conclusions or data collected for this paper turned out to be faulty. That is, it generates hilarious "doomsday reports", due to, for example, primitive computer models or even a malfunctioning piece of data recording equipment at the time.

What I'm wondering is, under this scenario, would the KGB really have allowed Kondratyev to pick up the phone to contact the americans to say, "hey, my bad"? I doubt it. Considering the climate of bravado and saving face, at all costs, that prevaded the Soviet Union. Plus I'm pretty sure the KGB would be more than happy to see the west get led down the Garden path, and to watch them build ever more "sophisticated" models with ultimately faulty Soviet data behind it all. What is Spy-craft but troll-craft after all? In any case, some 3-5 years elapses from the date of this paper and in the mean time it no doubt went on to influence western papers and scientists, who cite it either directly or indirectly, and the westerners are at the least influenced or convinced that their models are correct in part because of this prior, "international" Soviet-US research.

Enter Crutzen and Birks, who come along ~5 years later and being fans of science fiction as boys, having either read the 1960s story Twilight World by Poul Anderson or seen as Crutzen is Dutch, and the Fimbulwinter story is part of many-a-countries mythology and common vernacular, he's influenced by that instead. In either case, they go on and base their interpretation of how soot would behave in the atmosphere from prior western research, and some or all of that may have had a major direct or indirect influence from the [faulty] Kondratyev paper. So what I'm getting at is, no KGB-field-agent need have been involved, yet still, the KGB could take credit for "nuclear winter" results in a round-about-away because they allowed the propagation of faulty papers to continue to be distributed without correction, so a vast conspiracy need not have been involved.

In any case, Crutzen and Birks are there 5 years later and in their own words they say that they were feeling kind of deflated at the time, due to Crutzen's earlier fireball-NOx-ozone-doomsday scenario that he had earlier promoted, having evaporated as a concern by the 1980s, so they're sitting there trying to get the doomsday results they want to achieve and as Crutzen and Birks would've had dust storms foremost on their mind, as at the time, that was how atmospheric scientists were approaching the other trendy doomsday question of - cooling effects from dust/fallout...they think to themselves, if we import "soot" in, as a replacement for dust into the already established dust-storm models, we could have the doomsday result we want to achieve! Yay.

With this Twilight at Noon paper by Crutzen and Birks, they claim they just "chance[d] upon" the fundamentals of the nuclear winter scenario, although you and I both know that it really did exist in the realm of popular science fiction for decades, so the duo are kind of spreading disinfo themselves here about "chancing upon it". In any case, the duo follow the exact same "how do we model this?" path used by the later TTAPS team, which is to simply apply the already established dust-storm physics models to the completely separate aerosol species of soot. [Then they hope no one really notices the pretty suspicious/fraudulent hand-waving, about how sand and soot are allegedly great analogs of each other, when really they're not.(by the way, they still don't actually have the ability to convincingly model soot rain-out, to this day, they just assume an arbitrary precentage gets rained out, as the computer power to do this doesn't really exist).]

So as you can see, the research liniage is certainly there, from sand or dust-storm models to nuclear winter models, and of all the people in the world I might write this to, I know you're aware of that.

A paper identical in content to the one that Tretyakov describes was published by Colorado State University in 1976 (outside Tretyakov's time frame) and was co-authored by Kondratyev with an American scientist, R.M.Welch: Kondratyev, et. al., Comparison between the measured and calculated spectral characteristics of shortwave radiation in the free atmosphere over the desert (1976). It is available online here.^[1] No-one other than Tretyakov has ever suggested it was fraudulent, written at the bidding of the KGB, "ridiculous" or unpublished.

On this last opinion of yours that I've highlighted in bold, while true, it is also equally true that no one has ever come out and individually suggested every single paper on the climate from the 1800s was wrong. Even though they all are. As what happens in science, is that they say the results were "refined" in later years. This is just a courtesy, what they're really saying is that they were wrong before. As it relates to nuclear winter, no one needs to come out and say this paper was wrong by name.

Nor in general, do we really need someone to come out and say all these, in hindsight, really hilariously primitive 1970-90s calculations or models of aerosols in the atmosphere, were wrong, because it's a given. Larely because you only have to look at the faulty predictions made by Crutzen and the TTAPs team to see that their doomsdayism in 1991, with their kuwait oil fires predictions, was no surprise, completely wrong.

