User talk:Location

Hmm, here are the lyrics, cocaine yes, masturbation? I'm not seeing it. Would be an interesting hook though.J04n(talk page) 06:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! There are only two tracks now without sourced information. J04n(talk page) 19:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to the library later, I wonder if they have back issues of Musician? J04n(talk page) 19:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your edits at DYK and clicked over to your user page and was impressed. Have you considering applying to become a Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors? It is a great way to help college students become more familiar with Wikipedia, and make them good long term contributers! Sadads (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I had 1992 written as a year of Ikenaka's death is because I got this "information" from the Japanese Wikipedia. However, since that foreign article is still a Wikipedia article, it may not be sourced (which it was not). But I will happily look up a valid source to see if 1992 is really the year of Ikenka's death. Oxana879 (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will make sure to continue to do my best. Oxana879 (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{
  User wikipedia/autopatrolled
  }} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 11:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Baseball-Reference lists Loughlin as having attended Manhattan College, but with no first name. I wonder if Retrosheet is aware of those documents. -Dewelar (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is not good. This is not an extremely difficult article to tackle as sources are not readily available. Also, I would think this article needs to be built up from the foundation - 1933, when the racial barrier went up (of course that's not necessarily true :) ) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your well-researched, deft clarification of this topic. Nice job. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

Location (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the compliment! It's become a bit of an ongoing project of mine to give a decent treatment of both the top marathoners and the contemporary big names. I've submitted a DYK if you want to review/add any suggestions. Cheers! SFB 17:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have given me some good advice on the George Jackson article and I would appreciate you having a look at this: Talk:Bobby Seale, if you dont mind. Thank you, ZHurlihee (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. Sometimes I come across an interesting story by chance when doing the research work on athletes! Pretty much the same thing happened with

Hi there. I'm the Online Communications Director for Newt Gingrich's campaign. I noticed the section on the Meet the Press interview you posted to the N.G. Presidential campaign page. I thought it was balanced. I am hoping you could provide a similar balance to the entitlement reform section of the Newt Gingrich Political Positions page. If you check the Talk:Political_positions_of_Newt_Gingrich page, you will notice that I posted a note requesting an edit of the entitlement reform section to also reflect Gingrich's explanation. Also, the language used currently ("however") seems inappropriate. Unfortunately there has been no response. Would you mind providing some balance to that section? Thanks. --Joedesantis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

[1] - bots usually take care of the messed up bots tag. I usually give'em a few hours then if they miss something go back and fix it manually. Is it okay if i remove all that junk again?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on the article's talk page. Thanks!

Location (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for trying to bring some balance to this article. Unfortunately your material got deleted by an editor who's been adding highly critical material, some of which has been directly contradicted by its supposed sources. If you can find a decent reference for what you wrote I'll support you. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to address someone else. All I did in that article was de-capitalize a sub-heading per the MOS.

Location (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry --Simon Speed (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You gave some good advice as to where I might look for coverage, and based upon your guidence I have expanded and better sourced the article in question. I ask that you might revisit Kwon Hyi-ro and and consider moving from "week keep" to just "keep" per the improvements. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad to have helped. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the hatnote. Much better.

]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Location! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Request about Newt Gingrich 2012 article

Hi Location, I am Joe DeSantis with Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign. I've just

Thanks for taking a look into the matter. I see that an editor you requested look at the matter has agreed with you, but there has been no further comment and no action has been taken on the article itself. Would you be willing to make these updates at your next available opportunity? Thank you, Joedesantis (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job expanding James H. Horne. Happy new year and all the best. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment re. Chris Cole (politician). Would you say that the article's moved beyond stubhood and merits a "Start" rating? I'm not sure just where the boundary is, and in any case I'm not sure if it's quite proper to rate one's own work. Ammodramus (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Just saw your note. Yes, I would say at least "start".

Location (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Leochews (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are those rhetorical questions or is there something you would like me to do?

Location (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No, those questions were not meant to be rhetorical. I am seriously curious as to why someone like that could keep editing wikipedia. If you are interested, you can find the discussions we had on someone else's talk page. It starts on the bottom of this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moe_Epsilon/Archive_31 and picks back up here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moe_Epsilon/Archive_32. Leochews (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. Q: "Why is a user like this still able to make edits to pages on wikipedia?" A: Editors are not banned without some sort of "

Location (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gingrich campaign. When and where did I alter your post? If I did it was a mistake, but I don't think I did. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to it in the summary: diff. I've already fixed it: diff.

Location (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Location: I hope you will provide an email address at which I can directly communicate with you concerning the writeup of David Lifton, author of BEST EVIDENCE. I am closely associated with Lifton, who is now 72 years old, and rushing to complete his life's work on the Kennedy assassination with his new book, FINAL CHARADE, which focuses on Lee Oswald. He has been very concerned that the constant editing an re-editing of his entry in Wikipedia has been so severe that the result was a writeup that did not even contain a reasonable or accurate summary of the basic thesis of the book. Please communicate with me via my talk page. Thank you. MardinEden5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinEden5 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Location: Could you please explain to me why it is that your editing keeps removing from the Wikipedia writeup of David Lifton the central thesis of his work? Do you not think it appropriate that readers of the entry describing him, and his work, should contain a proper--if brief--summary of his work? The central thesis of Lifton's work is that the President's body was altered, prior to autopsy. (By "altered" is meant the removal of bullets from the body, and the changing of the character of the wounds, prior to autopsy). The result (per the central thesis): President Kennedy's body was tantamount to a medical forgery at the time of autopsy--i.e., the autopsy conducted at Bethesda Naval Hospital, outside Washington, D.C., some six hours after the Dallas murder. The result: the written autopsy report relied upon by the Warren Commission was not a reflection of the medical facts at the time of President Kennedy's assassination (at 12:30 PM CST in Dallas) but rather the way the President's body appeared at 8 PM that night, at the Bethesda autopsy. As I assume you are probably aware, the treating physicians in Dallas said that President Kennedy was shot from the front; the Bethesda autopsy said he was shot from behind. Communicating this thesis is central to a proper understanding of Lifton's life work, which was a major national best seller (in 1981) and was published three more times by three different publishers (1982, Dell; 1988, Carroll and Graf; and 1993, New American Library). Please explain what has to be done so as to state the thesis of BEST EVIDENCE, without that material being constantly removed, as if it were somehow in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Surely there is a way of communicating to Wikipedia's readers the central thesis of Lifton's life's work, without having you, or anyone else, constantly editing out the key sentences. Please explain and clarify, so that this problem can be addressed. If you were editing Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species," would you remove the sections explaining "natural selection"?? This is the sort of problem that seems to be faced here. The word "conspiracy" does not adequately explain what David Lifton's book is about; terminology like "wound alteration" or "body alteration" is necessary. The evidence for these concepts is in the book itself. Please clarify your objections. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinEden5 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have not checked your talk page since your last message here. I have indicated on your talk page twice already that the proper place to discuss this issue is

