User talk:RussNelson

Welcome

Hello RussNelson, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You 19:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

CNE etc. maps

You might have more luck trying to reach Bernie out-of-band at the railroad.net NY&NE/CNE forums. SPUI occasionally shows up there, too. Choess 04:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Mohansic State Hospital Branch: maybe it's my imagination, but if you look at the historic map, there are what look like cuts and fills curving around through the saddle north of French Hill — one in the 440-foot and two in the 480-foot contours. Every now and then, you can catch something on the 1940s maps that's been eroded or bulldozed away on the modern topos. In the 1946 Ware topo, for instance, you can observe a big fill (NW corner) and some smaller earthworks (look for Gilbertville and trace along the east bank of the more western stream; it would have curved to the west and crossed the stream on a trestle and fill just south of Turkey St), remains of Central Massachusetts grading diminished or invisible on modern maps.

Anyway, I need to talk to you about this map database business; I've been plugging at the other end of it (how to accurately represent railroad corporate relationships in a DB) for some time. Details to follow. Choess 06:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comments at Talk:Eric S. Raymond

In regards to your recent comments left at Talk:Eric S. Raymond (diffs: [1] [2] [3]): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you have some misunderstandings on how Wikipedia works. There is nothing wrong with that, but let me try to explain them for you to prevent misunderstandings. First of all, deleting messages on your talk pages without responding is considered quite uncivil. After you ignored his request, Jayvdb followed up on the talk page of the article, which I wholly support as a proper course of action. As for the item in question (Raymond being the maintainer of gpsd), this is not general knowledge and was presented as a statement of fact. This means that you had responsibility to cite it. It is not Jayvdb's responsibility to verify and cite your edits for you. What level of citation do we expect? Approximately that of an article in an academic journal or a graduate-level thesis. Afterall, this is an encyclopedia we are writing here. In addition, this tidbit of information is not anywhere near as easy to verify as you make it out to be. I did a quick Google search using the keywords "Raymond", "gpsd", and "maintainer". The only thing I found in the first 30 results that points to him having that role is the Wikipedia article. At any rate, and let me be completely clear here, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever to attack another Wikipedia editor for any reason. Jayvdb has been nothing but polite, even in the face of your incivility. Please take from his example and treat the other volunteers here with the level of respect that they deserve. Thank you for your time. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 06:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Happy editting! -- ShinmaWa(talk) 01:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Levin (third nomination)

Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia; additionally, it is Wikipedia policy to assume good faith of other contributors. I would suggest you reevaluate your comments toward jd, in the interest of maintaining a friendly environment on Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 09:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudish

You're welcome. Think you might be able to get a pic? Daniel Case 06:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a camera to the 3500 Club dinner in April. Or better yet, go on the hike with him I've always been promising to do.

He was flattered to find I had posting a very glowing review of his book to Amazon. I think he'll be even more flattered to find he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Daniel Case 18:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Criticism in ESR Article

I've gone ahead and left a long response on the talk page for the ESR article. It would be best to carry on the conversation there but I thought I would make sure I would point it out here because it's largely directed to you. —mako (talk•contribs) 00:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benkler in FOSS celebs

I disagree with your deletion of Yochai Benkler. In academia he is the leading voice of FOSS because of his groundbreaking article "Coase's Penguin," which explained to economists why FOSS works. HarcourtArms 13:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, well, we already knew why FOSS works, but still, I suggest that he's just not a celebrity. When has he ever been mentioned in the popular press?RussNelson 14:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open source movement

I think you would be particularly well suited to respond to this question/suggestion on the Eric S. Raymond Article: Talk:Eric S. Raymond#Is there an open source movement? —mako๛ 14:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GPE Project

Hey Russ - thanks for clarifying a bit what I wrote down regarding the current debate over GPE @ GPE Palmtop Environment. The Linux.com article and your rebuttal was one of the reasons I wanted to put that section in the article - not to mention clean up the whole thing and add screenshots! Here's hoping that gets resolved. /me crosses fingers --Sodium N4 09:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at Talk:Oswego Recreational Trail re how to establish that the copyright situation is OK. Thanks. --Coppertwig 17:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry because I think it's a useful article, but I've put a possible-copyright-violation template on it. I think someone would have to follow the instructions (i.e. reword it, or demonstrate permission by one of the methods described). --Coppertwig 21:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded it sufficiently to not violate my own copyright. RussNelson 01:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for changing it to say "multi-use" trail; I was going to do that. I see that it's been reworded slightly but I doubt it's enough to satisfy the copyright concerns. The template you removed stated that it should not be removed before an administrator has looked at the page. Please put it back. Note that the template suggests writing a draft new version on a subpage, not at the article itself. It's still not clear to me that you own the copyright. The page is still listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and therefore is expected to be looked at by an administrator about 7 days after it was listed. --Coppertwig 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no copyright concerns. RussNelson 17:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of liberty -- world impression

Greetings Russ. I wasn't surprised to see someone undo my deletion of "and more generally, represents liberty and escape from oppression" from the Statue of Liberty article. My objection was not to the statement that it symbolizes those things, but that this is in a sentence started by "Worldwide". It certainly symbolizes those things to Americans, and probably to many migrants to the US. My point was (and is) that this is not a "worldwide" view.

