Hello, Lcdrovers! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jojhutton (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

An article you recently created, Activism for Internet privacy, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I will observe these standards and resubmit when I can meet them! I appreciate your help! Lcdrovers (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Lcdrovers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Activism for Internet privacy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Lcdrovers. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Activism for Internet privacy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

You removed a passage about Werner von Braun, with this comment:

"section about wernher von braun is linked with an inline reference that clearly does not provide a source for the content and the bit about von braun being responsible for the apollo missions is unfortunately also nazi propaganda. caution should be used if deciding to revert this change".

[Edit] It crosses my mind that your "nazi propaganda" remark is not because the passage promoted nazism, but because it discussed a man famous for his achievements, who happened to be a nazi. If that was part of your motivation for deleting, it makes no sense; taken to its conclusion, we wouldn't be able to discuss any notable people who were nazis, making it hard to make sense of things like WWII. [/Edit]

The article on Werner von Braun is clear that he was director of the Marshall Space Flight Center, and Chief Architect of the Saturn V. Is that also Nazi propaganda? And is that intimidating warning really necessary? Why should caution be used?

I'm not proposing to revert your change; I'm not sure that von Braun's preference in slide rules is particularly pertinent to the "Modern form" section in the Slide rule article, so I haven't bothered to check the reference. But your edit comment alarmed me. I don't think there was anything particularly objectionable about the stuff you deleted.

MrDemeanour (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MrDemeanour i think you're probably right. i was afraid to check your response until now. i really appreciate your careful effort to parse my edit comment, because i agree it was extremely unnecessarily intimidating and unprofessional especially on a subject i emphatically know nothing about (slide rules and their history). i think the correct thing for me to have done here would simply have been to leave a citation needed marker. i felt very strongly at the time that it was important to remove this precise information, because i was under the impression it was actively incorrect for some reason (and i really wanted to "protect" wikipedia from perceived misinfo). that emotional response clouded my judgement at the time.

i completely agree that my edit comment here was misinformed and extremely non-constructive. in the future if i have this kind of concern (especially on a subject i absolutely don't know!), i'll make a talk page section. i know wikipedia has structures for ensuring NPOV (really my only concern with my very aggressive comment was just about wanting to ensure NPOV and not having the vocab to explain it) and i'll make use of them next time.

thanks a lot for taking the time to help me understand this. i'll see what the article looks like now after so many months, but if it's not been added back since then, i'm going to revert my change and add a citation request (or fill out the citation myself if i have the time). i know everyone here wants to build this beautiful encyclopedia together and i will work harder to communicate better. Lcdrovers (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

for the record, i personally once had to leave an online community (the scala programming language) because it has a vocal nazi contingent (among other serious issues), and upon further reflection i believe i may have accidentally misapplied the editing standards/scrutiny from that very adversarial environment, which didn't have discussion/escalation mechanisms like wikipedia.

separately, i have also noticed extremely subtle vandalism of articles like Privacy (i've spent so much time on this one; i RARELY delete anything without replacing it/moving into a new section because privacy is so subjective) and Tom Hayes (trader), where unsourced assertions/weasel words are added to disparage the subject (sometimes with invalid citations or sources that directly contradict the claim). as a side note to myself, those two pages (an abstract concept with many interpretations across time, and a living person whose unjust sentence was recently reversed) should probably be moderated differently than technology like the slide rule. but even there, talk pages are the mature and correct way to address ambiguity.

so even though i want to defend against vandalism (like we all do!), i need to put in the effort to use wikipedia's structures for that. i have no reason to believe at this point that this will fail. Lcdrovers (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I appreciate your reflective response.

Regarding Wiipedia's structures: I seem to have been editing WP a bit longer than you. I don't like the admin system, although the are some terrific admins. But the system works fine, in the end, if you are patient, and if you understand "fine" to mean the same as "improving the encyclopaedia".

You don't really need "WP structures" to combat vandalism, you can just revert it. If what you're objecting to is "unsourced assertions/weasel words", that isn't vandalism. My custom is to tag unsourced assertions; and if I stumble on {{cn}} tags that are more than a year old, I might do a bit of research, before deleting the unsourced material. That still doesn't involve "WP structures", as far as I can see. It's just drive-by housekeeping. With "weasel words", you're into judgement-land, and perhaps WP:BRD is where you end up. MrDemeanour (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I wasn't attempting to claim "WP structures" were particularly restrictive or separate from standard online manners! I was mostly attempting to underline that I am going to keep in mind we are all working together on this, instead of e.g. leaving threatening edit summaries to discourage others from interacting. I absolutely don't intend to escalate to the admin system unless necessary--instead, I meant that I would learn the kind of "housekeeping" you describe, and employ those methods instead of getting so concerned about perceived adversarial edits. I believe this is totally aligned with your advice; thank you for continuing to respond and clarify. Lcdrovers (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'm working on a resposne to your comment on that article's talk page. I wanted to address something with you directly, however, because I don't want to come across as trying to call you out in a more public way.

I got a sense from your comment that you might not have a complete understanding of the terminology you noted as problematic, like "independent agency." Admittedly, the article's explanation of "independent agency" is substantively lacking. Regardless, that terminology is explicitly noted and defined throughout the United States Code, primarily as a deaignator that indicates the organizational role of an entity constituted under the Executive Branch, and is mostly a catch-all term. For example:

Title 5 uses the term "Independent establishment," which is defined in Section 104 as any "establishment" that isn't "an Executive department, military department, Government corporation, or part thereof," each of which are defined separately, "or part of an independent establishment." You took issue with the identification or the CIA as an "independent agency," but calling the CIA "independent" is accurate because it is not one of the entities excluded from the definition of the term and it is not a part of any of single excluded entity or another "indepndent establishment."

Strict Scrutinizer (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply