User talk:Arjuna909

The info is from the subarticle and the result of official police investigation. Hobartimus (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

From the subarticle, Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal

"===Results of internal police investigation in 2006=== On March 1, 2006, Wooten was notified of the results of an Alaska State Trooper internal investigation. The probe found that Wooten violated internal policy, but not the law, in making a death threat against Heath (the father of Sarah Palin and Molly McCann).^[1] Wooten denied having made the threat, but the investigation decided that he had in fact done so.^[1] The trooper investigation concluded that the death threat was not a crime because Wooten did not threaten the father directly; therefore, the investigator deemed the threat to be a violation of trooper policy rather than a violation of criminal law.^[2] Although the death threat was listed as a violation of trooper policy in the Memorandum of Findings^[1] issued on October 29, 2005, it was not mentioned at all in the suspension letter^[3] sent to Wooten by Col. Grimes on March 1, 2006."

I brought this up on talk earlier too and as far as I know, nobody disputed that he made the threat. Hobartimus (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless (and I have not checked your reference), you should be very careful about making that kind of claim about a person in a public fora such as Wikipedia. Consider this suggestion to for your own benefit as well. If such a claim is to be made at all, it should at the very least say "allegedly". Arjuna (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending the edit here, but please do not misrepresent me. I never made any claim in that edit and very clearly clarified that I merely moved, took the information from another article where it is well established and has consensus. It's no different than moving a sentence from the beggining of one article to the end of the same article. I am not the author or the producer of that original piece of information I just used it as allowed by GDFL. And I very clearly explained in both my edit summary and above that the information is based on the subarticle, so you should not misrepresent me by writing your reference , your claim and things like that as I have nothing to do with the reference or the police who made the claim or the original wikipedian who reported on the claim in the subarticle.Hobartimus (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if that is the case then my mistake and apologies. I think you will agree it is quite difficult on a fast-moving article such as this to sort out exactly what came from where, by whom, and when. But please be careful in putting this kind of material in, regardless of where it was originally found. Before I saw your clarification, I added a statement on the talk page, and I will clarify that now. Arjuna (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok no problem, as you see I didn't revert, next time if I try it I'll try to use "allegedly" to get easier consensus for inclusion. I just think that detail about is important to understanding the whole story, but for now it's fine as currently is in the article. Hobartimus (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material."

