Hello Fayenatic London. I think I've gotten off to a rocky start, since I replied under your talk page, rather than here. Hopefully you will respond back on this page, so I will receive notice of your reply. Gulbenk (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Gulbenk. You have new messages at Fayenatic london's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Do you have a reliable source that supports that information? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can add a reference to clean that up.Gulbenk (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barek, before I add the reference, let me know if it passes muster with you. It comes from an authoritative source (see the bottom of the referenced page for the particulars) but I would rather be sure before adding. Don't care to be deleted a second time... http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2207

I'm not familiar with the source; but from an initial glance it appears to meet the threshold of a reliable source - that should work fine. Thanks for locating a ref and improving Wikipedia's content. If you need help formatting the citation, let me know. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review, and the offer of help. I think I did it correctly. I'm forcing myself to learn the process. Slow...but, for the most part, rewarding. Gulbenk (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barek, saw your revisions. Nice work. Thanks. Much better.Gulbenk (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I recommend that you install WP:POPUPS, as it makes it very quick and easy to fix such links in a single action. – Fayenatic London 12:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gulbenk. You have new messages at Jhortman's talk page.
Message added 02:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jhortman (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gulbenk. You have new messages at Jhortman's talk page.
Message added 03:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jhortman (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my changes to Tehran Stock Exchange were relatively minor and I will honestly admit I don't even remember making them now. So feel free to look into doing a GAR, but other than agreeing with you, I don't really have any additional perspective to add. Cheers, Epistemophiliac (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response, all input is appreciated. The more I dig into this, the more it looks like the GA was a bit rushed. Gulbenk (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've reverted you as we have guidelines on making changes at WP:ERA. I hope you understand. Any questions, please ask at my talk page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gulbenk. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 19:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I am not familiar with the school so I cannot be certain when the change from AAAA to AAAAA occurred. I suspect it happened when GHSA moved to having six classifications (from A to AAAAAA), since some of the schools that I am more familiar with went from AAAA to AAAAA at the same time. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe look at the history of the GHSA region navboxes? --96.32.138.125 (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gulbenk. You have new messages at Talk:Initial public offering/Archives/2013#Corruption.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EllenCT (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulbenk, thanks again for your help on the IPO article. You made that much easier than I thought it was going to be. I absolutely think you should add the SEC regulation because I'm sure it was being trampled and it's really not fair to the balance of the article to leave readers hanging about whether the allegations, if true, reflect kosher behavior on the part of the brokers. If I had any familiarity with them I would do it right now.

Also I want to ask you about [1] which I have noticed the same effect in bond funds, where "low risk" produced the greatest return for the vast majority of time frames I've looked at in US markets. What do you think about this? I want to edit financial risk and maybe stock market etc. on this topic, but I'm not entirely sure what to say about it. Maybe you know somewhere else it's been covered? I'm pretty sure it has to do with larger firms' ability to hedge the hell out of everything and invest their spare cash in broad high-return concerns that they probably have a lot of asymmetric hidden information about. I would love to know your thoughts. EllenCT (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Gulbenk. Thank you for your note. The edit did not comply with Wikipedia's policy regarding Wikipedia:Verifiability. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You thanked me for this edit [2] so (assuming you didn't click actually mean to click the nearby Undo link) thanks for the thanks. I'm wondering, though, how the situation came to your attention -- perhaps you have PG on your watchlist. If you do you may know that -- the recent brief flurry aside -- I work mostly in isolation there. For the moment there's one other editor who engages at all regarding this article, and I'd very much like there to be more (no offense at all to Mirokado, it's just that two is still a lonely number). Would you be willing? EEng (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, PG is on my watchlist, by virtue of a previous and rather ham-fisted edit to the "See also" section. I'm quite impressed with your work at Phineas Gage, as well as the organization and style of the article. While I appreciate your request to engage in future editing, I doubt that I could do as good a job as you have done. PG will remain on my watchlist, though. I would be happy to strike down vandals, should you not get to them first. Regards! Gulbenk (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me on this issue, Gulbenk. First, I apologise for having to undo your edits to Tintin in the Land of the Soviets; I do not relish undoing people's work, and understand that it is demoralising to go to the effort of adding something only to have it removed immediately after. However, I felt that there was sufficient reason to remove your edit to what has only recently become a Featured Article. While I am no Holodomor denier and have no intrinsic problem with the Tintin in the Land of the Soviets page linking to Wikipedia's Holodomor page, none of the Tintinological literature that was used to build up the article actually refers to the Holodomor. If Michael Farr or Benoit Peeters, or any other Tintinologist thought the Holodomor was relevant to Tintin in the Land of the Soviets, and stated so in their publications, then of course I would have included it here in this article. But they didn't, so I haven't. In that respect I fear that including references to Holodomor (or Soviet vote-rigging, human rights abuses etc) here would be in violation of Wikipedia policy.

Regarding my initial suspicion that your edit might be NPOV, it was based on a fear that this was simply another edit based on anti-communist or anti-Soviet bias, something that the Tintin in the Land of the Soviets page has faced before. Here at Wikipedia we have a big problem with editors (usually anonymous IPs or recently registered editors) simply going on to pages and pushing a very clear political agenda. So I hope that that clarifies my concern on that issue. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a good idea to take this issue over to Talk:Tintin in the Land of the Soviets, where it can be discussed a bit more widely. Does this sound okay for you ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to think about this idea yet Gulbenk ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Midnightblueowl, and thanks for the follow-up. Yes, I would very much like to try making a contribution to that article, along the lines discussed, starting with a discussion at the Talk page. However, more pressing concerns have delayed me. I hope to free up some time in the near future. Again, thanks. Gulbenk (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, real life stuff takes precedent ! Whenever you have time to discuss the issue over at the talk page, just let me know! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! Please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 7. To get regular alerts regarding Atlanta meetups, please add your name to this page. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the one you supplied is 224. It will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Gulbenk (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Geologic map of Georgia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Geologic map of Georgia for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Buffbills7701 -- Buffbills7701 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly found this article. You did a great job with it! 2606:A000:4002:500:C8BC:714F:9693:EECF (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are greatly appreciated. Gulbenk (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gulbenk! I suppose it was you who added "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2012)" to the Bhopal disaster article. Would you be so kind and remove it? I asked you what is wrong in my book "The Bhopal Saga" (the encyclopedia of the Bhopal disaster), and you have still not answered. So how can you know the article is not neutral? Another important editor is UCC/Dow, and they seem to have nothing to say to the facts that I present. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ingrid Eckerman! The reasoning behind the neutrality banner was discussed during the GAR, but I am sorry that I did not respond directly to your question, as I should have. That was an oversight. The one authoritative review of "The Bhopal Saga" (here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257585/) praises the work for its description of "long-term health effects documented in the exposed population and [for suggesting] what might be done to improve health care for the victims." But it also highlights unsupported assumptions, selective use of data, and factual errors. The review further notes that you, as the author of the work, manifest "biases against industry and government".

I fully acknowledge the significant amount of effort that you have put into this article. You have made 610 edits to the Bhopal Disaster, which represents 16.88% of all edits made to date. Your book, and other works, are cited as references 72 times in the article. You, more than anyone else, have shaped this article into its present form. That, unfortunately, also imprints the article with the biases noted in the review of your book.