Just like how no climate scientist that I've ever talked to would bet their careers on nuclear winter predictions being accurate if some arsonist lit 100+ forest firestorms next summer. The experiment data leads one to believe it wouldn't cool the hemisphere by much at all and the cooling wouldn't last for more than a few weeks. No climate scientist ever bets on nuclear winter being right because if they really truly believed the predictions of "nuclear winter" then they would also be telling us that forests are "climate weapons of mass destruction" merely waiting to be lit. So I don't think even the authors of "new" papers, like Alan Robock, really truly believe their modern papers on "nuclear winter". As nuclear winter defector William Cotton exposed, the whole thing was and continues to be politically motivated from the beginning.

In fact, I'll make a prediction with you, every time world politics takes a turn for a few months, we will always be treated with another "nuclear winter" paper. We won't get a "new" paper when new data emerges like what happens in all the other real science-fields, because it is pretty obvious that the whole concept is "politically motivated from the beginning." It's a shame really, as I would like to see the whole hypothesis safely tested and experiments to refine the models.

In any case, my main point above about KGB disinfo, is complete speculation on my part, but I thought it could be something for you to bear in mind. As it is at least plausible.

Personally though I don't really care how "nuclear winter"/firestorm winter was popularized, as it would've come about in the mind of many a lay-man and scientist alike anyway, just as it did come to the minds of science-fiction authors in the 1960s, so this whole "KGB claim" is pretty much a side-show to me. What I'm more interested in, is what can be known with certainty, such as experimental results of actual fires etc. In that respect, I kind of wish that arsonist would get cracking on those fires, or for natural events to light a few hundred firestorms in a short space of time, because then we'd know with certainty. Plus, if the winter predictions prove accurate, Crutzen pointed out we'll be forestalling global warming for a few years with these forest fires. So why not, give it a whirl? Boundarylayer (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you improved the section on Challenor and used an article that Donald wrote for Anarchy as a reference. Is this available online? Or do you have access to it some other way? The reason I'm asking is that the detail of Donald knowing to get his jacket tested because of his membership of the NCCL is a detail I remember from an article in Freedom to which I no longer have access. I wonder whetehr Donald mentioned this detail in the Anarchy article.

Happy Hannukah if you believe in such things.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marshall46. It' Theologiae here. I totally agree with your ideas on improving the Italian modern and contemporary art page. It's a bit clumsy. I created it 'cause I thought it was important, but unfortunately, I'm not an exceptional art expert. Considering your knowledge, maybe you could improve the page or ask other expert editors to help. Cheers and reply!--Theologiae (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you've reintroduced a hard-coded thumbnail size on one of the A&C images.

Are you familiar with WP:MOSIMAGES, and MediaWiki's ability to show thumbnails at a user's personal preference for size (your my preferences tab?

There are a couple of problems with hard-coding the thumb sizes, which is why I recently removed them all from the A&C article. They force sizes onto users (inc. anon IPs) when they may be inappropriate for their displays. The A&C article in particular had some tiny ones. Secondly, logged in users may have deliberately chosen their preferred thumbnail size, and we shouldn't over-ride such a thing.

For hard-coded sizes beneath 300px, I'd certainly remove them. At 300px, it's slightly increasing the size over most defaults, but still shrinking it in some cases. It's also quite awkward for users with small palmtop screens.

In general, I believe (as does WP:MOSIMAGES) that we're better leaving sizes at "thumb" and encouraging more widespread use of the preference setting. There's also an "upright" setting that's useful too. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall, good night. I saw on peer review volunteers page that you enjoy "19th and 20th century Europe". Could you open an exception and take a look at the article Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná and share your thoughts to what it needs to be nominated for featured article? It is about a leading Brazilian politician when Brazil was an Empire in the 19th century. Anyway, even if you are not interested, thank you for your time. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice fix. [6] --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am leaving this message because I saw your name in peer review volunteers' list. I have proposed the article Jhalkaribai for peer review in Society and Social Sciences topic at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jhalkaribai/archive1. I would like if you can make some suggestions. Shivashree · talk 04:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I will try to make the changes you suggested. By the way, this article is in the row for DYK if you can check WP:TDYK. Thanks once again. Shivashree · talk 11:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome Marshall46. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on David Leach (potter) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the arts and crafts topic.