See . By restoring deleted content, it is your responsibility to show consensus for inclusion. In case you are not able to meet the above described burden of proof, you are in violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy, a serious violation of Wikipedia policy. Hobartimus (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In your post you stated that the Palin article is on probation. I was unaware of this could you link to the discussion where probation was decided? Hobartimus (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're probably right -- I was thinking of the Obama articles, which are on probation. It's late here -- my mistake, sorry. Arjuna (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Arjuna, please stop edit warring on the Bernardine Dohrn page. Please take your objections to the Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC or to the Talk:Bernardine Dohrn page. We're supposed to discuss rather than edit war. And you can't justify edit warring unless you can justify the idea that there is a BLP vio. -- Noroton (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Noroton was edit warring over disputed content considered BLP by many rather than following the consensus / discussion process. Anyway this is to let Arjuna808 know that I took the liberty of adding his/her to one of the two !votes here, for purposes of gauging consensus on the matter. Please feel free to update, fix, remove, strike, abstain, etc., if I have it wrong. Also, I just refactored a comment to which Arjuna808 voiced approval. Feel free, again, to rescind in case that changes things. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just nominated Julie MacDonald for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. Thanks! -- Noroton (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Aloha. The October 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd send some aloha before I get swept off by the world again. Hope everything's well with you. Aloha,--Laualoha 09:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Arjuna, I would appreciate you joining us at some point on either the temp or talk page for Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement. We need as many ideas for improvement as we can get. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey Viriditas, thanks for the smile (awhile back ago, but it got lost in my crazy world). As you've no doubt noticed, I've been scarce here of late. Just too many other things going on, but I will be back when life gets back to some semblance of normal (nothing bad, just hectic). Anyhow, hope all is well and let me know if there are any major brushfires -- I can usually pitch in as needed. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Aloha. The November 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 06:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Rad all about it!--Pharos (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean what I think it means? City of Angels? Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No -- just adding a digit on both ends so it's easy to remember. What's the CoA reference -- the city or the movie? Is there some meaning I might be inadvertently implying? Arjuna (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I was comparing Area code 808 and Area code 909. Your new (and old) user names made the think you had moved... :) Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, still here. Arjuna (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear. Do you get a chance to monitor the watchlist at all? Loihi Seamount is up for FA if you have the time to comment on it. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't watching that page but am now. I'll try to get to it in the next few days. Just a cursory glance so far but looks really strong. Arjuna (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arjuna909, heads up: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kombai_people&diff=302567297&oldid=302395373 I cannot say that I completely understand the use of "Melanesian" in Austronesian discourse - Austronesians who are black? - but non-Austronesian peoples are not designated as Melanesian in the modern literature - and there is no older literature for Kombai. The Kombai people are a subgroup of Awyu-Dumut which is Trans-New Guinea; i.e., Papuan (arguably an equally problematic designation, but one with currency.)24.22.141.252 (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also…it seems you're interested in Hawai'i. Most languages of the Pacific are related to Hawai'ian. Marquesan, Rapa Nui, Tahitian and Maori are among the most similar; Indonesian and Tagalog are more distant, but still visibly related. Excepting some languages of the (mainly North and East) coasts, New Guinea languages and peoples have nothing to do with these.24.22.141.252 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, but you're getting way too complicated for the purposes of the opening paragraph of the Kombai article at least. You're right about the linguistic complexity of New Guinea, and in that sense labels can get confusing. However, for the purposes of a basic ethnic description in the lead sentence, distinguishing them as "Melanesian", as distinct from "Polynesian" or "Indonesian" (in the geographic sense, not their political citizenship) or "Asian" or what have you, is the most accurate. I have no problem with a separate section further refining the linguistic distinction, but it doesn't need to be in the intro. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just linguistic, but ethnic and geographical: Papuan is not a synonym for Melanesian, and one doesn't typically refer to interior New Guinea as Melanesia. Do you have a source which applies this designation to the Kombai? (Out of curiosity, I googled Kombai + Melanesian, and found quite a few hits, but most were scraped from this article.)24.22.141.252 (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Papuan" is a subset of "Melanesian"; I have worked in the New Guinea region for 20 years, and this usage is commonly accepted and non-controversial, which is why I find your taking issue with it puzzling. Melanesia is a very broad categorization, but useful and appropriate to orient a generalist reader in an introduction of this type. Arjuna (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the nature of your work, if you don't mind me asking? I took a look through your contributions, and I'm pretty impressed. My own background is linguistics, in which one would never use Melanesian to refer to Papuans; the two have been distingushed since the work of Sidney Ray. So maybe it's me who is failing to appreciate uses such as found here, where, in the context of West Papuan politics, Melanesians is being contrasted with Malays.24.22.141.252 (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words about my Wikicontributions. I'd rather not go into my specific background except to say it's involved a variety of both social and biological science. Just sticking with anthropology as a discipline to work off of, "Melanesia" is commonly used as a convenient shorthand for the area and its peoples. Just a quick gander at Amazon.com reveals the following titles: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Anthropology-Melanesia-Culture-Tradition/dp/0521588367/, http://www.amazon.com/Melanesian-Odysseys-Negotiating-Narrative-Modernity/dp/1845455258/, etc. The Univ of California Press has a "Studies in Melanesian Anthropology" series: http://www.ucpress.edu/books/series/sma.php. So strong evidence that Melanesian is commonly accepted in (non-linguistic) social sciences as a generalized term. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm…there is also the Herdt book, "Ritualized homosexuality in Melanesia," which likewise conflates Papua with island Melanesia. Let me think about this a bit. It strikes me as carelessly inaccurate, but you've produced a few good examples. How would you feel about "Papuan people of Melanesia?" This would accommodate the broader use of Melanesia as well as the Papuan/Austronesian distinction. Here's an attempt at this; feel free to revert.24.22.141.252 (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I cited some of my sources, I hope it is OK.

I see you have some meddling in Ancient Hawaii, can you help in this section in History of Hawaii (talk)