I am encouraged that some examples of bias, and use of weasel words, have been reworked since the GAR. But more work remains. I had hoped that the neutrality banner would not just serve as a cautionary note to readers, but also serve to stimulate other editors to become involved in the article. And some have. There have been about 135 edits since the neutrality banner was added, but the majority (I believe) are yours.

I greatly admire your efforts to chronicle the cause and description of the release, and its terrible aftermath. Your passions and concern for the welfare of the victims is unquestioned. But it is precisely those passions which must be tempered, with objectivity and factual data, if we are to arrive at a reliable and neutral article.

I would be glad to review the article, again, to see what effect those 135 recent edits have had. I would hope that the article is indeed "neutral enough"... or at least moving in that direction. Give me until the end of the month. Gulbenk (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at Elsa Collin and Brita von Horn. Would appreciate it!--BabbaQ (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello BabbaQ. I've looked at the articles, what sort of help do you desire? Gulbenk (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted me for adding more of Slaton's statement? Why in the world? Why do you call it editorial or arguing with Slaton? Did you check the source? "(In any event, the performance of my duty under the Constitution is a matter of my conscience. The responsibility rests where the power is reposed. Judge Roan, with that awful sense of responsibility, which probably came over him as he thought of that Judge before whom he would shortly appear, calls to me from another world to request that I do that which he should have done. I can endure misconstruction, abuse and condemnation, but I cannot stand the constant companionship of an accusing conscience, which would remind me in every thought that I, as a Governor of Georgia, failed to do what I thought to be right. There is a territory “beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT and absolute certainty”, for which the law provides in allowing life imprisonment instead of execution. This case has been marked by doubt. The trial judge doubted. Two Judges of the Supreme Court of Georgia doubted. Two Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States doubted. One of the three Prison Commissioners doubted." You won't find me adding editorial or unsourced quotes. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing personal. I do not question your integrity and experience as an editor. But the issue is not doubt. Slaton puts that to rest in the sentence you quote. The issue is absolute certainty, which can (in most cases during this era) only be achieved with a valid confession or undisputed observation (the supposed observer in this case did not meet those standards). So the addition of this "doubt" sentence is not supportive of Slaton's eventual reasoning. I posted to the Talk page, after my edit, to explain the reasoning, hoping that you would see it. Gulbenk (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not any book other than Dinnerstein or any non-Dinnerstein derivative source that has that quote in it? I'd imagine one of the other major writers would have mentioned it. I didn't see it in Oney from a brief glance, but I would think that another source exists.

By the way, I requested a peer review of the Leo Frank article, so hopefully we can get some good feedback! I fixed some other references, so I think it's pretty close to GA quality. Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting question. I have not found a pre-Dinnerstein source for this statement (other than the one Dinnerstein himself uses, which is highly suspect). Nothing in the contemporary Atlanta newspapers. That is not to say that one doesn't exist...somewhere. So the tag is one way of asking editors to look for one. So far, all I've found are sources quoting (or misquoting) Dinnerstein. Gulbenk (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Oney has in the last decade or so dispelled the anti-Semitic hoax that pseudo-historian Dinnerstein created in 1968 with "The intense summer heat necessitated that the courtroom windows be left open, and remarks from the crowds could be heard easily by those inside. "Crack the Jew's neck!" - "Lynch him!" - were some of the epithets emerging from the more boisterous. Threats were also made "against the jury that they would be lynched if they did not hang that 'damned sheeny.'" (Leo Frank and the American Jewish Community (1968) by Leonard Dinnerstein: http://archive.org/details/LeoFrankAndTheAmericanJewishCommunity on IA.). Steve Oney like Dinnerstein, promotes the phagan bitemark hoax created by pierre van paassen (To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen (see pages 237, 238 about the Leo Frank case): http://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen on IA.) Oney makes the pseudo-history claim in his 2003 book (and dead shall rise) that dorsey secured an indictment against Frank by convincing the grandjury that after the indictment he will present the evidence. Pure anti-history. There is a lot of pseudo-history in the frank case stemming from pseudoscholars repeating each others garbage. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it in the above section, but the Leo Frank article is currently undergoing peer review. It is being reviewed by Brianboulton, who is not a Leo Frank expert but has significantly contributed to about 80 featured articles, including several dozen biographies, and will give us a lot of good feedback on the article. If you want to comment on anything or ask any questions, feel free to do so on the peer review page. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got a peer review for the second half of the article and wanted to ask a few things that I wasn't sure about. I have these as double bullet points in the review as well.

• Why was Conley held in custody for two weeks, after no traces of blood were found on his shirt?

I just said in the review that he was enough of a suspect to warrant holding on to, but didn't add anything in the article clarifying this as I wasn't sure what to say that was definitive and could be sourced.

• I am curious to know why "officials" thought Frank would be more secure in a minimum-security facility (we later learn that his throat was slashed by another inmate)

I think the article means to say that they originally thought Frank would be a better fit in Milledgeville, although the throat slashing incident disproved this.

• None of the lynchers were identified? Did nobody bother to look at the photographs?

I don't think the photos were released right away, but I wanted to make sure as the fact that none of the lynchers were prosecuted doesn't make sense.

If you could clarify these points for me, I'd appreciate it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have to review some of the source material, to give you a better answer. But it is my recollection that the investigation proceeded initially on the presumption that a black man had committed the crime (because of the "night witch" note, and the prevailing stereotype of jews as peaceful, law abiding, folks.). So Newt Lee was the first suspect. That was a dead end. Then the investigation turned to Conley. Perhaps he was initially arrested because of the shirt, but early questioning indicated that he clearly knew something about the events. The shirt became a minor matter. When Conley kept changing his story and lying, they turned up the heat by throwing him in a basement isolation cell for a week. I don't know if they questioned him during that time, or simply left him down there to stew. In any case, that "technique" extends the timeline (after the shirt evidence didn't pan out).
• Minimum-security inmates are (on balance) less violent individuals, financial criminals and so forth. Maximum-security is usually designated for those who present an escape risk, or individuals who pose a clear threat to society. It would be more dangerous to place someone so despised as Frank among hard-core violent criminals.
• The lynching photos were released (and widely sold) soon after the event. But I'm not sure if one can differentiate (just by the photos) perpetrators and observers. Clearly, they were known, and could have been named and prosecuted. But there was no desire to do so, and very little likelihood of a conviction. Gulbenk (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also, I noticed your GA nomination in the section below this one on your talk page, and the fact that it took almost 6 months to get a review. I might just go through the peer review and make sure the citations are correct throughout, and nominate the Frank article for FA early next year. That way, it can still be Today's Featured Article on August 17 of next year, the 100th anniversary of the lynching. Tonystewart14 (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. I think the peer review process was helpful for this article, and has improved it. But I do not agree with every change. You are aware of my concerns with the "hang the jew" statement. I don't think the peer review fix was a good one in that instance. To state that "one eyewitness" observed this event is wrong. We actually know that this quote is an allegation, made many months after the fact, in a northern paper, by an "anonymous individual" who claimed to be an Atlantan and a eyewitness. But that explanation is too long and awkward to be included in the article. So the "better source" tag still seems to be a more eloquent way of looking for a contemporary (hopefully local) source for this statement. Gulbenk (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this should just be taken out entirely or replaced? I think the article won't be incomplete simply for omitting a claim that an antisemitic chant was repeated outside the courtroom. It would be good to find a solid source for it, but I'd imagine that an Atlanta paper would have said something about that if it were in fact true. Perhaps it could be replaced with another statement made on the next page of Dinnerstein where he says that the governor alerted the National Guard to a possible riot and a North Georgia newspaperman who had attended the trial wrote that Frank would have been lynched sooner had the verdict been not guilty. This would also demonstrate the antisemitism among much of the Atlanta public, but with a more reliable source. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking out the "hang the jew" sentence is better than leaving in the current version, or adding my far-too-long explanation of the source. I'm not familiar with the specific statements you suggest, but I think that something like that would be a good replacement. Do the sentences you suggest demonstrate antisemitism, or just the anger of the crowd? Gulbenk (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two paragraphs at the end of the chapter - one that talks about explicitly antisemitic remarks, including the "Hang the Jew" claim, and a second one that doesn't explicitly mention antisemitism but shows that many Atlantans were hostile to Frank.

