Jump to content

User talk:Cameron Dewe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is Cameron Dewe's talk page. Please add your new comments/discussions to the bottom of the page or under an appropriate heading.

Welcomes

[edit]

Hello there Cameron, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, nice work on Telemarketing. There is a message for you at Talk:Caller. Cheers! --maveric149

Cheers Cameron - welcome. Nice to have another kiwi around the place. hawthorn

Culture of New Zealand

[edit]

Hi Cameron. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop by the Culture of New Zealand article you started earlier today and check that the copyediting I did just now has not made it say something you didn't intend it to say. I hope that I've just made your original thoughts a little clearer, not changed them - a grand total of two weeks in the South Island 20-odd years ago does not qualify me as an expert on NZ culture. (Except for DB Brown - I got to know DB Brown rather well!) Tannin

Logs in eye & etc. - yes, a good point, and one that applies in equal measure to me - having done the Culture of Australia thing a week or so ago, I fully appreciate how difficult they are to write! Tannin

Hi, I like your article on Culture in NZ, a very challenging subject. I added another aspect to the section on NZ Attitudes but am not really sure if it is appropriate, what do you think, it might be a bit too much POV? Ping 07:41 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Re Culture of New Zealand - Cultural Cringe - I think it makes a good addition to the topic. Concerning NPOV - much of the Culture area is opinion and it is very hard to obtain a completely NPOV - I think some opinion and humour is necessary, provided it is not too excessive. If anyone else disagrees thy can always change it! - kiwiinapanic 09:22 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Eastbourne

[edit]

How big is Eastbourne, New Zealand?

  • Pop. 4600 est. - Updated the page.

Fellowship of the Ring

[edit]

My reasons in favor of an entry entitled The Fellowship of the Ring (movie) are listed on the talk page Talk:The Fellowship of the Ring (movie). -- Modemac

I don't really care which way it goes... I made the changes I did, because a parallel set of articles were already being developed already under the "... (movie)" names (which seems to be the usual standard here for movies that might be confused with books). I just tried to make thing consistant. I made the The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring a disambiguation page because I thought it should definitely stay, but does apply to both the book and the movie. But as far as I am concerned... do whatever you want... just make sure it is consistant everywhere (it is a lot of paqes to visit and change, I know! I'm not even sure I found them all myself...). -- RTC 17:07 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Maori Wars

[edit]

Hi Cameron, thanks for your help with the Tauranga Campaign. I have been keeping a full bibliography on the end of the "mother article", the Maori Wars. Most of the Tauranga campaign comes from Bellich and Maxwell, hopefully later on I will be able to go through other accounts and broaden the perspective somewhat, that is the advantage of constant editing. I will look at the List of Battles later on also. Ping Ping 07:58 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks

[edit]

Dear Cameron: Hi, I always do the articles I start based on careful researching. After Ive researched, I write what I have found out with my research. I cannot add or substract from what I have found out, because then the article would not be historically correct, and probably also subject to a point of view discussion. If I say a singer had a crush on the wife of another singer , without them admmitting it or without any credible info on how it happened or anything, that would be adding to the subject. This is one of the biggest challenges wikipedians face: While you can not, of course, copy someone else's article and put it here because its not legal, at the same time, we can only write based on what we have found out about the individual or history.

I found out in a site that some Robert Scott made flying history, and I included it, based on what I found in that place, but not copying what I found in that place. Whether if its that Robert Scott or the one you sent me, I dont know. But looking at the one you sent me, his biography says nothing of being a pilot.

Thanks for rweading the article, and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Ginger-Ale Martin

Maori Articles

[edit]

You know, the links off the Maori pages, where Maori is spelled using these special chars like so Māori doesnt work for my browser. does it work for yours ? although i normally use mozilla, im using IE at the moment. reply here 10:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The special characters are known as macrons. These are horizontal bars above the vowels a, e ,i, o, and u. See Maori language for more information about macrons in maori. These characters work for me in my browser and I am using Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 2. You may need to download a special character set to get macrons to work.
In my opinion, macrons should not be used in the [english Wikipedia] because of the very problem you are experiencing. It also screws up text searches. Please feel free to raise this problem on the talk page of any and every Maori article that you encounter in Wikipedia. Edit the pages to remove macrons if you cannot read them. Macrons should only be used in a maori language website, such as the [Maori Language Wikipedia], or web page where both Maori and English are used. --- Cameron Dewe 10:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hello and kia ora! I think we corresponded briefly a while ago. Thanks for your contribution to "Maori language" - are you aware that there is now some real content (ie articles) on the Maori Wikipedia? I'd love to see a few more contributors. One doesn't need to speak Maori to contribute. But if you have any acquaintances who speak it or are studying it, please let them know. - Robin Patterson 07:56, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Article Licensing