Location (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Athletics for a Signpost article scheduled to coincide with this summer's European Athletics Championships. The article about WikiProject Athletics would serve as the beginning of a special "Summer Sports Series", giving you an excellent opportunity to draw attention to the project's efforts and attract new members. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have consensus for your proposed changes to

Your reliable sourcing query has received at least one answer. Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize for anything. Thanks for the feedback!

Location (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! If you're willing to send me your email address, I can send transcripts of the Fetzer segments. I am not willing to post the full transcripts online, as they are copyrighted by Fox. You can email me via this page, and (if you're willing - NO obligation) send your email address so I can send PDFs. Thanks! --

Hold on that, please. I'll comment on the article's talk page.

Location (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Location. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 June 4.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. When I commented on this discussion page that the CHP policy for stranded female motorists was changed because of this disappearance you asked if I had a source for this statement. The LA Times reference for this on the Wiki page is behind a Paywall (as are the other Times references.) I went to the Los Angeles Library and purchased a copy of this article. It is now on my website: http://www.TheZodiacMansonConnection.com/victim_graham.html. It states the changes that were implemented and gives the reason for the change as being the Graham disappearance. I also put up an article from the San Mateo, California The Times of the same date that also states that CHP change and the similarities of other murders in the same area in a two year window around the Graham disappearance. (These are also related to on my website.) This article was obtained from NewspaperArchive.com. By the time I had gotten these articles on my site and was going to answer your question on the discussion page it had been archived. So I am telling you about it here. TZMC (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I actually saw your comments on the talk page earlier. Cheers!

Location (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Would it be alright if I changed the referral link for the CHP change to my webpage? (That is if the page doesn't get deleted.) There is already a link to a newspaper article on my site from the Wiki page on Laurence Merrick, who ran an Academy of Dramatic Arts that Sharon Tate, murdered by the Manson Family, attended. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Merrick. (I get many hits on my site every month from this link.) My webpage is http://www.TheZodiacMansonConnection.com/crockett_merrick.html. He made a movie about the Manson Family and a few years later he was shot to death at his school. And there are links to four different pages on my site from Wikipedia, Finland. TZMC (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I like to see the actual text myself, placing the article on your website and linking to it - instead of linking to an authorized source for archiving - may violate various copyright policies. For example, my understanding is that the Merrick information should link to http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ka1VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KuADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6700%2C6458333. I would ask for clarification from an admin or one of the relevant copyright pages. It's still valid to cite the paper even though not all readers may be able to directly or quickly access it.

Location (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

"where the Dallas City Code does not permit merchandise to be sold within areas under the control of the its [sic] Park and Recreation Department"? Maybe it should be, "...as the Dallas City Code does not permit merchandise to be sold in that area, which is under the control of its Park and Recreation Department".--andreasegde (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that. Cheers!

Location (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Location - thanks for starting to sort this out. I had noticed but I'm spending most of my time watching rather than editing! SFB 20:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy! The U.S. coverage is quite awful.

Location (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You added information from a source, and provided inline citations: [2] but not the actual source itself.

Mosedale (page 1) is currently citation #3 in the article.[3] The article is eight pages long, so I employed shortened footnotes (

Location (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The article is from 2006, but the citations say 2007. Usaully the blue is also meant to redirect to the citation, see

talk) 14:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't even see that the date was off. I've corrected it, now the redirect works. Thanks!

Location (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

http://reftag.appspot.com/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chauncey Marvin Holt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Secret Service

ChiRunning (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Posture

Virgilio Paz Romero (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Militant

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ► Belchfire-TALK 01:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here for clarification. Libro0 (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work combating fringe theories on Wikipedia! Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Location (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Your eye could be useful here as well: Veterans Today. Cheers. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Salami - another Veterans Today contributor that doesn't seem to fulfill notability criteria. Plot Spoiler (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Habilian Association. Plot Spoiler (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to delete organizations and individuals who are "not notable" primarily because they are promoted primarily by media outlets controlled by governments such as Iran which some believe promote offensive conspiracy theories. Wikipedia does not delete notable individuals simply because the promote the views of governments such as National Socialist Germany, communist Russia's TASS, or even the GW Bush adminstration which some believe to be offensive propoganda, indeed they are even more notable if they are promoting propoganda as long as the article does not itself promote such views. The Habilian Association is mentioned in thousands of internet articles by many different organizations, but most of them are aligned with Iran or allied movements, which should make it notable. Any individual or group sanctioned or mentioned by a government or government approved news agency should be notable. Wikipedia routinely tries to delete every terrorist or mass murder suspect or victim with global mainstream media coverage on the basis of notability, but this is not constructive. Redhanker (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are attempting to talk to Plot Spoiler since I have not edited in that article. You may want to bring this up on his/her talk page and not mine.

Location (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Location. You have new messages at Abhidevananda's talk page.
Message added 02:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Location. You have new messages at Abhidevananda's talk page.
Message added 03:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I started gathering sources for those articles, see here. See if it anyhow helps! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you want any article from JSTOR, I can send it to you! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though I'm not authorized to access that. Are you able to list a couple sources that you think are most relevant? My hope is to get an acceptable start-class article up and let the interested editors work by consensus to add on to it with other secondary and even acceptable primary sources.

Location (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, I have changed privacy. here. If you want any article from JSTOR, I can add it here! --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added a bit from

Location (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

No, it looks good! Right now I was reading this article. Too good! See the see also recommendations too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL!