Thanks for adding those cites. You made some very good additions to the article, and I encourage you to register and get a Wikipedia account with a name (in general, registered edits are taken more seriously than if it comes from just an IP address). And when you do, you just add four (~)s at the end of your comment and it auto-signs your name. So again, welcome. One other thing: while I personally do not disagree with your additions, be aware that while cited, that material could be seen as one-sided (POV). I'm not going to change it but others might at some point. I'll also take a look at the section in History of Hawaii that you mention. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind photographing the Hawaiian Airlines headquarters? They are at 3375 Koapaka Street, G-350, by Honolulu Airport. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not conveniently located for me, but wish you the best. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Arjuna909. You have new messages at Talk:Medicare (United States).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. I've rewritten most of the article, but haven't yet looked at the lead paragraph. But, as an example, some coral fish are bioeroders and grind coral to small particles. This accumulates as sandy bottoms in reef lagoons etc. It's an important point which shapes surrounding habitats. I'm busy with other stuff at the moment, and if I let your deletion stand, I will forget all about it! So that's why I reverted. If you want to reposition the statement and edit it for clarity etc, that would be great. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that you put articles that were in the category "Indigenous peoples of Western New Guinea" into the "Indigenous peoples of Melanesia" category. The "Indigenous peoples of Melanesia" category is a parent category to the "Indigenous peoples of Western New Guinea", and it is thus redundant to put them into there. I made the same mistake when I first started out by putting inserting the category "Native American people" into articles that already contained the category "Native American leaders", which was a subcategory of "Native American people". I'm going to go back and prune the redundant categories for you. Also, please try to alphabetize the categories when you add them. Asarelah (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks. Arjuna (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. You may have noticed me slowly working on these this article s over the last few weeks. It would be good if you could have a look over the articles as they stand now. Soon i intend to create a History of West Papua from the main West Papua article (and summarise the original article). Even User:Daeron and his any IP accounts seem to support this idea. What do you know of the international acceptance of West Papua integration into Indonesia? Unlike East Timor it seem to be largely accepted across the world - at least officially. I would be good to clarify that, so if you can help... Anyway, hope to see you around there. regard --Merbabu (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Merbabu, I have noticed some of your edits and think they're good ones. I'll take a closer look soon and see what contributions I can make if any. Short answer to your question: at an international (official), level, the integration of WP into Indonesia is unchallenged. (There have been some murmurs at various times within the U.N., but these haven't gotten any traction.) The challenges arise at the national (c.f. recent letter from US Congress delegate from American Samoa, etc), academic (various actors), and NGO (small human rights-oriented subset) levels. (I'm leaving out the most obvious source of challenge, which is the Papuan communities themselves in the province[s].) However, it does seem that there is a good chance that the issue will become more internationalized in the near future, as the authors of the "Papua Road Map" and other commentators (see recent Newsweek article discussing the PRM) have pointed out, should Jakarta and provincial-level activists not engage in a real dialogue. I am analysing/reporting, not advocating. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arjuna, just an academic correction. I think you'll find that the UN is the one place where there hasn't been any "murmurs" or a challenge. And seeming the UN members in 1962 decided it was convenient for them to authorise the /New York Agreement/, I think West Papua has a uphill battle to get any UN member to now raise the Papuan questions of law at the UN.. I wish Merbabu could show understanding that 'acceptance' by UN members is not relevant to the validity of legal questions, both courts and Wiki articles should be separate from questions of political convenience. An open source encycopedia should report all the facts and not cherry pick them.Daeron (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Pamela Geller. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Truthsort (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: your rv of my edit to the PM article. The material I included was perfectly appropriate and well-cited. As you are apparently a newcomer to Wikipedia, welcome. However, please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia rules and guidelines before making false accusations on people's talk pages, including mine. This is considered bad form. The material I added was indeed well-cited. Stating as I did that her accusations are "controversial", "false" or unsupported is demonstrably true, and your attempt to remove this context from the article is singularly unhelpful to the Wikipedia effort. I trust you will refrain from such attempts in the future. Thank you. (Cross-posted on your talk page.) Arjuna (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Arjuna909. You have new messages at Truthsort's talk page.
Message added 05:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your concern, but when the sourcing for an article about a living person is in question and in discussion on the article talk page and elsewhere, there is certainly legitimate reason to flag the article with a BLP tag. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 02:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not planning to remove it, but I don't think it's necessary. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I know my edits thank, I have made no claim of any exemptions. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just letting you know. Arjuna (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you are still following the BLPN discussion but I have (boldly) added a concise version of the content, here . I felt less would be close to censorship and felt a simple neutral uninvolved comment was the way to go, if you have any objections feel free to remove it and discuss, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate what you are trying to do - and don't necessarily disagree - but especially given other editor's seeming propensity of insisting on adding more salacious detail, I'm not sure it's possible to have any of that material there. My suggestion is to just leave it all out for now, at least until cooler heads prevail (i.e. after election season). Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you happen to have handy a source or three that I could use to flesh out Imago Therapy? Everything I found before prodding looked like it was directly connected to the founder or otherwise not properly independent, not usable as a reliable source, or did not treat IRT in depth. On Talk:Imago Therapy or here would be fine. No particular worries if you do not happen to know where to find any, but a few pointers would be nice. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, its incumbent on you to prove that Think Progress is a reliable source, not the other way around. See wp:BURDEN, there is no assumption that a source is reliable until proven otherwise. As for the no blog rule, thats wp:SPS which states in part "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." wp:BLPSPS goes further "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person," Dont forget that the main principle behind wp:BLPs is "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." In this case, i do not believe that TP qualifies as a high quality source, I see no indication that any fact checking goes on at all, which is a necessary component of a reliable source. A simple scan of the articles on TP show that they are opinions, not journalism, which is consistent with what a blog is, and moreover, their about page describes themselves as a blog "Through this blog, CAPAF seeks to provide a forum that advances progressive ideas and policies." and highlights their blog awards "ThinkProgress was voted “Best Liberal Blog” and "It was also named best blog of 2008 by The Sidney Hillman Foundation" Bonewah (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on Talk:David H. Koch ... Hagiography and "facetious" Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin.  :-P 99.181.157.60 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Arjuna. I reverted your text quoted from a letter attributed to Mises and my edit summary reads, "Delete WP:OR interpretation of primary source and primary sourced text." The text is quoted from a primary source without secondary discussion or reference to that letter. Yes, it's sourced but per WP:PRIMARY it is not a good source. Your introduction of the quote, "Mises praised the work of libertarian philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand, writing her in regards to her book, Atlas Shrugged that..." is not cited to any source, and both that introduction along with your selection as to the particular text which you excerpted from the letter is solely your WP:OR inference from the primary source letter. We know nothing as to the circumstances which prompted the letter, for example whether it was a solicited testimonial. For these reasons, please remove your edit from the article, and if you do not agree with my concerns please pursue consensus for your view on the talk page. Per WP:BRD it is better not simply to re-insert the same text. Perhaps you can locate a secondary source which discusses Mises' interactions with Rand or his opinions of her work. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I'm interested in attempting to put together an edit-a-thon for Hawaiian cultural topics something during the Makahiki festival perhaps around the month of November. The hope is that our lackluster coverage of Hawaiian mythology could be improved with help from the Bishop Museum, Hawaii Pacific University, and the Honolulu public library. I am in the process of making initial contacts with these organizations as well as Wikimedia DC's GLAM project. If this sounds like something you might be interested in participating in, or perhaps helping to coordinate, could you please add your name to 2014 Makahiki Edit-a-thon?--v/r - TP 21:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Makahiki. Thanks. I'm not the best person to do much editing - my knowledge is mostly of modern Hawaii, not pre-contact or cultural - but I will be happy to contact some folks and see who might be appropriate and interested. Arjuna (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