[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand

[edit]

Hi, You might want to consider adding {{User NZ res}} to the top of your user page, which will add you to this category automatically and also add a nice graphic. Onco_p53 07:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Cameron Dewe 04:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ride theory

[edit]

I removed some material you added to Ride theory because I believe the quoted source may have been engaged in a hoax or satire:

Trevor Blake, publisher of obscure OVO Magazine, claims an article by Ignatz Topo, (or Ignatz Topolino), titled The Psychogeography of Disneyland: Exerpts and Analysis of Formulary for a New Urbanism is one of the first published examples of Ride Theory. [1], [2](40MB download) The article presents an October 1953 Situationalist text about an (unidentified) tourist city that appears to be a parallel description of Disneyland. Even though at that time the amusement park was still only on a (secret) drawing board in Disney studios. Later examples appeared in the Journal of Ride Theory published by Dan Howland.

"Ignatz Topo" or "Ignatz Topolino" sounds like a fake name in that "topo" is the Italian word for "mouse", "Topolino" is the Italian name for Mickey Mouse, and Ignatz was the mouse character in the comic strip Krazy Kat. Furthermore, the two cited links in this paragraph do not go to any page that contains the information described here. --Metropolitan90 08:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. However, you should explain yourself on the Ride theory talk page. While I agree that the quoted source is satire, I disagree that my comments are inaccurate. Consequently I intend to revert the edit, at least until it is discussed on the talk page. -- Cameron Dewe 08:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murder v. Homicide

[edit]
I asked Taco325i
From your comments on Murder and your to-do list, you appear to be on a crusade to replace Murder with Homicide. I think you are wrong to hold such a position. Please explain why you believe all references to murder should be replaced with homicide, before making any changes. In my opinion there are very important differences between murder and homicide that means the two terms should be kept separate. So I think the first two bullets on your to-do list are misguided. One effect of this is that moving List of countries by murder rate to List of countries by homicide rate has invalidated the statistics, because the definitions of murder and homicide are different. -- Cameron Dewe 13:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're in agreement, but just not realizing it. Murder and Homicide have distinct definitions. Murder is a kind of homicide, but homicide is not murder. My crusade is to ensure the correct use of the word "murder", because in everyday language we often use murder to describe all kinds of killings. For example, no jurisdiction in the US publishes "murder statistics" or "murder rates", though we often call it that. The proper term would be homicide rates. -Taco325i 19:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the FBI Uniform Crime Reports actually publish statistics for Murder and non-negligent manslaughter (see http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-5.html ), so using homicide is also inaccurate, as accidental homicides, such as motor vehicle accidents are excluded from the statistics. Perhaps the term criminal homicide (rate) is closer. I agree with you wanting to use the precise term, but your mission seems to have picked up a few followers who do not understand your intent, as they have tried to change ALL references to murder, when sometimes it is the applicable term. Perhaps you need to modify your mission slightly to only change inappropriate uses of the word murder. -- Cameron Dewe 11:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Government

[edit]

I am thinking about changing New Zealand Government to a new article. (It is a redirect.)

New Zealand Government
New Zealand Government is a brand of the State Services Commission. It is part of the All-of-Government brand initiative. (See http://www.ssc.govt.nz/govt-brand)
I made that note at 21:46(UTC) on 8 July 2007 and I am still thinking about it - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUK

[edit]
WikiProject Auckland This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifarious1 09:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer to someone living south of the Bombay Hills! - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rural

[edit]

I notice that while urban is a disambiguation page, rural redirects to rural area. I wonder why? So intend to discuss this issue. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guess what?

[edit]

You may be an autopatroller here in a bit.Just thought you would want to know. :-) --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 13:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

[edit]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • 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 {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or 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!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blenheim (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) 10:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this a while ago - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Lower Hutt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ray Wallace (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) 10:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already fixed - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand politics taskforce

[edit]
Schwede66 wants you to join WikiProject NZ politics.