Location (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

.. here too! Sohail Inayatullah is a notable writer! --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've about done all I am going to do on this. This subject doesn't interest me, it's not a nice environment to work in, and it's taking time from other things that I am interested in. I will soon propose that the draft take the place of the current article as I believe it serves as a good foundation. If others wish to add sources that are more closely linked with the subject, I'll let them make their proposals on the Talk page to achieve consensus.

Location (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Hi, thanks for fixing my careless error at

Thanks for the note! In

Location (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hey Location, I didn't have time until now. But today, I'm going to get involved with it. Thanks for the reminder. --Universal Life (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that proposal! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your neutrality is to be commended, but I was wondering if you intend to make any specific recommendations on how to address the gridlock in PROUT? If the idea is to simply request temporary protection again, please note that the previous edit war involved two editors whose

behavior, if repeated, should be addressed through blocks

. 19:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The spa tag for

• First of all, I do not have any voting block! I do not take parts in WP. I do what I deem is the best for its improvement. Secondly, is your SPA tag, for DezDeMonaaa, without signature on purpose? --Universal Life (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! We can finally write a decent article on long-distance as a whole! Now to find the time to do it.... SFB 20:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you removed an entire paragraph in the article Nicoli Nattrass, which referenced an article of Nattrass's analysis in AIDS denialism. I would like to discuss it in the article talk page so to help to understand your edit rationale better. Thank you.Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Post your question and I'll answer.

Location (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I see your point, but at the same time I also see no benefit to the discussion by leaving the sniping (of which I'm involved) out in the open, rather it is a distraction. Feel free to restore the collpase if you agree, unless of course you consider yourself involved at this point.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless involved editors take a step back to cool off and let uninvolved editors help, I am going to recommend that an administrator close that discussion and advise editors take this back to

Location (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, the collpase was intended to cool things off. Throwing this back to the talk page will probably not help much unless an RfC were started.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV/N is to obtain the input from uninvolved editors. You guys might as well be on the article's talk page.

Location (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

If this gets kicked back to the talk page then we will have to use some other form of DR. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, as an uninvolved editor, not one of your comments there has been useful to be in working out a resolution to the issue. I don't know if you have any history with Viriditas, but his/her calling him/her a hypocrite and a troll was certainly not warranted. He/she is correct that your remarks have been generally inflammatory and that is not very helpful in DR.

Location (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm certain it appears that way with Viridatas, and I could point you to said hypocrisy if it mattered but I suspect it doesn't. Not one of my comments have been useful? I disagree, but would like to see this issue resolved so ill keep your comment in mind.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you noticed my response to your suggested wording? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Location; I'm dropping you this note because you've used

Hello, Location. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Flag_and_Coat_of_arms_of_Western_Sahara_.2F_SADR.
Message added 00:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Leaving a talkback, scene that page has so many deductions that a post at another one might make mine not appear on your watchlist. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I have apologized to Tokyogirl79 for suggesting that she was perhaps not acting in good faith. Unfortunately, she made some undeniable mistakes on her talk page regarding the proposed deletion of the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article which made her look suspicious to both Robcamstone (talk) and myself; however, we all make mistakes. Anyway, it is very clear to me now that she is an honest Wikipedian. I truly wish that only administrators had the authority to propose articles for deletion because a lot of disagreeable experiences would not occur that way. The page in question has been around since December 2011, and since then it has only improved, and it had never been considered for deletion. It's just not right to potentially allow random haters to try to tear down what has taken us many hundreds of hours to build. Regards... Dontreader (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. For the record, I do not agree with you that Tokyogirl79 made any improper edits in

Location (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I've mentioned your name at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Joe McCarthy.3BMcCarthy Army hearings. Acroterion (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll make a brief statement there.

Location (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It closed before I could post. Oh, well.

Location (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Transporterman appears to have correctly sussed the issues in any case. Acroterion (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Location, there's a minor tweak that needs to be made to the hook for me to pass your current nomination. If you don't agree with the suggested adjustment, let me know. If not, I'll just make the adjustment myself and pass the article. Everything else regarding the nomination is fine. cheers, --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Donald Taylor and I'm the Wikipedian-in-Residence with the University of Maryland Libraries, Historic Maryland Newspapers Project. The Historic Maryland Newspapers Project is a part of the National Digital Newspaper Program, a joint program of the Library of Congress and the National Endowment for the Humanities. We are digitizing historic state newspapers for inclusion in the Library of Congress's Chronicling America online digital collection of America’s historical newspapers.

We are conducting a survey of Wikipedia contributors who have cited Chronicling America as a reference in their edits to Wikipedia. It is the objective of our study to identify ways that Chronicling America might be made a better resource for people editing Wikipedia. We recently used Linkypedia to identify contributors who have used Chronicling America. As an editor who has made use of Chronicling America, we hope that you will take our survey.

If you are interested in taking our survey, you can do so at this website.

More information about the survey is provided before you begin answering survey questions. Participation in the survey is strictly voluntary. It should take you less than thirty minutes to complete. You must be at least 18 years old to participate. If you have any questions about this survey, you can contact Donald Taylor, Wikipedian-in-Residence for the Historic Maryland Newspapers Project, at [email protected], or Elizabeth Caringola, Historic Maryland Newspapers Project Librarian, at [email protected].

If you decide to take this survey, please do so within a week, by Sunday, 3 August 2014.

Thank you for your contribution to our study.