Here's the first one that deals with the antisemitic remarks (Dinnerstein p. 60):

• The antagonism toward Frank expressed itself more clearly than just a "spirit" in the air. The defense attorneys and Judge Roan had received communications during the trial to the effect that they would not leave the courtroom alive if the "damned Jew" were turned loose. There is some indication that the jurors were similarly threatened. Crowds outside the courthouse chanted, "Hang the Jew." As early as May, 1913, "a well-known Atlanta woman" wrote to the Georgian that this "is the first time a Jew has ever been in any serious trouble in Atlanta, and see how ready is every one to believe the worst of him."

Then comes the next paragraph, which doesn't mention his Judaism but might still be of interest. (Dinnerstein, pp. 60-61):

• The Governor of Georgia had consulted with the commanding officer of the national guard regiment in Atlanta just before the trial ended, and had alerted him to the possible danger of a riot after the jury returned its verdict. The militia commandant said his troops would be ready if necessary. Two years later a North Georgia newspaperman, who had attended the trial, wrote, "There is no use mincing words when a human life is at stake. If the jury in the Frank case had brought in a verdict of 'not guilty' the defendant would have been lynched."

I'm thinking the latter sentence in the second paragraph might be a good replacement, although it doesn't specifically mention antisemitism. I wrote the paragraphs above to clarify it and get your take. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree. The second sentences seem to work best. They actually dovetail rather nicely into the following parts of the paragraph: the Cossack simile, and the Lindemann quote. The first Dinnerstein sentences would just dig us deeper into the same hole, I'm afraid. Gulbenk (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I took out the first quote that you added, since the two sentences preceding it make the quote somewhat redundant, and the quote started without saying "According to Dinnerstein" or anything like that, so it's not apparent where the quote is from. I also separated the paragraph into two. I did like the other changes, however, and left them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonystewart14 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Nice work. Gulbenk (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ira Roe Foster you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 65.131.175.141 -- 65.131.175.141 (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision 636082013 by 2001:4642:E772:0:4CB9:58C3:3462:2187 as Unsupported

You marked my claim that the state report on the 1956 Flag change found the the reasons given for the change unconvincing, and interpreted the change as an act of defiance against federal desegregation as undocumented.

I would like to know exactly why?

Do you disagree with my reading of the report? Should I include more qoutes from the report? Anything else?

My main issue with the article as it stands, is that it qoutes isolated sentences from the discussion in the report, leaving the impression that this is in fact the report's conclusion. Which, as far as I can see, it is not.

Professor Droevell (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Professor Droevell. Thank you for your interest in this article, and your desire to contribute to Wikipedia. Your edit, which I undid, read "The report concludes that neither argument is believable, and interprets the change as an act of defiance against federal desegregation." I believe that statement to be unsupported. The report does not contain any quotes from the period, supporting the notion that the flag was changed in anticipation of the upcoming centennial. And it does state (although not as part of it's "Conclusion" section) a belief that this argument was made after the fact. However, the report also contains several contemporay quotes supporting the second argument: that the action was taken to honor those who fought for the Confederacy. Those are, in fact, the only quotes from the period, from anyone involved in the process (the designer, sponsors, and legislators), which give us a stated reason for changing the flag. The report does not conclude that this argument is unbelievable. Finally, while the report does go to great length to detail the atmosphere of defiance that existed in the 1956 Georgia Legislature, it does not have one contemporary quote of defiance (related to the flag) by anyone involved in the process. If the report strongly implies guilt by association, this could probably be said for any legislation that passed in 1956. While the report goes to great length to specify a series of bills of passionate definance, all of which received overwhelming support, like the Interposition Resolution (which passed 179-1), it also notes that the flag bill received such a dispassionate reception that nearly 1/3 of the legislators failed to even vote on it.Gulbenk (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello back, Gulbenk

Thank you for your response, even if I do not agree with everything. First, the report clearly did not find the reasoning behind the "pay homage to the confederate soldiers" all that believable. How else would you interpret three stripes “were meaningless.”69 Those “meaningless” stripes Groover was refered to were proudly lifted directly from the first Confederate National Flag. Placed on the state flag in 1879 by Senator Herman Perry, a former Confederate officer, the alternating red and white stripes (or bars) paid homage to the Confederate veterans of the American Civil War. In spite of that, the 1956 General Assembly changed the state flag, in an atmosphere of preserving segregation and resentment toward the United States government, as a symbolic gesture to show Washington that Georgia’s leaders intended to uphold what they “stood for, will stand for, and will fight for.

And given that a senate report's conclusion was that the flag change was an act of defiance, my statement was a historical fact: The people writing this report for the Georgian Senate one year before the flag change did conlude as I said. Whether they was right, that is another matter, we may disagree on that one, but it is not our task to conclude, but to report facts around the history of the flag. And this report, whatever we think of its merrits, is part of that history, and should not be discarded, even if you might disagree with it.

Regarding your reasons for disagreeing, I am not convinced by them. As you note, the quotes supporting the defiance theory are not from that time period. But they are from people involved in the process. But note that also most of the quotes supporting the "honoring the soldiers" reason is newer. The report states that very little exist of reasons from the proceedings themself. The quotes from that time that I have seen, is ambigouse. Also note that "honoring the confederate soldiers" and "act of defiance" is not mutually exclusive. Why this sudden need, in a time of a major disagreement with federal government, to honor the soldiers of a previous rebbelion against federal interference? Especially since the preexisting flag, designed much shorter time after said rebbelion, was designed to do exactly that. And if the report is to be believed, no contemporary mention of the 100 years anniversery is found, so that explanation does not ring true.

It is well known that people sometimes find it convient to disguise their real motivations in controversial matters, and espesially so in retrospect. So the authors attempt on reading the motivation out from things outside of the actors stated reasons should not be dismissed so easily.