Good work on the Mayor of Lower Hutt article! To join the New Zealand politics taskforce, please place the following on your user page:
{{User WikiProject New Zealand/politics}} Schwede66 21:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Lake Grassmere earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seddon (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) 16:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almon Brown Strowger has been nominated for Did You Know

[edit]

Almon Brown Strowger has been nominated for Did You Know

[edit]

Almon Brown Strowger has been nominated for Did You Know

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Birchville, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black bridge. 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, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last name listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Last name. Since you had some involvement with the Last name redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SSTflyer 15:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

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

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

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

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

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

Touch Tone™ listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Touch Tone™. Since you had some involvement with the Touch Tone™ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AoTeAroa listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect AoTeAroa. Since you had some involvement with the AoTeAroa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ross Finlayson (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sumner, New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Cowan. 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) 06:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gazetteer

[edit]

Thought that you might like to know about the handy template for referencing the gazetteer available at Template:LINZ. Schwede66 02:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good to know. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pegasus Bay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scarborough.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Bros

[edit]

Hi Cameron! I noticed that you did some sorting on the "crime" template here: Talk:Brooks Brothers riot. This was the first time I noticed that someone had placed the crime template on that talk page. Here's that diff. I want to say that this template probably doesn't actually belong on that talk page at all and I will open up that conversation over on that talk page. But no offense to your edit! Novellasyes (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First Four Ships Copyvio

[edit]

Hi, I saw that you added the potential copyright violation tag to First Four Ships back in January. Do you know what sources you think you found the copyvio from? I'm checking in-article sources, but nothing's coming up since there was no source listed for me to use. Thanks in advance, Sennecaster (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster:: In the second general reference at the bottom of the article, at this [3] Wayback machine url. Around the the sixth paragraph down, which starts "July 1849 ...", you will find the wording I tagged as a copyright violation in about the third or fourth sentence. I had tagged it as a reminder and intended to go back and fix it when I found a better source but I haven't discovered one, yet. I didn't remove it at the time because the page was only available in the archive, not on the main City Council website. I now realise the cleanup tag does not have a provision to identify the copyright source material. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! I went and preemptively removed it regardless and left a note on the talk page. I do have to say in jest, New Zealand copyright law is far easier than my native one! Sennecaster (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Franc affair

[edit]

In what way does the Franc affair article fail coverage and accuracy as well as referencing?--Catlemur (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't check those aspects of the article, so haven't assessed them yet. I couldn't get past the lead without deciding it needs improving. The lead does not seem to be an appropriate summary of the article, in any case, so fails on both counts because while the lead section has no references, which is OK, it says something that appears inconsistent with the rest of the article, which is not OK. Please continue the discussion on the talk page. Get the lead right and I might change my mind. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Shami

[edit]

I asked the page Mohammed Shami to promote it to B class in a particular section. You have given me a long reply in the talk page. At first thank you. But I, being a new user, don't know how and where to change. I'll be glad if you kindly assist me in this context. Note that, the aforementioned article is already rated A class in two sections and GA class in the 'WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games' section.

I think those ratings are misleading because if you examine the page history you will see that the article has not been through the proper independent peer review process by an independent reviewer. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am trying to elaborate the article as much as I can. I'll be glad if you help and assist me in this context. Can you give me any suggestions about how to improve the article we are talking about to promote it?

Serial killer task force

[edit]

I'm worried that you seem to have been adding this to various articles that have nothing to do with serial killing. The article serial killer says "A serial killer is typically a person who murders three or more people, usually in service of abnormal psychological gratification, with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant period of time between them." One off incidents at a single location, no matter how many people they kill, are not serial killings. Also, terrorist incidents where the motive was political or religious are not normally defined as serial killings. Bearing this in mind, could you revert these edits or I will have to do it myself.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianmacm: I assume you are talking about the changes I made to Talk:Omagh bombing and similar articles. All these articles were already members of the WikiProject Serial Killer task force and appeared in the counts in the assessment table. If you look at the changes I made to Talk:Omagh bombing you will see that I only gave the article an importance assessment (of Low). The article was already assigned to the Serial Killer task force and had been since 2018. The scope of the WikiProject is "... to update and maintain all articles relating to serial killers, mass murderers, and spree killers. This includes all topics from criminal biographies to profiling and apprehension techniques." This is a somewhat broader definition that the name of the task force would suggest. This puzzled me too, initially. Personally, I think the task force name is misleading and it probably should be thought of as the Multi-Murder task force. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Death_of_Michelle_Go#Pushed_to_her_death

[edit]

Should Talk:Death_of_Michelle_Go#Pushed_to_her_death use the phrase "one is one is"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: Oops! My mistake, I have repeated using "one is". I must have been moving some text around in preview and duplicated the words. I have corrected and clarified my comments. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Small note

[edit]

Glad we had an amicable discussion at Talk:Dream/Killer! I wanted to share a small note. While I recognize that you were bold in making the move and finalizing the issue, I think we could have let the relatively-new editor make the move themselves and learn from that. (Checking their move log, they have never moved anything before, so it could have been a good opportunity.) Obviously the matter is past now, but I had wanted to recommend in the future to let newer editors make changes themselves (and to encourage them whenever possible). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC) @Erik: Thanks for the feedback. I will try to be more patient next time. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