It was a bit of a mess and difficult to know where to start. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to add a piece about Whiteley Village? The Village has c. 300 cottages, all built in the Arts & Crafts style - I am told it is the largest collection of such buildings in the UK. We are just starting to create a Museum and Visitor Centre in the Village.

I am a newbie on here - any help would be mouch appreicated. Whiteley Village PR (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I merely tried to write objectively what most scientist think about the subject, and objectively what most continents think w/out any personal POV. Please fell free to extend the body of the article, or modify my intro, but I definitely think it should stay here as a definer of modern-day thinking.--Little sawyer (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Congratulations on all your work on Appeasement. Given your interest in this topic area I hope you won't mind my respectfully reminding you that Clement Attlee is spelt thus, with two Ts in his surname. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Noted. Marshall46 (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Sorry, I know I sound like my granny sometimes ... thanks for not minding! :) DBaK (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Peace Barnstar
		Thanks for your great work on the Peace symbols page. You're really transforming it from a collection of off-the-cuff guesses into a well-cited, scholarly article. Kudos!

Qwyrxian (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Marshall46 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the courtesy of your note. My only concern is that both articles are somewhat long, so merging them might prove difficult. On the other hand, a fresh eye might find a large amount of material to cut. Either way, I appreciated your notification. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you would be interested in reviewing Leslie Hunter for me? I am hoping to move it towards FA standard, and would love some feedback. Thanks.--Korruski^Talk 09:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do much on Wikipedia any more. I should have taken my name off the peer-review list. Marshall46 (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Richard Slee (artist) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. LordVetinari (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lisa Hammond requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Strikerforce (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you're essentially the main contributor to the article Appeasement. I am well versed in the subject, and do find it pretty interesting. I have lots of references on it. I was thinking of trying to bring it up to FA status - I noticed that you were hoping to do this a few years back when it was peered reviewed -. Are you in interested in working together? Best. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 21:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having the same issue with what I believe to be the same editor as you had at Bisque (pottery). Any comments or help would be appreciated. VMS Mosaic (talk)

Thanks for the superior reference for "glaze firing", I find it astonishing that it should cause such anger! RegardsTheroadislong (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Slee (artist) 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/Richard Slee (artist) 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 good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kinu ^t/_c 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you would be interested in reviewing the article on the Norwegian visual artist Frithjof Tidemand-Johannessen (1916-1958)? WK-en (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was wondering if you could review the selected page as it seems to be the most comprehensive of its type, certianly otuside the english-speaking world. Any and all help will be appreciated as we seek to FA the article.

And if you need me to reciprocate as a third-eye on another article ill be glad to help.

ThanksLihaas (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the correct spelling is without the apostrophy. The Italian version article reports him without it, so I think it's more reliable than you Anglophone source, which are notoriously a disaster with Italian spellings. Ciao e buon lavoro. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, OK, now I understood why here it was written "Filli'à"! Another of the examples I was telling you before... I wonder why apostrophies are so problematic for Anglophones. Anyway, differently from Spanish, in Italian the apostrophies which are not placed on the very last letters are not official. They are just added sometimes to help the reader to pronounce the name correctly, especially when many could fail due to a more common attitude to similar names. For example, before you correction I had always spelled it "Fìllia" instead of "Fillìa". Another example, Benetton is often mispelled as Bènetton instead of the correct Benettòn. But you can see in the company name there's no apostrophy. Anyway your correction is useful and I think it can stay as it is. Thanks and good work from --'''Attilios''' (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Martin Smith (ceramist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sean ^{(Ask Me?)} 20:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, even my grand mama (god bless her),, she's a professor, should I add her to Wikipedia? LOL! No problem my friend, feel free to do the good things, but remember, the most important in Wikipedia is the sources. So gather 'em as you can. Peace out! :) Sean ^{(Ask Me?)} 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, take your time and I'll try to help you. Sean ^{(Ask Me?)} 20:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is he this one (http://www.cardesignnews.com/servlet/file/97284_68_preview.jpg?ITEM_ENT_ID=97284&ITEM_VERSION=1&COLLSPEC_ENT_ID=1&FILE_SERVICE_CONF_ID=68)

Sean ^{(Ask Me?)} 20:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an (inbox) into the article, try to fill the fields.. Sean ^{(Ask Me?)} 20:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you had an interest in Western European history 19th and 20th century. I'm looking for a peer review on an article and wondered if I could have your input. Camberwell Cemeteries Thanks Nshimbi (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Festival of Britain, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Skylon and Barbara Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Aldo Capitini, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Liberal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Aldo capitini.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 12:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Marshall,

I am translating the Chinese version of "the Legal history of Chinese Americans" into English. Since we are talking about 1785 to current, it is a lot of work and I would like to get help from Wiki editors most of whom are excellent writers.