I've changed it from "and more generally it symbolizes..." to "To many, it symbolizes...". Can you live with that? LachlanA 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. RussNelson 01:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for uploading Image:Rainsford-island-by-doc-searls.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York And Ottawa Railway - Map

Thank you for your comments and my apologies. I have done the proper means of putting a map up for this particular article. I just thought it was better to edit your image rather than upload yet another image while yours goes into limbo. My file is now up and replaces yours. I do like your idea of using a top map with the route drawn in as it helps for researchers to identify the line today, but unfortunately Canadian topo maps differ in sizes than the American ones that I have plus I have not found any Canadian ones available on-line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonfire34 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for improving the quality of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthika.kerala (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing the page about me

I understand your desire for an accurate article about me. I share that desire. To that end, stop removing valid citations. There is plenty of evidence that I have been making a living from free software for many many years. Look, for example, on the Free Software Business mailing list. If I was a fraud, surely someone would have called me out. You have no reason to call me a liar; no evidence for it whatsoever; and there's plenty of evidence (if only you would stop vandalizing my page) that I am not lying. RussNelson (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never called you a liar. I'm just concerned about self-promotion, that you'll have to concede that is way too common in your circles. --Damiens.rf 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want an inaccurate article? Is that why you keep removing things? Why don't you just nominate the article for deletion? Why not just remove everything about me? WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?? GO AWAY! PICK ON SOMEBODY ELSE! Work on gaining other interests on life besides obsessing on me, okay? RussNelson (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your recent edit summary was VERY abusive.Teapotgeorge (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, no, it's clear that this guy has a vendetta against me, refuses to use the talk page to discuss this matter, and continues to remove cited material simply because he doesn't like the citations. It's arguable, we've argued about it, and I've asked him to leave the text there to allow someone else to contribute. HE REFUSES TO STOP. Clearly this guy has some kind of obsession with me, he shouldn't be editing Russ Nelson and has a WP:COI at this point. RussNelson (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture for your article

Nelson, since we're at it, could you release some picture of yours under a free licensing, so that we can use it in your Wikipedia article? That one where you're smiling on your homepage seems ok, but you may want to pick another one of your choice.

I suggest uploading the image yourself to commons, or releasing it on Flickr, so that we can properly document the free licensing.

Thanks, --Damiens.rf 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know the picture is of me, without a citation to a reliable source? RussNelson (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we could just say "the picture Mr. Nelson uses to identify himself". But the problem with sources in wiki-auto-biographies is that people tend to promote themselves by making their work to look like a greater contribution to humankind than they really are, or make their lives sound more cool than they really are. In the case of a photograph, one could indeed try to look prettier than he really is. But if you use any of those pictures in your webpage or flickr account, I doubt anyone would ever think this could be the case. --Damiens.rf 11:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I guess your likeness is something trivial to verify, unlike the claim that you "make a living from open source software since ages", or that a program you wrote in the early 90s (and currently does not compiles) can be classified as a Mac Paint clone.
So, would you upload such a picture? --Damiens.rf 11:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm afraid that you would print it out and use it as a love object, given your obsession with me. RussNelson (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, you're being offensive. Also, what would prevent such an obsessed person to do that to your picture from your website? (He would have be really obsessed about free content!).
But please, just politely reply yes or no (preferably, "yes"). Would you upload a nice picture of you for use on your bio page? --Damiens.rf 18:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you're starting to creep me out. Go stalk somebody else. RussNelson (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Your" article