-- Taylordw (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Location. I apologize for moving your comment at

I had added a 'see also' link to Anderson Cooper's page. Cooper freely admits that he worked as a CIA intern before becoming a journalist. The Wikipedia page on Cooper also claims that he has no training as a journalist. For these reasons a link to his page may be of interest to those who browse the Operation Mockingbird page. In other words, it is something that users may like to 'see also'. If you have some objection to this or a justification for reverting that edit, I would appreciate it if you would offer those reasons here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.96.16 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 15 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

We don't place

Location (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I think we can both agree that nobody cares about his job as a waiter. However, people interested in the topic of Operation Mockingbird may find his collaboration with intelligence services interesting. If he were a renowned publisher of books on waitstaff etiquette, perhaps a similar 'see also' link on the waiter page would be relevant. As it stands, he is one of the top talking heads on television. Hopefully you can appreciate this distinction. Thanks again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.96.16 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 15 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Cooper was not a journalist during his internship and there is no evidence to suggest that he did anything more than paper pushing, so the assertion that he was a journalist who collaborated with intelligent services is a

Location (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

In the case of your analogies, you again present a false equivalency. Regina is not advocating for people to drop acid (to my knowledge) and has no relevant connection to MKUltra. Whereas Anderson is a TV personality who parrots Pentagon positions on a network that commonly advances narratives which are of the same. The content of the Operation Mockingbird article speaks of journalists who advance narratives that benefit the state. I hope you can appreciate the distinction between Regina & MKUltra and Anderson & Operation Mockingbird. While one would surely be irrelevant, the other has a relationship. In the interest of the user's browsing pleasure I feel a 'see also' link may be warranted. If the user feels that the connection is spurious, he is free to examine the source material referenced and decide for himself. A 'see also' link does not accuse Anderson, but offers a link that users may like to 'see also'. Thanks again for the courteous discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.96.16 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 16 August 2014‎

You assert that there is a relationship between Cooper and the CIA because he "is TV personality who parrots Pentagon positions on a network that commonly advances narratives which are of the same." If this is the foundation of your argument — that Cooper or CNN are collaborating with or being manipulated by the Pentagon — then I don't see it. You would certainly need to demonstrate this connection with reliable sourcing for its inclusion in Wikipedia. I think you are more likely to get satisfaction if more editors were involved outside of my talk page. To obtain additional feedback, it's probably better to post your concerns in

Location (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)).[reply

]

I've place a first cut of the rewrite here. You can get a quick sense of what was changed in this diff. I obviously didn't change the templates and shortcuts and what-not. I'd like some help hammering down the language to use as "notable" is a bit more grammatically handy than "inclusion". Feel free to make edits to that page or just tell me what you think I should to. Protonk (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been out of town so it may take me awhile to catch up. Thanks for the note! -

Location (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For perseverance and scrutiny for the betterment of Wikipedia articles and WP:RS sourcing/issues; I award you this barnstar. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your removal of referenced content in three articles (Fred Hampton, COINTELPRO, and Federal Bureau of Investigation). If you don't like the content, I don't know what to tell you but it was referenced. Here is another which mentions Agent York Philadelphia magazine. Helpsome (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the courtesy of an explanation. I do not add or remove content on the basis of whether I like it or not. In this particular case, the presentation of the quote states as fact that someone named Gregg York actually stated: "We expected about twenty Panthers to be in the apartment when the police raided the place. Only two of those black nigger fuckers were killed, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark". Fact-checking this statement, I found that M. Wesley Swearigen said that there was an FBI agent who said that (i.e. it is

Location (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

With all due respect, you might question the validity of the comment but it is referenced. If you want to call

WP:RSN. Helpsome (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You need to check your premises with these if-then statements. I did not call Swearingen a liar. I am, however, fully aware of my options to challenge a source or the misapplication of that source if or when the need or desire should arise. -

Location (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

M. Wesley Swearigen quoted an agent Gregg York. You are claiming that Gregg York doesn't exist. If M. Wesley Swearigen quoted a non-existent person, how would that not be lying? Helpsome (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check your premises again. I did not claim that Gregg York doesn't exist. Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't. Swearingen could be telling the truth; he could be lying; he could be mistaken; he could be using a pseudonym. Either way, the material you've restored gives an inordinate amount of weight to what is at best hearsay about a low-profile individual. And to use the material, particularly without in-text attribution in a section with a headline-type quote, is unnecessary

Location (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This review was begun on 10 December; it's been 17 days. Nearly 200 revisions to the article have been made in the interim.

WP:DUE remains wherein, once again, the controversy is now unquestionable in the main, and the update by Marrs is not undue in the context. (That Marrs is an award-winning journalist who now lives on the fringe does not detract from the fact that he is an award-winning journalist.

I've worked on this article on and off for years. When it's a Good Article, that's not going to stop. (Frankly, I think it's FA-worthy, but I swore I'd never go through that again when the nom died on the vine.)

Two other editors have recommended that this article pass. If I'm correctly reading the GA process, that's on you as its original reviewer. Am I out of line to wonder why I'm still waiting? —

Re:

Location (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If I may press [grin], the issue is

^ATalkPage 04:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:SYNTH is a violation of the GA criteria (#2). -

Location (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, 2b mentions "controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged," but your (with all respect) generic "appear to be" and "could be" above do not stand on their own as reasons to not promote. Again, I'm compelled to argue for promotion per

^ATalkPage 04:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Argue all you want, but I'll point out some of the issues when I have more time. I don't know about you, but I am in the midst of a holiday spending a bit more time with my family. You are quickly burning through any goodwill that I may have to give. -

Location (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

And please confine your comments regarding this subject to the article's talk page. It is on my watchlist. -

Location (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm widowed, kids grown and gone, living with and caring for an elderly relative, damned lucky to have a job that allows me to work online, whose hobbies are confined to that which is broadcast and/or online, who watched a Featured Article candidacy die unceremoniously, and who waits on a Good Article candidacy because there "appear to be" more issues. I apologize for my frustration and/or impatience. —

^ATalkPage 07:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Season's greetings! I hope you enjoy your holiday. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to express my appreciation for all your work on the review of this article. Your detailed comments have taught me about maintaining NPOV, not over presenting FRINGE, understanding SYNTH, and quality encyclopedic writing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your hard work on this article! —

Location (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll take that as a no ...