As for the lack of enthusiasm for the flag change, compared to the support for the clearly degregation related bills, that can be explained in a lot of ways. The people in the senate clearly believed very strongly in segregation, and supported that strongly. But one thing is to support the bills handeling a specific disagreement, another thing is supporting a case which is just a silly act of defiance. Do we really want to replace the current flag for this one issue? Do we really want to rip up hundred year old wounds for this one issue? IF the represantativs did think this was an act of difiance over segregation, it is not hard to imagine that some people that supported all the other stuff would be less that thrilled by this one.

So, while I do not know whether the people writing the report were right or not, I am not convinced by your arguments for dismissing it.

But all this is moot, as it is not in our place to accept it or reject it, just to recognice that the report exists and what it says. Is status as a Senat report issued just before thenext flag change is enough to give it relevance. Professor Droevell (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulbenk. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ira Roe Foster you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ira Roe Foster for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I noticed you have a similar issue with the same user. Mr. Sort It Out2 (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Leo Frank shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulbenk, I was just wondering if you would mind making another comment on the talk page in response to the comments from myself, Tom and Solntsa90. I don't want to make you feel like we're beating a dead horse, but I want to get it resolved before we get to the top of the line for a GA review (as we're already very close). Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done ! Gulbenk (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you have a source from the ADL that explicitly denies that it was created because of the Frank trial? Sigmund Livingston mentions it in the founding charter, but it doesn't specifically say that it was created because of Frank's case, just that it was a recent reminder of the need for the organization. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing ! It comes from an article written by Abraham Foxman, National Director of the ADL. It can be found here: [3] Gulbenk (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On another point, it has been said that the trial was "controversial" because of the rules of evidence then in effect in 1913 (those rules change regularly, with Supreme Court decisions - but the Frank Court followed the existing rules, and the Supreme Court confirmed) and because of procedural issues, like outbursts within the courtroom. There were instances when observers laughed or clapped, but no evidence that this influenced the jury. The most disruptive outburst came when Leo Frank's mother shouted at Dorsey, calling him either a "Gentile Dog!" or a "Christian Dog!" (accounts vary). Modern observers, trying to fit events into their view that Frank was railroaded, as a result of judicial/prosecutorial misconduct, overlook these facts. Gulbenk (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Foxman link. For your second point, it's true that judicial misconduct and prejudice went both ways, and the article should reflect this. The best we can do from a Wikipedia standpoint is report the facts from both sides and let the reader decide for themselves who was biased against whom and who was guilty. Also, as I told Tom, we should be getting a GA review next month which should help the article quite a bit. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gulbenk and Tony Stewart, can you comment in the talk arena of Frank's article about Leonard Dinnerstein's academic dishonesty and scholarship? I recently discovered Dinnerstein committed academic dishonesty by fabricating "Antisemitic hoax" about "The intense summer heat necessitated that the courtroom windows be left open, and remarks from the crowds could be heard easily by those inside. "Crack the Jew's neck!" - "Lynch him!" - were some of the epithets emerging from the more boisterous. Threats were also made "against the jury that they would be lynched if they did not hang that 'damned sheeny.' " in 'Leo M. Frank and the American Jewish Community', American Jewish Archive Journal, 1968, Volume 20, number 2, by Jewish activist professor Leonard Dinnerstein https://archive.org/details/LeoFrankAndTheAmericanJewishCommunity on IA. Dinnerstein also promulgates the "Mary Phagan bitemark hoax" fabricated by Pierre van Paassen Book, To Number Our Days (1964) by Pierre van Paassen (see pages 237, 238 about the Leo Frank case): http://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen on IA. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken actual photos of Leo Frank's grave. Could I send them to you and you add them to wikipedia images collection? These would be good additions to the article.GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But I can also walk you through the process, at Commons, if you like. That might come in handy, if you need to post something when I'm not around. Just let me know which way you would like to do this. It will require a breach of privacy, on both parts, if we exchange the image(s). Gulbenk (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you walk me through the process of adding images to wikipedia commons?GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom northshoreman started a new POV section in frank talk page. Your comments are requested. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In May of 1913, the Governor-elect John M. Slaton's lawfirm of 'Slaton and Phillips' (Highly respected Jewish-American Benjamin Z. Phillips) joined Luther Rosser's Lawfirm of 'Rosser and Brandon' (Morris Brandon), all together creating the law group of 'Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips' which represented Leo Frank during his murder trial (July 28 - August 21, 1913). Wondering if you knew of any secondary sources to support this claim and if you had any comments on how this could be incorporated into the main Leo Frank article and lead. I found supporting evidence for these lawfirms merging in Steve Oney's book, Mary Phagan Kean's book, and a scholarly paper written by Tom Watson Brown. Do you know of other sources? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The information can probably be found in the Fulton County (Atlanta, Georgia) records room, in the trade name index, or similar records. I can look, next time I'm at the Courthouse... but that won't be soon. And, of course, it is a primary source. I don't know, off hand, of other sources apart from the ones you mention. But I will try looking. Gulbenk (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulbenk, just want to let you know I finally got a Good Article review going for the Leo Frank article. We started to get feedback, so feel free to reply with any responses. Tom has already done so on one point, and this can help the article attain GA status. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Frank has been listed as a Good Article. Well done for playing your part by developing the article from 2013 to 2015.

This user helped promote Leo Frank to good article status.

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:39, 14 October 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) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a conversation in the King assassination riots talk page, you'd be interested.

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello! Your submission of Henry L. Reaves at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SoWhy 21:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Henry L. Reaves, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Henry L. Reaves was an open range cattle rancher on land near what is now Disney World before serving in the Georgia House of Representatives for 38 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry L. Reaves. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Henry L. Reaves), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing Nye from the See also section at Carl Sagan, but my reasoning would be that there is already a link to Nye, albeit in the External links section. Your stated criterion for being included in See also seem overly restrictive. There is enough of a connection between Sagan and Nye documented on the Bill Nye page to have supported a See also link and the link of both being very prominent television personalities who specialized in popularizing science might also be considered a sufficient reason. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Im currently rebuilding the WikiProject Investment.

Since your a member of the project/were one I wanted to ask if you were interested in helping me re-start the project.

I already am pretty much finished with updating the project page.Take a look at it. Ping me if you want to help! Thanks. WikiEditCrunch (talk) WikiEditCrunch (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