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why do you think I don't know all of that already? This whole brou-ha-ha was started by Damiens.rf asking for a citation. Perfectly fine. I provided him with one, two, and then three citations, none of which he liked, and without discussion in the talk page, he reverted them. I'm not editing my bio, just adding citations -- but Damiens.rf is deleting (has successfully deleted) it. I realize that Wikipedia's goal is an accurate article, which is why I added negative material about myself. My reputation stands on my work completely independent of anything written in Wikipedia -- but when that work is removed from the article it becomes less reliable and less accurate. Apparently that is completely in line with Wikipedia policies even though the primary goal is a reliable encyclopedia. Can you say self-defeating? But that's why the caution against WP:COI is not a simple "don't edit an article about yourself" but is instead, "be careful when you do so" -- because an editor can edit an article about himself reliably. It's a judgement call; in this case Damiens.rf's judgement is clouded by previous run-ins we've had on other articles. Which is why I have asked, and continue to ask that he refrain -- or be forced to refrain if he lacks the self-restraint -- from editing my bio page. RussNelson (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of Streetcar lines on Long Island

Unfortunatley, I've been completley clueless about the line through Blue Point and Bayport until you showed me that map. I wrote to Patchogue-Medford Library's history department and asked for the exact route and found nothing beyond that of the main route on North & South Ocean Avenue & Suffolk Traction Boulevard, and it was there where I found out about the lines to Blue Point, Bayport, and Medford in the first place. Where did you get the info on the connection to Sayville? ----DanTD (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last map on this Suffolk Traction page shows the route in Sayville. RussNelson (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on FN P90

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on FN P90. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused. I made an edit, he reverted it, and I reverted it back because WP:NOTCENSORED. How do two reverts become a three-revert edit war? Perhaps he reverted it again? If so, shouldn't you be warning him, not me? Because I can only control my own behavior, not mine. RussNelson (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I see you were already warned, but I'll clarify N4T's warning. Please read WP:Edit war. The natural order of things here is to be bold and edit articles. If an edit is disputed, you are encouraged to build a concensus for inclusion on the talk page. You didn't do that, instead you left a rude personal attack on the edit comment and placed the same content... knowing it was disputed, on the page again. I'm pretty sure that falls under edit warring. Your understanding of the term "Three Revert Rule" needs to extend beyond the phrase "Three Revert Rule" and include an actual reading of the rule. Hope this helps you. --Winged Brick (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you think so, but it wasn't a rude personal attack. It was simply a suggestion that one person's 'squick' about killing shouldn't guide the contents of the article. RussNelson (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil edit comment on FN P90

Your edit comment here appears to be impolite and aimed at the editor, not what he was saying. Please refrain from personal attacks against other editors and always assume good faith. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric S. Raymond

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Eric S. Raymond, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Please note that I just added this due to the recent edit warring over blog-sourced references to the subject's global warming views, so obviously it was not under probation at the time of your recent edits. --TS 05:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI Problems continue, Warning about removing maintenance templates

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Russ Nelson, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What problem? You never said what the problem is. *I* resolved the problem in my edit message. RussNelson (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

You appear to be involved in an edit war on Russ Nelson . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages instead of reverting their edits. Please be careful of giving the appearance of attempting owning articles especially where you have a conflict of interest. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and you're probably about --> <-- this close to a Topic Ban on Russ Nelson, broadly construed. Although we can be patient about WP:COI to a certain level, ownership, edit-warring, and verifiability are things we will be keeping watch over at all times. Such a topic ban would be obviously very bad for you. Time to start working within the rules and policies of this project, and not assume that you have any rights to edit either Wikipedia, or an article that might be about you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And ... I initiated a discussion on the talk page, exactly as the guidelines lay out, and EXACTLY AS Toddst1 did NOT do before reverting EVEN THOUGH I explained why I was reverting (for his lack of explanation). I understand compliance with rules; I only wish other Wikipedia editors would comply with them also. --RussNelson (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page etiquette

Just FYI, it's considered mildly bad form to reply in the middle of a thread when there have been replies since. Instead just reply at the bottom using whatever level of indenting is appropriate considering who you're replying to. Cheers, Steven Walling 19:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess people don't read by looking at diffs, then? I would think it's harder to follow who said what to whom just by looking at the indentation. It's not like wikipedia has a folding viewer. Anyway, I will do as you suggest. --RussNelson (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this kind of confusing junk is why Brandon is working hard on LiquidThreads. It's crazy. Steven Walling 19:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like others, I have no idea what all the fuss is about—it should blow over in due course. My purpose on posting is to say that it is rarely useful to refer to another user (we comment on content, not contributors), but when commenting on another user, their correct user name should be used, without decorations like the mysterious "Mrs." now used at Talk:Danese Cooper. I doubt LQT will be accepted here, but meanwhile it is best to add new comments to the bottom: put "@username:" at the start to indicate a specific reply to a person (but see previous comment), and/or a small piece of text you are replying to in italics, and comment. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to pound home the point (perhaps clumsily) that when it comes to a conflict of interest, Toddst1 may have a HUGE conflict, or no conflict at all, since we have no idea who she is. It seems odd to me that, with nearly all contributors being anonymous, COI has any more significance than the butt-hairs of a gnat. --RussNelson (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While sympathetic to your point, it has to be acknowledged that a tremendous amount of promotional activity goes on here, and a lot of that involves people with a COI, so some editors are quick to jump on it. I have not studied the current issue, but a look left me with the impression that the COI talk in this case is misguided. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For clear writing, the passive voice must not be used. :) I don't think the problem is a conflict of interest so much as it is non-neutral writing. I can't judge whether you have a COI or not, but I can sure look at your writing and detect that it's non-neutral. COI is inherently all about the editor, which is in general discouraged around here. --RussNelson (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token b712d544201f59d15afb682d6d88c57e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! RussNelson (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your unique position