^ATalkPage 19:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Location, I'm curious what you think should be done about the

I agree. While there is a bit of coverage in reliable sources, I don't think it is sufficient to pass

Location (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Location (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeppers. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Location et al. I seem to be getting a crash course in Wikispeak, and I applaud the (relative) transparency of your decision-making process, though it does sometimes strike me as a little arbitrary. It's odd to listen in on a group of people whose identities are deliberately concealed, and among whom there may be none who've written a book, composed a piece of music, advanced a piece of legislation, or even parented a child, discussing in the most authoritative tones the merits or accomplishments of a biographical subject, and often belittling or deriding his or her accomplishments. Please explain why you've chosen to delete my article, and do me the courtesy of being specific. "Google Books" and "Google News" are not the be-all and end-all of sources for a writer's legitimacy. Do your sources of verification go beyond Google? Beyond the web? Here, for your reference, is the publisher listing for A.W. Hill: http://counterpointpress.com/authors/a-w-hill/. A search will also lead you to a number of extant reviews of each of his three published books. As for Philby Greenstreet, well, you might be very surprised to learn who he is. Good luck in ferreting out the impostors! Derwydd23 Derwydd23 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per

the onus is on you, the contributor, to properly establish the subject's notability. Since the bulk of this discussion appears on Fuhghettaboutit's talk page, that is where my more detailed reply will be. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (I had to look that up). I will indeed do my due diligence. Happy New Year. Ghostrider51 (talk)

Thank you very much for your advice over here. I've requested help from the relevant project. Apologies for the delay in replying ... and Happy New Year! LÒÓkingYourBest(Talk|Edits) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Location! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I reverted your edit to

The reversion was inadvertent. My bad. I also intended to add a url as a citation with the intent of coming back to it, however, it already is cited properly in the article. Thanks for catching it! -

Location (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Review by, and input from experienced editors is kindly requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Trial of Clay Shaw page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

No worries. I moved it for you. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

Location (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you start the

My mistake, the first sentence did say she broke the world record, I removed it now (since I intended the article not to say that). Is there an actual need for an RfC, if she doesn't claim to be the record-holder? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for jumping in at David Paul Kuhn. I'm still attempting to remove promotional material (most recently, a link to the author's Amazon sales page) from the article and would appreciate your continued assistance. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for just about....45 minutes, with different search parameters... Thanks for so quickly finding this! Awesome. Cityside189 (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had difficulty finding it, too. I'll come back some other time to clean up the format for the references. Cheers! -

Location (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you.

—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[1] "....Sanger appealed her conviction, at the same time appealing for a doctor's right to dispense advice about birth control methods. She lost her appeal, but the New York appellate court gave doctors the right to hand out contraceptive information, if prescribed for medical reasons. -AND- ^[2], ".....Sanger appealed, but her conviction was upheld. Nevertheless, the state appellate court's 1918 decision interpreted the prohibitory statute broadly enough to allow physicians to prescribe birth control to women when medically indicated"

Thanks, I would appreciate any help, direction? --Cityside189 (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

Location (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Location, you helped a lot. I found what I was looking for... I didn't want to place you on the spot but was amazed when you pulled out that other reference... thanks for being open to communication and I hope to see you around the 'pedia.. --Cityside189 (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the source you quoted is a letter to the editor, it is not reliable. The national archives, states that this particular film was created by the Department of Justice's Drug Enforcement Administration and therefore is in the public domain per 17 U.S.C. § 105.XavierGreen (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link please. The video itself states that ABC's Paul Altmeyer was the producer/writer as do reliable secondary sources (e.g https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19790710&id=9HRhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HO4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5847,4797463&hl=en). -

Location (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

First of all, what does it matter what the copyright status of the work is so long as the host, youtube, is hosting it, they obviously think its ok or have liscencing for it. Its not being hosted on wikipedia, so copyright doesn't matter. Since its an external link, there is no liability on wikipedia's end either way. Secondly, its clearly marked as being created by the DEA. While ABC was involved in its production, it seems likely to me given what is there that it was funded by the DEA, see here https://catalog.archives.gov/id/37950?q=Mind%20Control.XavierGreen (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I, too, found it at https://research.archives.gov/id/37950 which is essentially the same link. YouTube links that violate

Location (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Without a specific release, it doesn't. Ok, there's several issues at play here. One, it is possible for a creative work to have rights held by multiple entities. This appears to be the case here. There's the governmental agency and there's ABC. In the former case, we can safely presume the do not sustain copyrights on the work, as it is a work of a governmental agency. In the latter case, we do not know. And there's the rub. [5] indicates that access restrictions are unrestricted. This is not the same as waiving copyright or releasing under a free license. Further, the use restrictions are "undetermined". Could we make a copy of this and sell it? Probably not, especially given there is a monetary interest as represented by the Amazon sale. Since we don't know with certainty what the copyright status of the work is and whether ABC has released rights or not, then we have to presume ABC has and maintains rights over the work, regardless of the government's interest in the work. Both have to have rights released. As to it being ok because it's on YouTube and YouTube checks stuff...no. YouTube is user contributed content, and is rife with copyright violations. They take them down when they receive takedown notices, but copyright violations can and do sustain for a long, long time. Unless we can prove this work is available under a free license, or posted by the government and/or ABC, then we can not link to it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the National Archives made an agreement with Amazon to allow individuals to purchase DVDs of National Archives material through Amazon.com. The Federal Government has no monetary interest in the sale of any of its material, other than covering the cost of the issuance of such materials, which it releases for the convienence of individuals interested in it, not for any objective of monetary gain. Case in point - the national archives allows anyone to download this video off their website free of charge.XavierGreen (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the National Archives webpage on the video in question clearly states that anyone may make copies of a DVD held on file at the archives. As the Archives allows free dispersal of the work in question, i see no problems posting a link to that work here.XavierGreen (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Still no verifiable assertion that ABC has released their rights to the work, nor has the archives made any claim of free license. Equivocal cases like this default to presumption of non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that there is no verifiable assertation that ABC released there rights is relevant. When looking at the policy against linking is in effect when, " [there is] reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright", we do not have reason to believe that is the case here. In fact we have as i have indicated above every reason to indicate that that is not the case. Given that the government itself freely distributes the work in a variety of mediums without any deference to any rights ABC might have, it is clear that in the governments eyes that ABC no longer has any viable collateral rights to the material. Given that, there is no reason to believe otherwise.XavierGreen (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Free distribution does not equate to freely licensed. Please see Gratis versus libre. Copyrights can and have been violated even with something that is freely distributed. As for "do not have reason to believe" it is copyrighted, again it's the reverse case. We do not have reason to believe it is free licensed or public domain. The only assertion about that which is valid is the government's rights. There is no assertion anywhere that ABC has released their rights. Look at 58:32. ABC certainly seems to think it's copyrighted, as they have marked it as such. Further, look at 58:20 of the video. There are photographs in use in the image which are copyrighted to a third party. I'm sorry, but we have to presume this media is not available as public domain or under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, all the screenshots you've linked to indicate are that ABC attempted to claim rights when it was first published in the 1970's, no where is there an indication that it is still the case. In fact the governments unrestricted distribution of the work indicates that ABC has abandoned any residual copyright claims it may have had, and through its acqueisence it would be estopped from attempting to reactivate any such claim. In fact, ABC has donated large amounts of material to the National Archvies that is now in public domain, see here for example: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/768?q=*:* XavierGreen (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your are of course welcome to disagree. But, even if ABC did donate their work to the archives (and there's no proof they donated this particular work), there's still the issue of the third party copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it strange that the government without ABC's permission would allow unrestricted access to ABC's work and allow DVDs of it to be purchased or even copied free of charge. This seems to be a contradiction in labeling the use restrictions as "Undetermined". The NARA does state: "We do have some donated or other materials that might be copyrighted."[6] -