If you are ok with this response as it applies to NPOV and RS, then so am I. If you're not, I can relate. It's all very confusing...and rather obvious. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atsme. Thanks for your comments. I'm fine with the position that Neutrality took, regarding the use of a direct quote from the President. It can be presented as "The President responded..." and so forth, but not as the voice of Wikipedia. Again, I'm fine with that. Where I get perturbed is this lame attempt to edit any reference to well meaning people at the march. That doesn't fit the narrative. So it's all out POV pushing on their part when they refuse to acknowledge it. Most recent objections are laughably inane: she wasn't there with "friends" (okay, she came to the march with a group of conservatives... and they traveled a long way together in the same van, but may not be "friends") and somehow a statement from the NYT isn't a statement from the NYT, but actually just this one woman's "voice" channeled through the NYT, like it was some sort of séance. These learned, and supposedly neutral, users are locked into their singular perspective, and will abide no evidence to the contrary. Again, thank you for your interest and comments on the matter. Gulbenk (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per your revert, stating that I "want to develop the idea that white juries inherently favor Nazis and the Klan" is a mistaken view on your part... just like I might be mistaken to say that you are attempting to whitewash the article. -Location (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume good intentions on your part, which is why I said IF you wanted to develop that line of reasoning, it should be done in the body of the text. I do not assume good intentions on the part of the Chicago newspaper writer. He went out of his way to try to paint the jury decision (if not also the jury members) as racist. It is an inflammatory bit of writing. More yellow journalism than professional journalism. But you were only citing words from the article, which is quite fair in our world. But it does misrepresent the events. The "journalist" had only one reason to mention an all-white jury... to infer some form of racial prejudice. The article was rife with that innuendo, but came up short when it came to supporting facts. Both the jurors and the prosecutor who carried the case for the State support the contention that politics was the deciding factor. If you wanted to say that a Southern jury decided against communists, I think you would be on solid ground, with a good bit of supporting evidence. But all-white...? Why? Gulbenk (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your thoughtful response. I re-read the Chicago Tribune article more carefully and while I don't believe it to be be yellow journalism, it is clearly an opinion piece and you are correct that it should not be cited the way I placed it in the article. (I did not notice the first time about that it was in the "Perspective" section.) It looks like Charles Madigan, who typically does have a left-of-center POV, thought that the jury should have decided the case differently and he drew attention to the view that many blacks - in context with other contemporary cases - viewed the system of justice as racist. And you are correct that the unnamed author for The New York Times used described the jury that way without any context leaving the reader in infer something from innuendo. I imagine a lot could be written on the various POVs regarding the jury and the verdit (e.g. it does appear as though jury may have disliked communists more than any like or dislike for the Klan[4]). Anyway, my apologies. -Location (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joy Harmon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walt Disney Studios (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) 09:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Ted Land died and I started the article. I changed the name to conform the spelling that was given in the recent deaths section. I will change the spelling back. Any help with the Ted Land article would be appreciated. Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I revert my edits to the sessions involving Ted Land many thanks-RFD (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RFD. I knew Ted, some years ago. We were born at the same hospital, in Miami, one day and several years apart. Sad to hear of his passing. I would be happy to contribute to his page, if I can of any help.

I noticed that you edit legislative pages. Thought you might like to know something about names listed for members of the Georgia General Assembly. They change sometimes...from year-to-year. Members were (are?) given the opportunity to edit their profiles with each new "picture book". Sometimes they drop a middle initial, or expand to a complete middle name. When I started a number of the Georgia General Assembly pages, I tried to list the name as it appeared in that session's picture book. Just a FYI. Gulbenk (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you-my sympathy on the death of Ted Land. I edit articles about state and territorial legislators. Many of the articles are from Wisconsin- I was born and raised in Wisconsin. I am very familiar with the history, politics, etc., concerning Wisconsin. I live in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Again thank you-RFD (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I started an article on John Henry Land. Please take a look at it-many thanks-RFD (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I sent an e-mail to the Federal Judicial Center asking if they would please update information about Judge Clay Land; he also served in the Georgia Senate and the Columbus, Georgia City Council and that is important also. Again my thanks-RFD (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RFD! Yes, I see that you have been hard at work. Good job, establishing the John Henry Land article. I think that can be expanded without too much difficulty, since there are a number of news articles about him. The obit also provides some additional details that can be added to the article. Just requires a bit of time, which I don't have at the moment. I think I can get to it right after I do my taxes and a few other pressing matters. So keep any eye on it, and adjust anything that I don't get quite right. As for Judge Clay Land, I did add a few additional details to his article, about his political background. But more can (and should) be said. One of the things I find interesting is the way that the Land family swaps political seats from time to time. Ted Land actually took over the Columbus City Council seat (and portions of the unexpired term) from Clay Land, when Clay was elected to Ted's old Senate seat. Musical chairs. Both the Clay Land and Ted Land articles have progressed past "Stub" status, and probably are past "Start". Maybe you can review that, if you have time, to see if they might now meet "C" criteria. If so, can you make the required changes? Again, thanks for your contributions. I look forward to working more with you, in the near future. Gulbenk (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-when I started the Ted J. Land article the name was listed in recent deaths as Ted Land. I then made the change in the Georgia General Assembly pages. I found out this was incorrect. I have no problem using Ted J. Hand in the article since this was the name listed in the Georgia General Assembly Legislative Manual. Thank you-RFD (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I started an article about Theo Titus who served in the Georgia General Assembly. His niece Dina Titus serves in the United States House of Representatives from Nevada. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RFD thanks for the heads up. Happy to look at this and see what I can add. Just give me a day or two to complete some pending work. Gulbenk (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-A few years ago, I started an article about Hugh Carter who served in the Georgia General Assembly; his uncle James Earl Carter Sr. and his first cousin President Jimmy Carter also served in the Georgia General Assembly. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RFD, I would be happy to look at that, and see what I can add. But at the moment I've just started work on Harold G. Clarke, another article with your fingerprints on it !! You are so much faster than I am, I suspect I will just fall further behind. But I *greatly* appreciate the work you have done with members of the Georgia General Assembly. Kindest regards Gulbenk (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, RFD. I've completed my work on James Earl Carter Sr. (which was something of a mess), and now off to work on Hugh Carter. Gulbenk (talk)

Many thanks for working on the Hugh Carter article-RFD (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.asteroidmission.org/qa/. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Special edition into Chesley V. Morton. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Carey Wentworth Styles, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carey Wentworth Styles, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carey Wentworth Styles, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Carey Wentworth Styles founded The Atlanta Constitution, then had to surrender his interest in the newspaper when he couldn't pay for the purchase? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carey Wentworth Styles. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Carey Wentworth Styles), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You-RFD (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining; I'd generally recommend discussing this on talk. I am all for neutrality, but in this case it is not a controversial view, so I don't think it needs attribution in text. It's not unlike some claims in lead like 'father of sociology' or 'most popular' or such that generally just need a reference. The Polish source I used, I think reliable scholarship, makes the claim that in the literature review this event became 'most infamous'. I don't think it would be non-neutral to say this. But I am open to rewriting the text further. Maybe change 'became known' to 'has been described'? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Piotrus and thanks for your prompt response. I think "has been described" is a move in the right direction. But this opinion, expressed in the article as universal, seems to be limited (in fact) specifically to Polish sources. I can not find anything in the english language archive (other than translated from Polish or written by a Polish author) that makes this claim. Unfortunately, many events in recent Polish history have been distorted for political reasons. It wasn't that long ago that the Soviets re-wrote Polish history to serve their political objectives. The Katyn Massacre is probably a prime example of that, where Soviet propaganda shifted responsibility from the Soviets to the Germans. I don't know, to what extent, Polish academic writing has fully recovered from that. Without being able to read the original source, and ascertain the tone and context, it is difficult for most english Wikipedia readers like myself to know the veracity of these statements. So, I think that a clear indication that certain specific Polish sources have characterized this event as "most infamous" is not too much to ask. Gulbenk (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to superlatives, there are many such examples in Wikipedia. We try to fix them when we find them. But using one wrong usage to justify another wrong usage is a weak argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. Someone may voice the opinion that something is "most popular" and we may even work that into an article as an opinion of the source. But we never use the voice of Wikipedia to state that something is "most popular", when we can (instead) say something based in (verifiable) fact, like "highest ticket sales", "largest capacity stadium", "longest winning streak", etc. I hope you see the difference. Your "most infamous" phrase may indeed reflect a widely held belief within Poland, but we can't know that simply from you saying so. And in any case, it is not a universally recognized opinion outside of Poland. If a reputable institution in Poland uses that phrase, and you wish to quote them (with attribution) that is perfectly fine. But using the voice of Wikipedia to state it as fact is just another "wrong". Gulbenk (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, could I ask you to copy this entire discussion to the article's talk? I think it is better to discuss this there.