Hi. :) I've attempted to make some improvements on the article about you (which I almost linked before sanity reasserted; habits!). There are a few points I cannot verify through external sources (although with the use of some synthesis I could verify at least one! :D) It's an unusual situation here, though, when I can simply ask you if you would mind awfully adding something to your homepage. I've scanned it, but didn't find what I was looking for. Can you explicitly self-identify as a pacifist somewhere and (if you'd care to) confirm that your birth year is 1958 and that you are from Hempstead, New York? I've temporarily removed the disputed "pacifist" tag but would love to put it back if I can source it! I have not touched the birth year and "from" info, since those are only in the cats, but ideally they need to be sourced as well. (And, of course, if the information is wrong, we'll yank it immediately; I'm just presuming that if it were wrong you'd have done something about it yourself.) I'll check back at your talk page to see if you're able to help out with this. It would be much appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read the talk page of the article, I'll just add an apology if this is a sensitive request. I was not aware that this article has had such a lengthy history of challenges. I am confident that my request here is comfortably within WP:SELFPUB, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pacifist: http://blog.russnelson.com/economics/blind-faith-in-free-markets.html is a reasonable choice, or you can visit http://russnelson.com/pacifist/. Birthdate: http://russnelson.com/ . Thanks for straightening this out. Hmmmm.... Interestingly, Cyril Kornbluth died on my birthday. --RussNelson (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having participated on the lengthy history of challenges, I know the man isn't a pacifist at all :). But now seriously, self-declaring yourself a pacifist on your webpage doesn't make you so. Why do we need this info in the article anyway? --Damiens.rf 18:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Just now I notice this is ther user's talk page, and not the article's talk page. Sorry for the being nosy! --Damiens.rf 18:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we not need it? He writes in his blog about pacifism, so I would gather it is of personal importance to him. What reason is there to exclude it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; let's talk about it at the article's talk page if you like. No need to involve Mr. Nelson. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starchild

Per your question here, the most current conversation is here: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:2001child2.JPG, some background here and here. Dreadstar ☥ 16:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No circular references

We don't use Wikipedia as a reference per WP:CIRCULAR. I've removed the circular reference you've added to Free banking. Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that makes zero sense. What am I supposed to do, copy the reference from one page to another? Then you have two copies of the same piece of information, which can only suffer bit-rot over time. RussNelson (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first step is to not to continue to ignore your talk page and continue reverting. That will get you blocked for edit warring. Beyond that WP:CIRCULAR is policy, not a suggestion.
Yes, you would use one or more reliable sources to establish a statement without pointing to Wikipedia. Let me try to explain why: Citations in other articles can come and go as edits proceed. Even articles come and go - so you can't assume references will remain somewhere else - they must be tightly bound to the local statement. Toddst1 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the reference that you were pointing to and the one I added for you should probably be deleted from both articles because blogs are also not reliable references.TeapotgeorgeTalk 22:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not plausible to claim that I'm ignoring my talk page when I reply to your concern, and then make a DIFFERENT edit than the one you changed. DIFFERENT is not REVERTING. See WP:DICK. Consequently I'm going to pretend that you never said that, Todd. I understand the policy now. It is reasonable, but so is the one I was pursing. Either way there's a problem of bit-rot. No magic wand short of a semantic wiki. RussNelson (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reversion and you were edit warring. You need to be more WP:CIVIL as well. Toddst1 (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant to link to my two edits because that clearly shows that I was attempting to comply with your suggestion. If you want civility, start by giving it. See Silver Rule. RussNelson (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No you are mistaken: This is the reversion that I referred to in my comment "The first step is to not to continue to ignore your talk page and continue reverting." It was later rejected by yet another editor.
Why is it so hard for you to take constructive advice? You don't have to make such a big deal out of this. Toddst1 (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused. Check the timestamps. Stop making a big deal out of this. RussNelson (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parishville NY