Location (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The National Archives regularly lists many works that are indisputably in the public domain as having an "undetermined" or even "restricted-possibly" use restriction. For example it is well sourced and indisputable that Frank Capra's Why We Fight series of films are in the public domain, yet if you take a look at the national archives pages for parts of the series, it says use "restricted-possibly" which is a completle joke as the films were produced entirely by army personel, who were paid by the army, and were working for the army when they made the films. Frank Capra was an army officer when he produced them for the government! See for instance here: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/36068?q=why%20we%20fightXavierGreen (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but Capra was a government employee; Paul Altmeyer was not. -

Location (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Here is a more relevant example then. The entire catalog of Universal Newsreel was donated in the 1970's to the National Archives, which had the legal effect of releasing the entire catalog into the public domain. The fact that all Universal Newsreels are in the public domain is a well settled fact of law. Yet despite the fact that the entire catalog of universal newsreel is in the public domain, the National Archives lists them as "restricted-possibly" (see here: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/2050592?q=universal%20newsreel%20nazis ) even though there are no other possible claimaints to the rights as they were specifically donated to the national archives.XavierGreen (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to thank the Location user for his or her comments on the Fringe theories forum concerning the dispute over the [Center for Security Policy] article. I agree this issue did not belong on the fringe page. This dispute has become an edit war so I asked for a 3rd party review. Zeke1999 (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are unlikely to get any satisfaction with a third opinion, particularly since you are dealing with an editor who is only slightly more experienced than yourself and is somewhat

Location (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

+1. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've tried to fix some of the content in the Michael Ruppert article. For your reference, Ruppert was interviewed by both the DOJ OIG (DOJ report ([Chapter 4 section A 4 c]) and the CIA OIG (CIA report Part I: The California Story: Findings, paragraphs 142-147]) during their investigations of Gary Webb's Dark Alliance newspaper series. The odd claim in the Ruppert article that "Experts who interviewed him later verified that he believed his own story" seems to be based on the conclusion in the DOJ report: "Based on our review, we believe that while Ruppert communicates his allegations fervently, they have no firm anchor in reality." I haven't got time to do anything with this, but based on the material in the reports, I also have serious doubts that Ruppert's mother worked for the NSA, as the article states. Rgr09 (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I agree with you regarding Ruppert's mother. At the very least, the statement should us proper attribution (i.e. "Rupper stated that his mother, Madelyn, was a cryptanalyst at the National Security Agency, working in a unit that cracked Soviet codes in order to track their nuclear physicists." Alternatively, it could be removed altogether per

Location (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing the article subheadings. Did you receive my 7 November query on the article's Talk page? Snoobysoo (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you received my above query? I've had no reply.Snoobysoo (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you wrote on RSN, I'd like to ask you if you want to give your opinion about the NYT obituary as source for the claim that Yisrael Meir Kagan wanted to become a high priest. --Jonund (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines at the top of WP:RSN ask editors to specify the source to which they have questions, but the OP did not do this.

Location (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikiclaus' cheer !

		Wikiclaus greetings
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikiclaus' Wikipedian good cheer. This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote Happy New Year , whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !

Any assistance please?

I thought since you edit the oswald article maybe able to assist me with this article: The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union it is being put up for speedy deletion for copyright violations. I have never had to deal with this before.

Any help would be most helpful. Thank you!! Moscowamerican (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Location (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Snoobysoo (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)SnoobysooSnoobysoo (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you picked up this message, Location? Snoobysoo (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Location. 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

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]

Long time no see. Nice to have you back editing! Rgr09 (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Maybe I'll dig back into the drug trafficking project one of these days. Cheers! -

Location (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Location (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a new RfC at Plummer v. State RfC, dealing with the Internet meme section. Please visit and comment on the proposed language for the section. This is revised from the first proposal, and you are receiving this notice due to your participation in the first RfC. GregJackP Boomer! 20:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts to beat back the tin foil hat tide. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello, Location. You have new messages at Draft talk:Eladio del Valle.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your opinion will be appreciated a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi,
  I just realised that in the light of recent events, I might come off as a conspiracy theorist lol. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
  Regards —usernamekiran (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to me either way. I care more that other editors are respectful and edit within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cheers! -

Location (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm. What do you think about my contribs? :-) Please answer honestly. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 10:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following your contributions. I suspect from one or two of our previous discussions that you are a newer editor getting the hang of what sourcing is allowed, etc. Keep at it! -

Location (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

lol yes. I'm sort of new at editing, but I'm very familiar with almost all the wiki policies except sources. I mean, I still don't know which sources are considered as reliable, and which aren't. So I usually rely on primary sources like I did with QKENCHANT. To ascertain the project is notable/discussed off the wiki, I even mistakenly provided a conspiracy source lol. I didn't know it was considered as conspiracy source till you pointed it out on the talkpage of Clay Shaw. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... but thanks for the note. —ATS 🖖 talk 16:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was an employee, maybe high ranking. In the last days of his life he suffered from sever case of grand paranoia. Maybe he was involved in MK Ultra, or maybe the letter/mail scanning project.