Second, Polish historiography has recovered well, but last few years saw some government pressure, you can read criticism of IPN in its article. But this shouldn't fortunately affect this particular article.

Third, it is common for such events to be primarily discussed in Polish sources only, since, let's face it, non-Poles have little incentives to study such events (true for any language/nationality).

Fourth, I don't think we need to attribute things unless they are controversial or would sound fringe/strange. Of course, inline references are another thing, everything should be referenced. But anyway, in this case, I don't think it is controversial or fringe to say this is the most infamous war crime of the Sept'39, UNLESS we find sources that describe another event in such a way. If we cannot reach an agreement on this (relatively minor issue), perhaps we could ask for a WP:30 or such? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope all the issues are resolved now. I'd like to invite you to comment on (and edit if you want, of course) the neutrality of my new related article, Zambrów massacre. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

=

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Caroline Pafford Miller at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Yoninah for your review comments, and professional edits to the article. Gulbenk (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Caroline Pafford Miller, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after Caroline Pafford Miller won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for her first novel, she received a letter from Margaret Mitchell saying that it was her "favorite book"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Caroline Pafford Miller. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Caroline Pafford Miller), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 03:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 00:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Zachariah A. Rice at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zachariah A. Rice, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the American Civil War, Zachariah A. Rice wrote more than 63 letters to his wife, offering insight into the military life of a Confederate cavalry officer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zachariah A. Rice. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Zachariah A. Rice), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Caroline Pafford Miller you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Caroline Pafford Miller you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Caroline Pafford Miller for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CaroleHenson -- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I read the Jason Carter (politician) article. His paternal grandfather was President Jimmy Carter. His maternal grandfather was James Beverly Langford. His daughter Judy was married to President Carter's son Jack; James Beverly Langford also served in the Georgia State Senate. Are you open to writing an article about James Beverly Langford? Many thanks-RFD (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RFD ! So good to connect with you again. As you know, I have been adding to a few articles you previously edited (or originated), and visa versa. Great to see your name and work listed in the account history. I would be happy to work on the Beverly Lanford article. I served with him for a number of years, and always found him to be a pleasant person to interact with. He was actually something of a character, and sporty looking, in small sports cars wearing a tweed English driving cap. So let me start gathering information, and try to do justice to an old colleague. Gulbenk (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I saw this resolution the Georgia General Assembly concerning James Beverly Langford: HR 1332 Langford, J. Beverly-best wishes for a speedy recovery-Many thanks-RFD (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a Resolution sponsored by the Speaker and several of the old guard. Folks who had known him for decades. Nice gesture. He died shortly after that. Gulbenk (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Brain Leeches, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that film director Fred Olen Ray made The Brain Leeches for $298.00? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Brain Leeches. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Brain Leeches), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crawfish Spring, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it was said that Crawfish Spring supplied water to the "entire" Union Army during the Battle of Chickamauga? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crawfish Spring. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Crawfish Spring), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the heat is out of the discussion. I'm glad we each see each other's view. Thank you for standing back a couple of paces. I agree that Wikipedia can be poor in places. I think you probably agree that it is excellent in others.

You are fiercely protective of the truth, and I am hugely grateful for that. It's tough to do that, especially in the face of whatever current bandwagon is being jumped on by others. I do my best to help new editors, and yes, even paid editors if they can meet our standards (you might look at the swathe of cruft I just sent to AfD on that score), provide a stream of 'well enough' crafted articles for good editors to knock into real shape.

I create articles from time to time, which is how I started here. When I do I try to father them, not mother them. I do look out for unusual changes to articles. You and I tripped over each other there. It's an unusual way to meet, but we have met now, and I like your attitude to continuous improvement.

Keep making that particular article the best it can be. I think you might get a far more interesting DYK out of it than the more obvious one that was, perhaps still is, in train. I'm looking forward to seeing the end result. I hope you are not discouraged and also feel better for tripping over each other in this way. We are allies in improving this rather peculiar pastime. Fiddle Faddle 06:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are too kind. It would be difficult, to the point of being punishing, to contribute to Wikipedia if everyone was a joyless sod. Fortunately, it's been pretty much the opposite. I've run into a number of exceptionally fine people who make this work a pleasure. Thanks for being one of those people. With regard to your remark about fighting for truth, even against an opposing current, it made me think of something I recently ran across. Can't recollect which reference I was tracking down, but I think it had to do with a 19th century college. One of the documents I ran across, while reading through all the various publications, contained the motto of the student newspaper. It was something like "Be sure of your cause, then go ahead". I actually laughed at that, it was so corny, so 19th century. But, in retrospect, I guess I was laughing because it hit close to home.

Well, enough of that. It's terribly late (or early) here, and I'll be worthless Monday morning if I don't sleep. Let me close by saying that I too am glad we "tripped over each other". Best !! Gulbenk (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a student in letters a yard high, for we were not metric back then, the graffiti slogan "Seek Truth from Facts to Serve the People" was emblazoned for many weeks on our library wall.

Today I think I know what it means.

Be well Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gather from your remarks that you believe in the veracity of the Lynching of Wilbur Little story (which is a weird title, since he was supposedly beaten to death). I do not. And I have resolved to fight this falsehood to the best of my ability. It shames Wikipedia every day this fabrication remains up on our site. So I ask your help. If you are fair minded, you will do just that, despite your personal reservations about the validity of my cause. I want to know all the avenues I can take to have this article deleted. I know of a few courses of action, outside of Wikipedia. But right now I would rather work within the system. Will you assist? Gulbenk (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gulbenk: your recourse is to nominate the page for deletion. The instructions are here. Have fun. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gulbenk, I have no horse in this race either way. My concern started with accepting what I believed honestly to be a true draft as an article, and then protecting it agains a change I disagreed with. We reached a good understanding over that. I am very interested having seen reports that Little was alive when his death was reported.

I don't think deletion is the right route. I think you have identified and are documenting a notable set of media events within the article known current as the lynching of WL. The correct title will doubtless present itself in due course. That discussion needs to be held on the article talk page.

Will you forgive me if I continue to observe rather than participate? The set of media events are interesting, but I don't have the knowledge of the events nor geography of the alleged event, nor the climate that obtained at the time

Somewhere in this lies the reality of the situation. Wikipedia allows us to document what is found, but not to reach conclusions. I doubt at this remove one can determine which is the correct version of events.