[edit]

Hello, Thank you for your message. Sorry for the inconvenience; will delete unnecessary subfields in future.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Example for bare URL

[edit]

Hello. Thank you for the recent edit on Amhara genocide article. Could you please share an example for the bare URL? (newbie here:)). I started making changes and got a little confused. Petra0922 (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Petra0922: Have a read of Wikipedia:Bare URLs to understand what I am talking about. For the Amhara genocide article, a bare URL would look like either [4] or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amhara_genocide .
Essentially a bare URL is the website page address (or Uniform Resource Locator = URL) that appears in your web browser address, without any descriptive text for the website link or immediately next to it. Some citation styles permit a bare URL to appear in the citation, but the surrounding text needs to describes the URL. Other citation styles link the title of a web page using a hidden or hyperlinked URL, which you only see when you click on or hover over the linked hyper-text. Search engines often use the linked text to derive their search terms, so you can find a page when you search for a web page. The problem is that a URL can be changed or may disappear, so if you have no idea what the URL referred to it can be difficult to find a replacement or alternative, even in an internet archive. If that happens your citations become useless, or dead. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So helpful! You may have seen my other response about merging and extra texts on the Amhara genocide talk page. I would appreciate any suggestion, to ideally combine extra texts with Citation style 1. Thank you! Petra0922 (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking with for Citation quality

[edit]

I am here in case you havent seen the note I added in my talk page. You had recommendations related to Citation styles. I have worked through the citation style and clean up, and wanted to check if the quality of the article is reasonable enough to adjust the rating. Through this process, I have been appreciating your feedback. I believe, it helped me to become a better editor and helped improving the article. Please let me know if there is any issue or improving ideas for this Amhara genocide article. Thank you. Petra0922 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Petra0922: I have updated the B-class checklist for the Amhara genocide article. I noticed a couple of small issues with external links in the body text, which is not recommended (per WP:ELPOINTS), so I have added in-line cleanup tags. Keep up the good work. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron Dewe: Thank you so much! This is great news. I now removed the external links (converted them to inline reference). Please let me know if you see any issue.
I noticed the rating still shows "C". I am assuming it takes some time to update. I just want to confirm if bugs are causing that (?). Thank you again, Cameroon for you help- your approach of helping someone to develop important skills is quite inspiring. I appreciate it:) Petra0922 (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The present "C-class" rating is because some of the "B-class" questions do not have an answer of "Yes". This is a feature of some templates, not a bug. This requires an editor to assess what has been written and then answer the questions for the various criteria as "yes" or "no". The difference between classes can be slight: "B-class" articles do not need substantial clean-up, so should be free of clean-up banners, while, "C-class" articles might, for almost the same text. In general, any editor can assess an article as far as "B-class", though nominations as Good articles or beyond require the agreement of multiple editors. Some WikiProjects have stricter article assessment procedures, so it might pay to check the pages of the projects concerned. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"lang" versus "Romanized script-title"

[edit]

Hello. I noticed that the "lang" works better for shorter foreign (Amharic) terms but it was giving me error messages for longer video titles. The romanized script-title seems to work better for longer foreign titles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_Style_documentation/title. The romanized titles are italicized per this guideline. Just checking if there other tools that works for both short and long scripts. I am not sure if you have noticed, but I also fixed the external link issue. Thank you Petra0922 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Petra0922: I haven't used the Lang template a lot, but, quoting the documentation, "The purpose of this template is to indicate that a span of text belongs to a particular language." I mentioned using that template in the context of isolated foreign words enclosed in brackets or parentheses in the text of an article, based on MOS:FOREIGNITALIC recommendations. I hadn't thought about using it with citations. However, when you are dealing with citations, embedding templates in the text of the citation often doesn't work because you have templates within templates. To get around the problem you should use the advice given in the citation documentation for titles. That means you can provide the original title in the original script and language and an English translation. Part of the reason for this is that these template insert browser code that tells a web browser that some of the text is in a different language. This may mean a web browser has to switch to displaying different fonts to display the text concerned. For example: In my country we use a lot of Māori words that have macrons over vowels, often in the context of place names but also other concepts. These macrons are frequently omitted when a Maori word has been borrowed into New Zealand English and used in English text. The orthography and language is different but the word meaning or place has not changed. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Templates within templates. I see now why all those error messages were showing up. Somehow, even within the citations, the lang template seemed to work alright, if the foreign terms are really short. Thank you for sharing the link! I will check it out.
I like ("aroha") your example about Māori words. So beautiful. Best, Petra0922 (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Indian Predator: The Butcher of Delhi