I was told that Wiki is free source and its articles can be "copied and past". It turned out to be wrong information. In order to complete this worthwhile project, I would like to hire some one to do the writings.

Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric hsu1222 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Sourdough, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your excellent help with the Sourdough article! Gzuufy (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Marshall46 (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asked "Most of leavening is done by the yeast, not the bacteria. Is this statement from Reinhart?" I'm not sure I can find the precise statement to which you refer on the current page. In your edit accompanying that question, I cannot find it "nearby", though it does sound familiar. It's too bad publishers or Google decide to close down a previously viewable page that is cited, as appears to have been done with Reinhart's Crust and Crumb. Sometimes they become viewable again at a later date. I believe the Reihnart citation applies only to the last sentence before the cite, the diastatic malt sentence, but it was long enough ago that I don't recall precisely what he asserted. Reinhard does say something similar to that in Bread Baker's Apprentice. The two sentences "Using water from boiled potatoes is said to increase the activity of the bacteria by providing additional starch. Some bakers recommend unchlorinated water for feeding cultures" which occur prior to it were there when I started working on the page, and those phrases sound more like Laurel Robertson's advice from her/his whole grain book. So far as I know, that work is not cited on the Sourdough page. That work has some info regarding Desem bread, which the article also mentions, but I've only read snippets of that work online at Google Books in relation to old-fashioned bread improvers (like potato starch), and cannot attest to its other contents. Hope that helps. You could always go into "the hall of obscure records" and try to determine who added those sentences when, but those editors may be long gone. Gzuufy (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying about the symbol, but as the CND symbol does indeed resemble that of a Panzer regiment(whether it be the 3rd or 4th) it should be included in the article.

Do you not agree? I think completely removing the reference was a bit unnecessary as I would agree with a collaborative rewrite with you. Boundarylayer (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Original research, nor is it a fringe theory. I didn't say Holtom was a panzer tanker, all that was said, with the attached reference, was that the symbol has ancient roots, with a detailed and diverse history.

Surely you acknowledge this as self evident?

http://www.teachpeace.com/peacesymbolhistory.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 18:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with the times article, however I would not cherry pick what it says, I would include the whole article. experts in symbolism have also noted that the symbol had previously been used by the Norse, & because of that, by the Nazis.

In the Times article in question it states ' some experts say the logo was a letter in an ancient Nordic alphabet. ' However this factual statement, by experts, is presently in no way reflected in the CND wikipedia article you edit. Instead the wikipedia article, that you wrote, at present tries to paint anyone who points out the obvious fact that the CND symbol and the 3rd panzer Division's insignia are identical as all 'Right wing' and by extension, every expert in symbolism, as instant right wingers/Christians/occultists. That is clearly false, and pretty malicious to say the least.

Again, here on an encyclopedia which deals with symbols, it again reiterates that the circled Todesrune/CND symbol is ancient, well outdating the CND.

http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/24/247.html

Where I'm coming from, is the viewpoint that accurately presenting the historical usage of symbols is what must be done. Take for example a wikipedia article on a symbol that has been done right, the Swastika page. You will see that the page accurately lays out the entire history of this ancient and controversial symbol, with the first appearance of it thousands of years ago etc.

Moreover on the Swastika page you will not find any mention or even suggestion that the organization most western people associate with the symbol - the Nazi's, or Hitler, invented the symbol. However when it comes to the CND here on wikipedia it is falsely stated many times that Gerald Holtom solely invented the symbol. Zero mention is given to the fact that the symbol had previously been used by the Norse and the Nazis. So imagine for a second that an organization happens to pop up now and adopts a logo identical to that of any one of the symbols used by the Nazis, and the organizations story is that they invented the symbol themselves(which may indeed be true). Are you honestly saying that not a single mention should be given to the fact that the symbol had already been used by the Nazis, even though experts in symbolism pointed out the striking similarity?