What I think is that by diligent work perhaps especially by editors who disagree a truly excellent Wikipedia article can be the result. Fiddle Faddle 23:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around long enough to know our guidelines on this. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller I guess I haven't "been around long enough". What specifically are you referring to? Gulbenk (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. "User:RoySmith does his best to downplay the strength of evidence in support of a hoax, while taking a swap at the honesty of white people as a side comment." (The last bit looks like an accusation of racism). And " for people like RoySmith who want to believe". If you think that doesn't show a lack of good faith- and a personal attack, perhaps you shouldn't be editing talk pages. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, you are an editor of some standing, so I take your accusation seriously, but completely reject your conclusion. User RoySmith stated that: "I believe that a bunch of white men in 1919 rural Georgia would lie about the lynching of a black man." The discussion was about a 1919 news article by the Early County News, and the actions of its editor(s). Wrapped up in that discussion was a published reiteration of the truthfulness of that 1919 article (along with additional supporting details) provided by that same newspaper in 2015. When user RoySmith speaks of white men lying, he is referring to the publishers/editors of that reliable source, both in 1919 (when it was first said) and in 2015 (when the modern white editor said the paper's 1919 facts were true). User RoySmith didn't say that rural newspapers sometimes gets their facts wrong, he said that white men at that paper, then and now, lie. That is a baseless racially-charged accusation. I did nothing more than point that out, in a conversational tone. Without the hysteria (Amazing), and accusations of bad faith and racism that you level here against me. And, unlike you, I didn't suggest that an editor should never edit Talk pages because he took an opposing view in an article.

I completely stand by my statement that user RoySmith took a swat (misspelled "swap") at the honesty of white people. If you think that I shouldn't be editing talk pages, based on my supportable comment, I encourage you to take this higher for review. Otherwise, consider the wisdom of your actions. Gulbenk (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you've ignored my comments about good faith. And so far as I can see, his comment was before the discussion of the 2015 article - did I miss something? So he wasn't commenting on a 2015 editor. As someone with strong roots in the South I have no doubt that white men in that town and many others at that time lied about racial issues. This isn't about opposing views, this is about your comments. If they are unusual for you, no problem. But the comment that "Amazing" is hysteria, now that's worrying, because what is amazing to me is that you didn't seem to have a clue what I was referring to. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, I can completely understand why you missed the point about the 2015 article. Without an in depth reading of the discussion, and knowledge of the timeline of when certain references were added to the article, you could very well think that RoySmith was unaware of that article. I have respect for that editor's research on this subject. I don't believe that anything I've contributed so far (other than the Dothan, Alabama article about Cliff Hughes) was unknown to him, or had not already been posted to the article when this discussion took place. User RoySmith doesn't accept the statements of the Early County News, then or now, and has questioned (after the exchange you reference above) why the publication is regarded as a reliable source. So "unreliable" and "liar" have both been stated by that user. Both you and RoySmith may have "no doubt" that white men in the town of Blakely - which is to say the editors of the Early County News - are liars. But those facts are not in evidence. What is in evidence is straight reporting about a poor Alabama taxi driver who got killed by a couple of thugs, and dumped in Early County. Gulbenk (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article North Highlands Dam, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that North Highlands Dam was built to power a large textile mill which had more spindles turning than any other mill in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/North Highlands Dam. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, North Highlands Dam), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Frank Park, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that judge Frank Park volunteered to provide 100 "fat possums" captured from the wilds of his county for a "Possum and 'Taters" dinner honoring president-elect William Howard Taft? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Park. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Frank Park), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Acorn Creek, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Acorn Creek is named after an extinct Creek Indian village and plantation on the Chattahoochee River? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Acorn Creek. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Acorn Creek), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2020 (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) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2017, I created Category:Filmed murders, but you requested that it be changed to Category:Filmed killings. I went ahead and did that. The category just got nominated for renaming, and I was wondering if you could weigh in. For the record, I really do not mind the renaming all that much. I just do not want a bad name change to take place. Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2006 Georgia's 8th congressional district election, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Georgia's 8th congressional district election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make sure. Are you aware of how big a controversy this has been? I didn't manage to communicate that in my addition to the article. I'm considering adding the controversy to Elon Law School's history, but first I'd have to create a history section, which the article needs.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee, Thanks for your thoughtful response. I don't doubt that this issue is a significant controversy. But it relates more to the law school, to the former mayor, and finally to the current cancel culture. It would be germane to each of those, I believe. But it is perhaps several degrees removed from the events discussed in the Greensboro massacre article. And so it seems to be too distantly related (but a good footnote, no doubt) but not central to the article. I intended no disrespect in removing it, and I hope you didn't take it that way. Regards Gulbenk (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Would you be satisfied with adding it to the law school article, then? At this point it would be WP:UNDUE but over time I could find plenty of history to add, I'm sure. I was surprised the mayor didn't get an article but I'm not prepared to write it myself. I have lived in the area several times in my life but Greensboro was just a place to shop and the location of several TV and radio stations.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this information could be added to the law school page, now. But under the heading (or sub-heading) of "Controversy" rather than "History". As you understand, the wording would have to be factual, supported, and neutral. But I believe it would add depth to that article, which is presently lacking in some ways. Try your hand it it, and I'll look over your shoulder to help, it need be. Gulbenk (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought about it but you're right. I'll still create a history section because it's needed. I've done two paragraphs so far and that's all I have time for today.