[edit]

Hello there! I know you hav some misunderstanding under the title of the series. The series title Indian Predator The Butcher of Delhi is the official title from Netflix media center and their official website. The tag "The Butcher of Delhi" is not a part of the single episode but the whole 3 episodes revolves around the same story of one person Chandrkant Jha Serial Killer. The Butcher of Delhi is the title and the tag line of his story and the premise of the series. It's not like a anthology documentary which in every episode has different story. This series has nothing to do with that. Hope you understood. You can check the title of another netflix docu series named "House of Secrets: The Burari Deaths" which has 4 episodes where all episodes deals with the same story. You can consult me for further details and misunderstanding on this topic. Good day:) Morgankarki (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgankarki: Thank you for attempting to enlighten me about the Indian Predator: The Butcher of Delhi article. I previously viewed the Netflix website and had already concluded this was a single story told in 3 episodes, just as you have explained. I will continue this discussion on the article's talk page, not here. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Birchville/Comments" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Birchville/Comments and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 1#Birchville/Comments until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of needs-infobox attributes by anonymous editors

[edit]

At about 19:00 on 26 December 2022 (all times in UTC), I noticed that an anonymous editor had been removing needs-infobox attributes from the talk page WikiProject banners for articles that didn't have infoboxes and needed them. I reverted these edits, as they were unexplained, with either no edit summary, or a misleading one that said "infobox added" or similar, that did not explain why the tag was being removed. Later, edits originating from a second anonymous IP address began reverting my reversions, after adding infoboxes to some of the articles I had tagged, claiming that these had been pre-prepared using googledocs and that this had already been explained somewhere. After a little digging about in edit histories, I have discovered a similar pattern of behaviour being exhibited by several anonymous IP addresses, including:

Examining contributions to talk pages from the whole CIDR range for 2A02:C7D:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 suggests this editing behaviour has been going on since 2015, at least. Additionally, contributions for the range 90.197.56.0/21 appear to have started in April 2022. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting sources

[edit]

Hi Cameron Dewe, I'm reaching out as I would like to get some information regarding a conflicting source issue with Carly Simon's birth date. In the majority of google searches her birth date appears as June 25, 1945 yet her birth date in her article says June 15, 1943. There is a talk page regarding this matter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carly_Simon and I have addressed my concerns under the subheading "Request for comment: age". The consensus says that her birth year is 1943 but their sources are not verifiable. They list sources from Ansestry.com and Goodreads.com, neither of which lead to any verifiable content. And, one source lists her birth certificate number without a source. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much Landplane123 (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)landplane321[reply]

@Landplane123: I have responded at the article's talk page. I can find at least one source that gives both dates and explains which is supported by birth records. And this source came from the article history. To me, both dates are verifiable, but for different reasons. Why can't Carly Simon have two birth dates, if she want to? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. Landplane123 (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)landplane321[reply]

Re: 1984 Dallas nightclub shooting

[edit]

Hi! Thank you for helping me by giving criticism of my article. I agree with your criticisms and will be fixing them as soon as possible. I'd like to ask your advice on how to fix a specific issue you pointed out, though.

Belachheb died October 19th, 2017. Considering that Belachheb is a fairly obscure case even in Dallas, no news reported it. The source on him being dead is this. While normally I would consider this website an unreliable source considering it can be added to by anybody, the specific uploader of the image of his gravestone and date of death is actually Gary Lavergne, who probably knows more about Belachheb than anyone else and was the writer of the book that a large portion of the article uses as a source, so I consider it a reliable indication that he is dead. What am I supposed to do in this scenario? Am I supposed to just pretend he's not dead because I don't have any sources for it that are in the news? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: I think this question is best posed on the article's talk page. I will copy it there, so that the editor community can respond to it. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Deaths of the Dickason Children

[edit]

Hello Cameron Dewe,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Deaths of the Dickason Children for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Deaths of the Dickason Children to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

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

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 03:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamRimmer: Thanks for letting me know. I expected this to happen. The applicable article has been draftified and should remain so until the relevant case returns a verdict. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Evaluation of Stochastic terrorism page

[edit]

I am wondering why an article that is one month old and that already has a warning that it may require clean-up because it may be incomplete has been evaluated. This doesn't seem like a positive contribution.