On Oahu? Edit Wikipedia or Wikimedia sister projects? You are invited to help the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center with an Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon in Honolulu this September.

Aloha!

Last summer I moved to the Seattle area after 14 years in Kailua on Oahu. I immediately fell in with the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group as it formed, joined its board and became its first president as well as the GLAM representative for Washington State.

Recently, Adriel Luis, Curator (Digital & Emerging Media) at the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, contacted me about setting up an edit-a-thon like the previous Wikipedia APA edit-a-thon. In addition to discussing one for Seattle, he wrote:

As I was working two jobs while I lived on Oahu, I did not have the opportunity to meet your or any other Wikipedians at the time. Hence, the reason why I am contacting you now.

If you would like to help, please contact me through one of these methods:

• Email me directly at peaceray@cascadia.wiki
• Use Special:EmailUser/Peaceray to email me
• Leave a message for me on my talk page.

Mahalo,
Peaceray

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Draft:Tau Zero Foundation. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not delete anyone's comment. I did, however, delete the tag - as was the tag itself said was it was allowed to be removed if an editor took serious issue with it. On the other hand, you appear to have now deleted the article, without allowing further comment, which certainly does appear to me to have been done in bad faith. Arjuna (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I see you've had some interest in what to do with the Skylab mutiny article. In an attempt to address concerns brought forth on its talk page and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive271#Skylab_mutiny, I have prepared a draft of a substantially different article on the same topic at User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors. I think it's nearly ready to go, and I would appreciate your input before I take that leap. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I have drafted another RfC at Talk:Skylab_controversy#New_RfC_proposal. Please comment on how best to get appropriate input from the Wikipedia editor community. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Since you have previously edited the Khazars page and know about the debate over ties to Ashkenazi Jewry, please weigh in on the current "Request new section to discuss Brook 2022 and later studies that confirm or disconfirm it" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry#Request_new_section_to_discuss_Brook_2022_and_later_studies_that_confirm_or_disconfirm_it which relates to currently undiscussed peer-reviewed sources for the page Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, which has restricted-access for editing. You may also wish to ask other editors to give their feedback to the other editors on how to proceed in covering the new and upcoming genetic studies. In the past, Jayjg, Briangotts, and Humus_sapiens have also edited Wikipedia on this topic, but none of them have been active lately and as a result all three of those I named have lost or will soon lose their admin and editing privileges. 2600:1000:B12B:24B:C66D:AB21:B40B:4CDE (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have not been following these developments lately but from a brief perusal of the section on the talk page it certainly does seem very relevant. I will try to make time to investigate further. Arjuna (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom § Treaty of Reciprocity. Peaceray (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii § Campaign to upload Lāhainā photographs.