And I think my wording is factual and supported. Neutral, I'm not certain. I haven't found any reliable sources stating how controversial it is, but maybe using columnists from the opinion pages would be enough to state that there is a controversy.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you looked at my previous work. I've added some more and soon there will be enough that Melvin's portrait won't seem to be undue weight. Thanks to COVID-19, I discovered I could access my library's resources at home.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the Elon history section is complete, but based on what I've seen, I had y doubts whether certain details were worth including. I went ahead and moved the section you reverted from the Greensboro massacre article, and while it's not balanced at this point, what I've added does at least explain the situation. Unfortunately, anything I've seen that supports keeping the Melvin portrait (that's my position) is an opinion column.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll trust your wording is better. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you stated that I "can't state what they believed, but you can state what they said." This is curious to me given that an earlier edit of yours changed the phrasing from what is a relatively neutral claim (inferring that, because they said they believed it was there efforts that led to the painting being moved, that probably is what they actually believe, because why would someone lie about that?) to the much more contentious claim that they were actively encouraged by that decision to continue "agitating for [the painting's] complete removal." This is a much less verifiable and much less neutral claim. If your interest was genuinely to ensure a neutral point of view for the article, why would you make this edit? Mattster3517 (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again Mattster3517. I am having some difficulty following the logic of your argument. If you understand that stating what is in a person's head is unsupportable, why would you re-insert that fallacy back into the article? My previous edit also eliminated weasel words, loaded language, and verbosity with an economy of expression. That too was reverted. You should also note that the article you hyperlink to is titled Greensboro massacre (lower case m). I assume good faith on your part, but I'm finding it difficult to detect good sense. Your edits are not helpful, and your reasoning is illusive. If you should feel strongly in your position and continue this slow motion edit warring, we can ask a third party administrator to review. I hope it won't come to that. Gulbenk (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand that stating what is in a person's head is unsupportable, why would you claim that the students were "encouraged" by the university's decision? Mattster3517 (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stan Jones (Libertarian politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Infowar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 August 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) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Finance & Investment April 2022 Newsletter Hi! Welcome to the April newsletter of WikiProject Finance & Investment. This is our first regular newsletter and has plenty of exciting announcements. You have received this because you added yourself as a participant to the project, but will only receive future newsletters if you sign up for the mailing list; see below for instructions on how to do so. April Drive: The month-long April Content-creation Drive is now underway. The drive's target is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of financial markets. Awards will be given to everyone who improves or creates at least one article in the topic area. Sign up here! New layout: The layout of the WikiProject has been greatly improved, with a navigation bar being added to the top of every page and separate pages for assessment and edit requests, templates, resources, and news. Come take a look! Signing up for the newsletter: To sign up for future newsletters about upcoming drives, recent promotions, and other miscellaneous topics, add yourself to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment/Mailing list. You will then receive them in your talk page regularly. Thank you for participating in the WikiProject. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] To unsubscribe to this newsletter please go to the mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Finance & Investment May 2022 Newsletter Hi! Welcome to the May newsletter of WikiProject Finance & Investment. This is our second regular newsletter. You have received this because you have been added to the mailing list; see below for instructions on how to unsubscribe. April Drive finished: The month-long April Content-creation Drive has now concluded. Our first content drive was a great start for what will be a regular feature of our Wikiproject. We will be doing them every other month, so there's none for May, but I look forward to seeing you sign up for the June edition. The drive's target was to improve Wikipedia's coverage of financial markets. Awards were given to those who participated. June Drive topic for discussion: We're currently brainstorming topics for our June Content-creation Drive. Join the discussion here. Content work: Two articles in our purview have received DYK nominations. Real Estate Bank of Arkansas was created and nominated by Hog Farm and Ranchlander National Bank was created and nominated by Sammi Brie. They're currently running in the WikiCup, so good luck to them! UBS has been nominated for a Good article reassessment. If you wish to help, leave comments in the nomination. Thank you for participating in the WikiProject. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 10:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] To unsubscribe to this newsletter please go to the mailing list page.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Finance & Investment June 2022 Newsletter Hi! Welcome to the June newsletter of WikiProject Finance & Investment. This is our third regular newsletter. You have received this because you have been added to the mailing list; see below for instructions on how to unsubscribe. June Drive: The month-long June Content-creation Drive is now underway. The drive's target is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of stock exchanges. Awards will be given to everyone who improves or creates at least one article in the topic area. Sign up here! Content work: Two articles in our purview have received DYK nominations. Google Wallet was created and nominated by InfiniteNexus and George D. Gould was created and nominated by Ktin. Ktin is currently running in the WikiCup, so good luck to him! UBS's Good Article Reassessment is still ongoing. If you wish to help, leave comments in the nomination. Cheque was selected as an Article for improvement on May 16 for one week. You can see the improvement during that period here. Thank you for participating in the WikiProject. — — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 07:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] To unsubscribe to this newsletter please go to the mailing list page.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulbenk.

I'm sorry to revert your change to the lead in the Greensboro Massacre page. This is what you removed:

Two criminal trials of several of the Klan and ANP members were conducted by state and federal prosecutors. In the first trial, conducted by the state, five were charged with first-degree murder and felony riot. All of the defendants were acquitted. A second, federal criminal civil rights trial in 1984, was held against nine defendants. Again, all of the defendants were acquitted by a jury that accepted their claims of self-defense, despite the fact that the contemporary New York Times opinion page described newsreel film footage of the massacre as "vivid newsreel film to the contrary".^[1] News outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the News & Record in Raleigh, NC have remarked on the all-white juries which tried both cases.^[2][1][3]

And this is what you replaced it with:

Two criminal trials of several Klan and ANP members were conducted by state and federal prosecutors. In the first trial, conducted by the state, five were charged with first-degree murder and felony riot. All were acquitted by a jury that concluded that the defendants acted in self-defense. A second, federal criminal civil rights trial in 1984, was brought against nine defendants. The trial resulted in an acquittal of all defendants, when the jury concluded that the men had acted based on political, rather than racial, motivations.

According to WP:V we really should be sourcing all statements. The original statement has 3 sources, while yours has none. Can you please try to use reliable sources for text in the article. Thank you. Stix1776 (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you’re a participant in the WikiProject for Finance and Investment and are currently active on Wikipedia. There are some corrections and important updates needed in the article about Digital Currency Group, one of the major players in cryptocurrency. I’ve started a discussion here. I have a COI, as fully disclosed on the page. Given the nature of the topic I thought this might be of interest to you as a participant in the Finance and Investment WikiProject. Thanks very much for your time. CertifiedTurtle (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw some of your discussions with people on the talk page of an article I'm currently interested in. I wanted to ask you some questions about it. Is there any way to contact you on here? (privately, that is). Thanks! Suremacs (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. But first, which article are you referencing. Mr. Little, perhaps? Gulbenk (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's regarding Leo Frank. Suremacs (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you don’t want to talk, just let me know. Suremacs (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Suremacs !

Sorry for the great delay in my response.

I just don't review Wikipedia as regularly as I once use to.

I would be happy to help you any way that I can. Just let me know what you would like to know, or how I might help.

Gulbenk (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did quite a bit of research on the Leo Frank matter at one time, including a deep dive into contemporary news coverage and subsequent scholarly work (often repeated as fact) using highly suspect sources. Gulbenk (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also apologize for the late response, I was very busy. I just wanted to ask about Minola McKnight's testimony. Many people say it was coerced and as such should be treated as false, but I found this article stating that seventy witnesses said it was truthful:

> On rebuttal, the state called more than seventy witnesses. A friend of Minola McKnight's husband and the maid's attorney, George Gordon, testified that Minola said she made a complete and true statement to the police of everything she knew. Her damaging affidavit referred to Frank's drinking on the night of the murder, sleeping restlessly, and threatening to kill himself with a pistol.

I was just wondering if this was true. Also what is your position on Leo Frank now? Is it still the same? Suremacs (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you. In answer to your question, I've never seen Minola McKnight's statements and subsequent testimony as pivotal. I doubt that conviction was based on this. So many other things played into that, like Frank's character, and his refusal to be cross examined. His dream team of lawyers played to their image of the stereotype of Southern culture at that time. Being Northerners. they were probably not nearly as racist as the racist defense they presented at trial. They also hugely exaggerating the degree and extent of Southern antisemitism, which was largely nonexistent. The Jewish community in Atlanta at that time were Southerners in nearly every respect. Frank was an outsider, not because he was Jewish but because he was a despised rich Northerner... taking advantage of the defeated Southern working class.

The State of Georgia has never declared Frank innocent. He was pardoned because the State failed to provide him with the protections that every prisoner is entitled, not because he was wrongly convicted. I believe him to be guilty. Gulbenk (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I saw your response a while ago. I was wondering if you are still somewhat familiar with *most* of the material, given you said “at one time” which implies to me that you haven’t researched it in some time, but I could be wrong. I wanted to ask about something but I would prefer somewhere not open like this. Again, I don’t know how Wikipedia works really, is there a way to enable Direct Messages? Suremacs (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find out how we can discuss in a back channel. Gulbenk (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but I’m not sure what that means. Suremacs (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just means that I will find a way to discuss this privately with you. Gulbenk (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, alright, just let me know. Suremacs (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you forgot or are not interested, but I would still like to discuss this, if not, that is fine. Suremacs (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]