By the way,* to reply to the point of view that TransporterMan was making, it does not, in any reference, state that the John Birch society noted the similarity between the 3rd Pz Div & the CND logo in an attempt to discredit the organization. On the contrary, all it states in the times article is that the extreme society noted an ' ominous similarity '. Nothing more. I haven't read the original John Birch publication but the times article only states that they observed an ' ominous similarity '.

If one follows the reference you Pelarmian supplied that alledgedly backs up the wild claim- that the John Birch society wrote about the similarity in an attempt to discredit the organization/CND- it links to http://www.peacesymbol.com/photos.php where the author writes that ' 'The Christian Century, a magazine that examined issues of politics and culture wrote, "The bumper sticker which labels the peace sign as the 'Footprint of the American Chicken' – is a sticker which has been distributed by the John Birch Society in an attempt to discredit the peace movement."

So are the references to second hand accounts presented by Pelarmian which ultimately come from the opinions of a Christian magazine deemed as good sources on wikipedia? because I certainly hope not! Even if they were, the magazine discusses the unrelated similarity between the CND logo and the footprint of the american chicken, and not the similiarity between the 3rd panzer division logo and the CND, which is being debated here. So apart from Pelarmians reference ultimately being the unreliable opinion of a christian magazine, it doesn't even discuss the Nazis, or show the insignia of the 3rd panzer division in the magazine.

So our Third Opinion Wikipedian is unfortunately wrong when he stated that the following statement is true- The fact that the claim that the symbol was once used by the Nazis has been used to attempt to discredit the organization. As I haven't read from any reliable sources that this is a fact. If you find a reliable source, I'd love to see it, it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibilty.

Boundarylayer (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, in an effort to have us talk about something else, like normal people. I was wondering what Kiln would you recommend that was most suited to - Pottery, Glass blowing and smelting work? I'd love to have a single kiln/furnace instead of requiring 3 seperate dedicated devices. I can imagine I would have to compromise on having the best Pottery kiln around, if it was also suitable for both glass and smelting work, but I'm still wondering if such a one size fits all approach would be possible? Do you know if there are any modular kiln/furnaces capable of excelling in all three roles?

Seen as you appear to be active in pottery, I figured you might be the person to ask?

I appreciate your thoughts,

Boundarylayer (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with compromising with me and including essentially that which is contained in the peace symbol article on the explanation of the CND symbol?

Thank you for uploading File:Colin Pearson bowl.JPG.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly ^hi! 08:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pelarmian; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:St Ives.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have replied to your comments at the deletion discussion. The key point is that Wikipedia's fair use policy is more restrictive than US law and even though we legally could use the image, we choose to only use images where we cannot reasonably expect someone to produce a free equivalent. --B (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dora Billington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tunstall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pelarmian :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- I was wondering if you could do me a HUGE favor and look at my peer review for Ann Rivers. I am interested in taking it to FA level and think you could help! Thanks! PrairieKid (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pelarmian,
I saw that you are listed as a peer reviewer for articles regarding society. I translated an article with some friends of mine from German to English and added it to WP a few days ago. As I'm not a native speaker (and only two of my friends are "half-natives"), I would love to have the article be checked by a native English speaker. The article deals with a typical old-school European fraternity that is only somewhat similar to what people know in the US and Canada as student societies. We also listed the article for a good article review and hope that the peer review will result in synergies.

The review can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Corps_Altsachsen_Dresden/archive1

Thank you for your help :) Cheers, --WikimanGer  ^{Talk • Mail}   17:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anti-war#Requested move. Thanks. [[ User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. You said, "The academic studies and the political movements may not belong in the same place". I think "peace studies" covers this. Viriditas (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pelarmian. Thank you. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this edit. What is the significance of the change? Do you have a source, or some other reason, for making it? My concern is that it implies that homeopathy actually alters the structure of water, an unproven claim. Dilution is the more common term, but maybe you've got some good reason. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Way back in 2008, you you supported the suggestion that Pikey was better off as a dictionary definition. I recently converted the page to soft redirect to the Wiktionary definition. That has now been reverted, if you are sill interested in the subject perhaps you would like to have another look at talk:Pikey. -- PBS (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hatfield, Hertfordshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Odeon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arts and Crafts movement may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• PA31 |year=2005 | publisher=Yale University Press |location=New Haven, CT |isbn=0300109393 |page=}}</ref> although the principles and style on which it was based had been developing in England for