SG Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schrodinger's gateau: Just because an article like stochastic terrorism requires clean-up should not inhibit it being assessed. If one reads the assessment criteria, those even mention that articles may have significant clean-up issues while being assessed. Clean-up is an assessment factor to consider and should be taken into account when assessing the quality of an article. Assessment is ongoing as an article is edited and can be reviewed and changed at any time by any user. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schrodinger's gateau hustle 2603:8000:1D00:ED00:2507:FA53:8CEB:51E3 (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And your message to me is? .... - 08:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cameron:
I didn't send a message. What do you think this means? Is my account compromised?
SG Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a comment that mentions me. Ok, I think I understand the situation. Schrodinger's gateau (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Coal in New Zealand for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coal in New Zealand is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coal in New Zealand until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

—Panamitsu (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Just a heads up, although maybe you noticed, but your last comment to me there was to a reply I made to MeltingDistrict, not you. The number of cases being something they mentioned. Thanks for the input. I disagree that NPOV doesn't come into it, but I'll leave it there rather than bludgeon the discussion. Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Sorry, I suspect our replies crossed in the mail. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay

[edit]
Golden Bay Air are holding some seats for us until 21 November

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Killer task force

[edit]

Hi, you introduced an error here, the article doesn't deal with serial killers. Just letting you know since I'm guessing you're making these edits in a semi-automated way. Thanks, Prezbo (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Prezbo: This is not a mistake. The article is within the scope of the task force, and if you follow the task force link you will see the full scope explained. Also all edits I currently make are totally human decisions, with no automated assistance. Yes, I personally decided the serialkiller attributes needed to be added, my mistake was adding an incorrect edit summary. But thanks for letting me know how you have interpreted the attribute name and on flagging articles with the Serial Killer task force attributes. Clearly you have not realized that the scope of the task force includes Mass murder and "... if the article is focused primarily on the event and not the perpetrator it is still in the scope. Perhaps an explanation on Talk:Ccano massacre is needed, as the name of the task force attributes are somewhat misleading. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look?

[edit]

Good evening. Sorry to trouble you out of the blue like this, but I've seen you are a crime editor God here so I think you might be the person to help with this, if you could. Over at Lucy Letby, two editors who to me seem rather hellbent on portraying her as somehow contentiously convicted are insistent that the article shouldn't state that she is guilty or a killer(!), and should instead state straight away that she is appealing her conviction, since we should "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts". I'm a bit bemused - who says it is a 'seriously contested assertion'? Wouldn't it be editorialising to try and remove any suggestion that she is guilty? The relevant talk page discussion is here: Talk:Lucy Letby#Lucy Letby Introduction - Suggested edit. Surley, it is "innocent, until proven guilty", and now she has been convicted it is perfectly compliant with WP:BLP to say she is a murderer? I'd be grateful if you could take a look. 109.144.215.41 (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a perfectly reasonable discussion of editors trying to find the most appropriate wording for an article lead section. What these editors are trying to do is avoid editorializing about the subject of this article. To put this in perspective, I think that labelling Lucy Letby as a serial killer or murderer or saying that she is, or is not, guilty is a form of editorializing, because, strictly, that is applying the editor's opinion to the status of a person, not an expression of the facts of the case. While the verdict of the court is that Letby has been found guilty of the murder of seven infants and been convicted on those charges, interpreting WP:NPOV (strictly) requires someone to express an opinion that she is a murderer or serial killer, as those are actually contentious labels that need proof such an opinion has been rendered. Ideally, that requires a source to be cited for giving that opinion. The issue with this article appears to be that the primary sources reporting the case do not give that opinion.
The issue about being "innocent, until proven guilty" is considered at WP:SUSPECT, as well as at WP:PERPETRATOR, which states that: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured". This is to protect the right to a fair trial and, I think, outweighs simple WP:BLP considerations, as this is intended to avoid harm, which is a higher social responsibility consideration for any Wikipedia article. Were this applied strictly, there would not be an article about Lucy Letby until after her conviction and her appeal were both settled.
Please remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and these editors are building it and trying to achieve a consensus about what the article should say, as the article is still a work in progress.
As a reader, and if you think differently, you are still welcome to comment on the article talk page and explain how you think the article can be further improved. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: redundancy in assessment on talk pages

[edit]

While I personally have no issue with you doing this, it seems that the intent going forward is for the ability to add class assessments to the project banners individually to be removed for projects that use the project-independent system, see also here (ie most of them, including Crime) so I was just warning you of that so it doesn't end up a nasty surprise in the future.