I can't remember who he was. I thought, you might know, as our watchlist is a lo similar. Kindly ping me when you reply. I hop you can identify that employee. It has been bugging me a lot. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Location (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

thanks, but no. It was a little similar to Olson though. The employee I am talking about was retired. He had paranoia of "big brother" type. Everything is being watched and/or being controlled by the agency sort of paranoia. His death was "non controversial". That's all I can recall. Anyways I will let you know when I remember/find out. Thanks again. :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 04:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need your expertise/you as soon as possible. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are asking. Angleton? -

Location (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Friend. I'm writing about our JFK dispute. I have no wish to get into editing wars, especially on such a controversial subject. However, I honestly don't understand your reasons for reverting my edit. My source is Dr. Michael Parenti, who himself is featured as a rather respectable entry in Wikipedia. Likewise, if I'm not mistaken, he is the author of many books with reputable publishing houses. So, please enlighten me: What's unreliable about this ONE sentence? Moreover, this entry gives a picture of the field, showing that conspiracy in this area is not only popular among the public, but among scholars. This is simply a fact, which I sincerely hope you are not trying to suppress. I hope we can at least reach some compromise on this. Cordially awaiting your answer.Brachney (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Brachney[reply]

I have responded on the article's talk page. -

Location (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brachney (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Location. Your sandboxes are now all red-linked redirects to your recently deleted user page. Is it okay to delete these? Or would you prefer to keep some or all of them? If you want to keep them, they should be blanked or templated with {{user sandbox}}. The reason I am interested is because these sandboxes are appearing on User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects/Userspace as being broken redirects requiring administrator attention. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Location (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there, I think you misattributed an unsigned comment to me at Talk:Safari Club. Aloha, groupuscule (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Sorry about that! Cheers! -

Location (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for fixing it. I can see how that one loose question might have looked like an extension of my list of (still unanswered) questions. groupuscule (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that Lee Harvey Oswald has been named as John F. Kennedy's killer on Wikipedia; I suggest the same be done to O.J. Simpson and name him as the killer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to

In other news, the Prime Minister of Sweden visited Washington today, and my tiny little nipples went to France. -

Location (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

It was a simple question: the writer here was just suggesting that O.J. be named as the killer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.125 (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a strange post in that I don't recall ever having edited

Location (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The suggestion is that since Wikipedia goes by the official and still confirmed accurate record - Oswald acting alone - in the Kennedy assassination, we could go by O.J. Simpson murdering Nicole and Ron despite being found not guilty, as evidence points to his guilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.97.98 (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 2,500 editors who have worked on that page and you have chosen to make that suggestion to one who hasn't. You have my permission to do whatever you think is best. -

Location (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirected from AfD Candidate's Talk Page [1]:

It is very clear that in many recent months you have taken a keen interest in editing JFK Assassination articles. Including an article on my person which only peripherally associated me with the event in my role as a producer ^[2]. I was therefore taken aback to see concluding with a full Afd request rather than some citation.

In the discussion^[3], I tried to address possible misunderstandings which may have provoked your action.

The principle being your apparent disdain for "Fringe Theories" and your conclusion that I may be associated with them. This, owing to my involvement, some 24 years ago in representing the intellectual property interests of three KGB officers assigned to the Mexico City Rezidentura of KGB in 1963 and their interactions with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Most notably, LHO's erratic behavior, attempted suicide in Moscow during a tourism holiday and most critically, evidence shared with me and published manifesting significant personality disorder and violent tendencies. Pulling a pistol during a visa interview is not the hallmark of a stable personality. (In the days before metal detectors.)

Perhaps the fact that the article referenced my speaking invitations to the 2 dominant American conferences during the 50th Anniversary in 2013 made you think I was guilty by association? Au contraire, I was the Daniel in the Lions' Den at both conferences. Sneered at and nearly spat upon. And it was quite something confronting fellow speaker Oliver Stone with my alternative views. So, if that is what you thought, I might ask you to reconsider your position. I am pretty much in the Posner/Bugliosi camp.

As I have not observed that you have written, but rather that you have edited a lot, I honestly don't know your own views. But given the time you have invested in your clarifications, I would be keen to know them.

As for the lack of mention of me in the Nechiporenko article, I don't know who wrote it, nor do I care. Anybody can selectively edit reality. My reality with Nechiporenko was evidenced here ^[4] or ^[5] or in various other citations.

While I discussed many details at the two 2013 symposia, I have reserved some information for my own writing.

However, if it interests you at all to communicate any further on Oswald's defection, Moscow, Minsk or Mexico, I would be happy to discuss with you. Online or off.

Otherwise, I regret that the article written about me did not adhere to Wikipedia standards. Somebody *could* fix those. I just didn't think that -as one of the KEEP commenters said- that the "baby be thrown out with the bathwater".

Thank you for your time. litman_bd (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. If the purpose of all of this is to save the article, I think your energy is going to be better spent posting in

Location (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it somewhat unlikely you saw my "defense" because it was, most curiously, Reverted out from its own Talk Page ... so I had to move it to talk It is pre-requisite reading to the above, but the Revert compromised timing.

That said, I genuinely am interested in your "take" on JFK. litman_bd (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why your comments were removed, but I saw them because I received an alert after you tagged me in your post. You could ask an administrator for assistance in restoring them.

I'm not interested in discussing JFK outside of the context of improving Wikipedia articles, and that's best done on the talk pages of the articles. Sorry. -

Location (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

 Diako ^{«  Talk »} 19:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Location. When did this happen? Do you want to work on it again? I would be honoured to assist you. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above had something to do with a move and/or redirect. There was nothing in it. -

Location (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I'm working on the Barry Seal article, and I have some doubts about one of the sources cited. If you have time, I'd appreciate any comments you have. Rgr09 (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've decided to put work on the drug allegations aside for now. Enjoyed reading your finds and learned a lot. I'll keep plugging away at some of these issues, hope you don't mind if stop by to ask for suggestions/comments sometimes. Rgr09 (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Location:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – —usernamekiran(talk) 21:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

PS: you should consider about archiving your talkpage
I can provide a ready-made syntax for the bot if you want :)
You haven't edited in two weeks, I hope everything is fine. Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 21:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four months now :-/

—usernamekiran(talk) 05:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Location? —usernamekiran(talk) 13:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10 motnths. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

only four days remaining for inactivity of an year
I hope everything is fine in your real life. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion of Hunt's writing on the Talk Page: Talk:E. Howard Hunt You have made significant contributions to this article in the past. Your input would be greatly appreciated. BuffaloBob (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Location. 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