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. What is the source for this photo? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=444803679018429&set=p.444803679018429&type=1 Pelarmian (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I only had the rough version from http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/94681318?searchTerm=nimbin%20masonic&searchLimits= a repository of digitised newspapers etc from Australia and having cleaned up the OCR for that article, copied it over to "Nimbin Hook Ups" - a discussion page for residents of Nimbin village. I was quite lucky in that one of the viewers had an original of the same photograph and they posted it, though the "peace symbols" are visible in both. Seasalt (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your name in the list of Peer review volunteers interested in politics. Can you please do a peer review of article Hina Rabbani Khar.?RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, on Talk:Earthenware I added the unsignedIP template for the IP user who did not sign their comments based on the history of the talk page. I found the conversation confusing due to the unsigned comments - guess the bot isn't working! I thought I would let you know since you participated in the conversation. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 22:55, 28 July 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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		In recognition of your slow, quiet, careful and painstaking work over many years, notably on Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and Soviet influence on the peace movement, but also on many other articles. As a result we now have well-written and genuinely useful articles that are a pleasure to read, work that is deeply appreciated. --NSH001 (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited City of St Albans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Democrat. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

History of St Albans

added a link pointing to St Germanus

St Albans

added a link pointing to St Germanus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of St Albans may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• //www.stalbanscathedral.org/history/story-of-st-alban St Albans Cathedral, "The Story of St Alban"]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peace symbols may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• /ref> In the Middle Ages, some Jewish manuscripts, which were often illustrated by Christians,<ref>[http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/golden.html?ns_campaign=treasures&ns_mchannel=ppc&

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2016 (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 Appeasement page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's me Boundarylayer, but I'm away from home and can't remember my password. 109.125.17.197 (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply.

Boundarylayer (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lewis Foreman Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merchant Taylors' School. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your attention - [7] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I was wondering if you could help out in the peer review on George Town, Penang. I would like some feedback as this article has been vastly improved and I want to see if it can be pushed to GA status.

Thanks. Vnonymous 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi I am new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if this is not the correct place to ask for help. I recently created an article for David Benac, but it needs reviewing. Any help would certainly be appreciated. It is wonderful that you offer your time. Thanks Nicool9 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Nicool9[reply]

Thanks for creating Bernard Moore (potter), Pelarmian!

Wikipedia editor Mduvekot just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on Mduvekot's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Mduvekot (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I found your name in the volunteers list of the peer review section. Can you please do a review of Mohammad Hamid Ansari at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mohammad Hamid Ansari/archive1. Even a few, quick comments would be helpful. Thanks RRD (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Olive branch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcus Gheeraerts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

• THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
• Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

• {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
• {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I found your name on Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers page as a potential help for sociology-related articles. I came across the Lone wolf attacks article recently and found the section on "Indirect Incitement" to consist of content that had a lot of Original Research and was largely written in WP:NEWSSTYLE.

I've tried to copy-edit it by removing the unsourced claims and re-wording journalese sentences. I'm not a sociological expert or an expert on terrorism, so I hoping you could take a look and see if the updated content passes your "sniff test". For your convenience, here is a link to the primary bulk of the changes I have made: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lone_wolf_attacks&type=revision&diff=1051546017&oldid=1051283134

Thanks in advance. SpurriousCorrelation 04:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any expertise in this area but the section seems to be reasonably worded now. My only reservation concerns the significance of the authorities cited, though I'm afraid I'm unable to judge for myself. In particular I wondered about the redlinked author: is he an accepted authority? Having said that, I don't see any need for changes, though others who are more familiar with the issues may take a different view. Pelarmian (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look. I will track down that Author to ascertain their credibility (and make an article for them, if appropriate). SpurriousCorrelation 21:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rameses.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) 20:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I'm seeking peer review for the page Welfare Colonialism and based on your interest in History. Politics. Sociology and the peer review instructions. I am reaching out to see if you'd be able to take a look and share your thoughts. My notes on the review page are: "Hello, I am requesting peer review of this page. I am somewhat new to the peer review process; my aim is simply to further develop this page. To that end I appeal to those more experienced than I to advise me." Cheers and much thanks Iguana0000 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]