Thank you for all your work in assessing articles btw! PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: Thanks for the heads-up. I was wondering how long such a change was going to take. My argument is I currently do what the documentation says, and will keep doing so until it doesn't work any more. At present the documentation says put the class rating in any and all WikiProject banners, including in the banner shell. If it only needs to go into the banner shell then, so be it. I will wait until somebody updates the documentation or notice a robot removing the rating from everything else and leave the rating in the banner shell only. My current thinking is that this approach is is within the guidelines. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove tag

[edit]

Regarding the refimprove tag on Fernanda Farias de Albuquerque, is there something specific in the content which isn't backed up by the references? I have tried to make sure everything is backed up by the sources and that enough are used, but I'm aware that as a non-Portuguese and non-Italian speaker I am limited somewhat. Thank you for your help! GnocchiFan (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GnocchiFan: I will explain myself in more detail on the article's talk page. I, too, cannot speak nor read either Portuguese or Italian, but with the help of Google translate, I can read an English translation of the Wikipedia articles in both Portuguese and Italian, and can also see those articles cite different sources, depending on the language used. With few English sources to draw upon, the foreign language sources from both articles can be used to improve upon the English article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Parlay Starr for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parlay Starr is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parlay Starr until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

(Giving you a notice since you're the only person who cared enough to add a couple of messages in the talk page). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement and Wikipedia:WikiProject Law from Operation Torpedo

[edit]

@Cameron Dewe Reading the scope for articles that should be included and ranked within the Wikproject Law enforcement#Scope, I strongly believe that Operation Torpedo meets the requires for inclusion.

Wikiproject Law Enforcement Inclusion: Topics directly related to policing and law enforcement, including types of police, specialized roles, organisations, institutions, departments, agencies, uniforms and ranks, crime science theory and research, investigative techniques and procedures, tools, equipment and assets used, services provided, related statistics, governance, empowering legislation and administration, issues and controversies, history, pioneers and notable individuals. Offender rehabilitation, Victim support, Police and law enforcement employee related education, sports, recreation, off-duty activities and involvement in community service. Miscellaneous policing related topics.

Wikiproject law inclusion: aimed at creating a greater consistency among the law-related articles. Key areas of concern include consistency in defining concepts across multiple jurisdictions and proper categorization of articles.


The article Operation Torpedo represents one of the first operations to use a NIT, and also represents a significant redaction or sealing of documents to preclude the public from overseeing and understanding the methods that were used. This operation was one of the first operations that authorized the government to spend two weeks distributing child pornography on the internet. There are still significant legal controversies arising from this case and cases like it, whereby the U.S. government and other goverment's receive a lead/tip from a foreign government without submitting the method the tip/lead was obtained to the public for audit, or judicial review.

As there were a great number of motions and appeals that occurred arguing questions of law during the prosecution of the defendants that were alleged to have accessed the alleged contraband websites, this qualifies for the Wiki Law project as well.eximo (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing this on the article's talk page - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]

Hello, Cameron,

I was just reviewing Promoting Resilience and Efficiency in Preparing for Attacks and Responding to Emergencies Act of 2017 which has been PROD'd and noticed that you posted lengthy comments on the article talk page. This article can be restored if you make a request at WP:REFUND if you would like to work on the content of the article. You can see the justification for the PROD in the deletion notice. If you have changed your mind about the importance of this subject than no further action needs to be taken, I just thought I'd let you know. Most PROD'd articles are years old and have no talk page activity so this one stood out. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, @Liz! If I remember correctly, this was one of a number of items of proposed US legislation known as the "Prepare Act". My comments were largely devoted at explaining the article's deficiencies and how the article might be improved. Clearly, nobody felt the need to do so and, since it is failed US legislation, I don't feel the need to resurrect the article at the moment. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you're doing well!

[edit]

I see you around a lot in the same article topics and just thought I'd wish you well! PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @PARAKANYAA for your well wishes. Unfortunately, I have been out of action for the last few weeks as a result of an acute medical event and surgery that needs some time to recover from. As a result I have been unable to edit Wikipedia until now due to some Information Technology limitations that has been complicated by a coincidental device failure. Hopefully, I am sufficiently recovered to resume editing Wikipedia, but please expect my activities to be at a lower level than previously because I still need to rehabilitate myself over the next few weeks. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m glad to hear that you’re doing better at least, I just saw you around a lot so I was worried something may have happened. Do whatever you need to do, better to prioritize your health than Wikipedia. I appreciate the work you have done around here, though PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing my editing absence and worrying that something had happened. I suspect I will make editing Wikipedia part of my rehabilitation in order to keep me mentally active and alert, and prepare me for more taxing activities, like full time work. Now I have access to a decent keyboard and screen and am no longer confined to using a smartphone touch screen, I am feeling more confident in my recovery. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Edits

[edit]