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]

The article currently says that Marrion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor, but JFK historian Stan Dane has pointed out in his book and research, “Prayer Man”, that Baker originally said he saw a man walking away from a stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor, a man who doesn’t match Oswald’s description, and that original interrogation reports say Oswald was on the first floor, at the entrance, (not in the first floor room or second floor lunchroom) and may have captured on film outside, and is the figure called “Prayer Man”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.235.62 (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the Lee Harvey Oswald article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. This article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest. But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.17.72 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Location:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – —usernamekiran(talk) 11:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

I noticed your comments regarding McCarthy and agree with you. Today I added "Venona Project & Vindication" and "Known Security/Loyalty Risks" sections. I encourage and request that you keep an eye and help me protect these sections. And as you commented, there's also some redundant info and inaccurate info in the article. Work with me to eliminate inaccurate info in the article. I can use an ally. Thank you. Jtpaladin (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on a complicated subject! Rgr09 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a stub on CIA and the press in my sandbox subpage; this is a short version of non-OM aspects. Please take a look and critique if you have time! Rgr09 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rgr09: Related to this, good work on Ben Bradlee. I blame Deborah Davis and Peter Janney for the spiderweb of "Operation Mockingbird" and "Murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer" conspiracy theories that have infected all of these articles at one time or another:

• Katharine the Great
• Allen Dulles
• Frank Wisner
• Phil Graham
• Katharine Graham
• Cord Meyer
• Peter Janney
• Mary Pinchot Meyer
• Kenneth O'Donnell
• David Powers
• James Jesus Angleton
• Ben Bradlee
• James Truitt
• Anne Truitt

I believe I used to have all of them and more on my watchlist at one time or another. -

Damn! Clearly, "these 2 cowpie fields are actually one big one. We can try to make our way up through the middle of it, but it turns into a mixed, high-density field, a little bit of everything: Sprengmine 44s, Schumine 42s, pot mines, A-200s, the little wooden bastards that the cowpie detectors don’t pick up..." Rgr09 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a tough assignment. That's why you got it." -

Location (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it a few weeks ago, couldn't greet you back then. But it is very nice to see you back. I hope you are doing well.
It would be very nice if you paste the following code at the top of your talkpage. It automatically archive your talkpage.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(21d)
| archive             = User talk:Location/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 100K
| archiveheader       = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 3
}}

Currently your talkpage is way too big, archiving is kind of necessary. See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. There are a couple things I want to achieve here, then I plan to take another break. Thanks also for posting the archiving tool. Sometimes I peruse my own talk page to refresh my memory about certain things, so for now I think I would like to keep it as it is. Keep up the good work! Cheers! -

Location (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Just speaking what I truly think :) maybe you can use {{

DNAU}}. Basically, it tells what not to archive for the said amount of days. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Darouet just added back info from Eclipse of the Assassins to the Amiram Nir article. [1] He also slandered me by claiming that a random ip that reverted him was actually me.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Regarding the assertion that Harrison was a CIA agent: Harrison denied working for any US government agency [7], so Bartley/Bartley are wrong. -

Location (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Location. Please consider joining the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disputes_and_edit-warring_around_KikiCamarena-related_articles. I'm trying to get all the disputes and edit-warring under control. Are you aware of other spillover around this dispute in other articles? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Location (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I saw that the discussion has been archived. There is the potential for many articles to be affected by the disputed sources, but I think

Location (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I'm not sure what to make of what's going on, and I've not looked closely at the concerns of misrepresenting sources etc. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Location (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Watkins (diplomat), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plain clothes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Location:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Epstein.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 22 October 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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When in the video was it mentioned that Phil Coulson was named after Danny Coulson? CarverSindile (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Can't help you. This is the only I made to

Location (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you think you can help me find who edit it then? CarverSindile (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George G. Burkley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United States Naval Hospital.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in updating the October Surprise articles. This Ben Barnes thing has brought a lot of people out of the woodwork. Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for jumping on this. You may have seen that I referenced

Location (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

People love the latest & greatest. It's sort of like whenever a new guy "confesses" to killing JFK or Hoffa. This story is (frankly) so ridiculous....it's hard to be objective here. I will be curious how RS treats it as time goes by. The big gaping hole in this that no one seems to be talking about is: as per this theory, they had already touched base with the Iranians prior to the Barnes/Connally trip....well if that is the case, why go all over the Middle East hoping a third party will pass messages on to people you are already in contact with? This is not to mention the fact Barnes said he concealed it because he didn't want to be known as a Bennedict Arnold to the Democratic Party. Well in the first place, he said he went on the trip not knowing its purpose (i.e. he was just a witness) so that hardly makes him a traitor to anyone....and secondly, if he had come out with this in '84 or '88, he would have had a statue in front of the DNC HQ dedicated to him for effectively ending the Reagan/Bush era. (Assuming Reagan knew what he supposedly spread all over the Middle East.) So yeah, a little hard to swallow. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Viriditas replied to you on the Reagan page. Just a word: anything he says....check it out. Because he distorts/lies about everything. In any case, not sure I'd waste my time with him.....you know what they say about arguing with idiots. :)Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Benedict Arnold" claim doesn't make sense to me either. I think SV tweeted that Barnes had been out of politics for decades and it was common for Texas Democrats to jump ship with Carter anyway. He made these claims 10 years ago, so Carter being in hospice shouldn't have anything to do with them coming out again. If anything, stories like this help to remind people that conspiracy theories are propagated by both sides of the political spectrum. -

Location (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Ditto thanks for your work on this. It is a truly frustrating subject to deal with, props for your patience and perseverance. Rgr09 (talk) Rgr09 (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Location (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the heads-up. The article has multiple issues. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think changing the title to what is in the subject line throws a little too much weight to the other side of the argument? I'd be curious as to what you think. (Since you haven't voted on that RFC yet.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may be away for the weekend, so I was hoping to see what others think prior to committing.

Location (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll take a look at that MKUltra thing you pinged me about when I get a chance. I have to admit though: I'm not that knowledgeable on that particular subject. Cheers!Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]