Hi @Cameron Dewe: I noticed you reverted a few edits, such as Category talk: Hindutva or Category talk: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or Category talk: Hindu nationalism. For your kind information, please read articles like Violence against Christians in India, Violence against Muslims in independent India, and Hindu terrorism. You will notice if you go through these articles as well as the sources, the majority of the academic sources state that violence against minority communities is predominately committed by Hindu right-wing groups that have affiliations with either Sangh Parivar or the RSS and their ideology is either Hindutva or Hindu nationalism. Hence, WP:Discrimination, WP:Crime, and WP:Terrorism can certainly be added to these respective categories of talk page and templates too. You can't go on a case-by-case basis to add these respective WP projects because the above articles clearly state that these organisations and their ideaology are the main cause of violence against minorities and their long history of violence. Just read the above articles; unless you read them, you won't understand. Nonetheless, I won't revert your edits; I just thought I should inform you on this matter. Thanks 2409:40E0:101D:806D:9419:993D:8E7D:270B (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed the WikiProjects from the Categories is due to WP:OVERBANNER, not because of what activities these groups might participate in. At a category level one needs to ask the question do the WikiProject banners apply to every likely article in the whole category? Reading through the main articles for each category, I could see that there was some debate and criticism over these groups activities, but not to the extent that the whole group had been prosecuted for criminal activities, declared to be a criminal organization or banned as a terrorist organization. As far as I can tell, it is still legal to be a member of these political groups in India. When applying WikiProject banners one has to ask the question about what additional benefit will having the additional WikiProjects serve? In this case there is little to no benefit having extra WikiProjects beyond ones related to Indian politics. Please remember that WikiProjects are not categorisations classifications, they exist to improve the quality of articles. Adding WikiProjects to categories doesn't really assist in improving quality other than saying all the articles in a particular category should be examined for WikiProject membership. That means someone needs to go through and assess each article in the category to see if it fits the scope of each WikiProject. That is clearly not the case with these categories. Now if the category was about "Violence" or "Terrorism" by or against any group in India then those categories would fall into the scope of one or other, but not necessarily both, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography or WikiProject Terrorism. I have left messages on the categories I edited to explain my thinking on this issue, as well as edit summaries with reasons.
Unfortunately, as you choose to edit anonymously, all I can go on is your IP address, which seems to change randomly every couple of edits, so it is next to impossible to leave you a message, directly. If you want to seriously enter into debates on Wikipedia then you need to register for a user account and log on when you edit. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boucher (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Boucher.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEATH

[edit]

I've noticed you add WP:DEATH to pages on serial killer bios, but that's explicitly outside of the scope. I usually assess stuff for that project (like once a month ha). I think it should probably be in scope when the person was executed, but if not, I agree with its exclusion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: Sorry, I had not picked up on the subtle differences in exclusions for that project. The inclusion/exclusion list is somewhat confusing and inconsistent about what is in or out. This seems to be primarily based on the title of the article, not its contents, although that had not previously been made clear to me. Thus an article about a murder is in-scope but an article about a murderer, which describes all their their murders and names all their victims is out of scope. It doesn't make sense to me to decide to include or exclude articles that way. Or am I reading the exclusion list wrong? What about criminals who are executed or commit suicide? To me, if the article describes death, I have been including it until now. But now you have pointed out the exclusions, I will be more attentive to which articles I add the banner to. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was never really certain about that. It used to say terror attacks weren't in scope, which seemed to me to be very arbitrary when other mass attack type crimes were, so I removed that. Might need to do the same here, but wasn't really sure since there isn't much activity there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: I would call the exclusion list inconsistent, not just arbitrary. If terrorist attacks were excluded, what about attacks involving suicide bombers? Suicide is a particular subset of death and it is technically not a crime in most jurisdictions. So if someone commits suicide by blowing themselves up in a terrorist attack, like New Zealand anarchist Neil Roberts did in the Wanganui Computer Centre bombing, the act is included but the person is not, even though they commit suicide. This is completely inconsistent and does not make sense to me. I could understand if there were some principles involved that explained how to make inclusion or exclusion decisions based on content of an article, but not just the title. I don't think the inclusion/exclusion criteria have been thought through properly at all. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron Dewe Yeah, I agree with you it's pretty arbitrary. It may have been an attempt to narrow the scope given how big "death" is as a scope. But it may be time to broaden it a bit, given how many pages are already tagged like that, and it is quite arbitrary.
FWIW I think pings only work when you sign at the same time. I only saw this message now that I checked your talk page manually. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: Nothing is more certain than Death (and taxes.) If this was an attempt at scope limitation, then I think it could have been expressed in a different way. I am not sure the scope needs to be broader, but perhaps clearer. Time for a project discussion, I think. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cameron_Dewe&oldid=1254155185"