Russ I noticed that you edited out the reference to Scott Koen in May 2011 on Parishville NY, can you tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.233.174 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because participating in a single noteworthy event does not make someone noteworthy, and because there were no citations for nearly two years. RussNelson (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russ did you remove all of the references to Flight 1549 as well, including the crew? As for references... http://www.dhs.gov/blog/2009/02/23/honoring-flight-1549 http://www.flickr.com/photos/uscgpress/3293096326/in/set-72157614111265378/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.233.174 (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it back in, with a citation. He's still not noteworthy. Somebody else will delete it. RussNelson (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rutland Herald.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rutland Herald.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to "Russ Nelson" WP page

Hello Mr Nelson. I have reverted a change you made to the page that discusses you but per my comment on the talk page I recognise your concerns and am willing to help correct the text with you. ClareTheSharer (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, RussNelson. 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 2017 election voter message

Hello, RussNelson. 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]

Proposed deletion of File:Matheran Railway Wala.jpg

The file File:Matheran Railway Wala.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, unclear use/purpose

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zinclithium (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matheran Railway Wala.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Matheran Railway Wala.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matheran Railway Wala.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Matheran Railway Wala.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

WP:SOCK query

You recently made an edit[4] removing content at Low-carbohydrate diet yet on another account user talk page, that of Astanton, the edit is being discussed as if it originated from that account.[5]. This looks like WP:MEAT. Can you explain? Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? RussNelson (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what's being described is a Facebook group coordinating efforts, while over on twitter Jimmy Wales is being petitioned. Why is your edit being described by another user as theirs? Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't control what other people do. I saw something that didn't look encyclopedic to me, and I deleted it. You restored it because it's well-cited. But even the article itself acknowledges that there is much information of low value in this article's topic. I suspect that you are attempting to own edits to this article by deleting a low value entry which doesn't even belong in that section. Please accept an honest edit and don't revert it again. RussNelson (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? That is all completely beside the point - this is not a content question it's a behaviour question. WP:MEAT-puppetry is forbidden by policy (as it seriously screws with the consensus-forming process) and another user appears to be claiming you are editing at their direction and/or as part of a group. What is going on? Alexbrn (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot control what other people say or do, nor can I confirm anything you or he says. I'm sorry. Now, I have reviewed your edits of this article, and it surely seems like you think you get ultimate control over it. That is not how Wikipedia works. RussNelson (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well that may point to the other user having a problem if they're making stuff up (e.g. "Russ and I talked about trying to change the low carbs page"). I do not control the page; it is subject to consensus like everything else and has recently been discussed at the WT:MED noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion of a Wikipedia article

  • Mr. Nelson, you can always nominate an article for deletion, including one that somebody else had started about you. There's a procedure described in Wikipedia:Proposed deletion where you edit the article to put the deletion notice on it and, if nobody opposes it over the next seven days, it gets deleted without a discussion. If someone does object, then there's a discussion as there was 8 years ago. You can raise your reason for deletion as WP:BLP (biography of a living person) and the other reasons that you listed. Alternatively, you can propose that it be redirected to Open Source Initiative so that if someone types in your name, it just sends them to that article instead of providing an article about you. Mandsford 20:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Editing Your Own Wikipedia Article, Russ

Russ: you have repeatedly edited your own wikipedia article in violation of the rules.

You have been reminded many times that what you're doing is wrong, yet you continue to do it, and you keep aggressively arguing with people who warn you about it. They are right, and you are wrong, and you know it.

"@ClareTheSharer: This nonsense has been going on since 2011. Mr. Nelson refuses to abide by the guidelines at WP:COI and Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Time for a topic ban as BWilkins threatened way back then? Toddst1 (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russ_Nelson#Russ_Nelson_still_trying_to_whitewash_the_article_about_him

I will remind you once again: what you are doing is wrong. Stop doing it.

You know it's wrong, yet you continue to do it. These are your own words: "It's not "my own" bio. It's an article about me. I claim no ownership and reject your suggestion that I do." -Russ Nelson, 20:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you changed your mind about claiming no ownership of your wikipedia page, or were you insincerely rejecting the suggestion that you stop acting like you own it, then continuing to act like you believe you own it by repeatedly breaking the rules and editing it, and arguing with people who tell you what you're doing is wrong?

It's the height of hypocrisy for you to demand, right after I said I DO and WILL follow the rules, that "Regardless of what I do, you should not break the rules." How do you justify brazenly breaking the rules yourself, then telling other people not to do exactly what you're doing, even though they're not?

You've just proven yourself to be a hypocrite, by your own words and actions. Apparently you believe the rules apply to everyone but you, and that you have the right to police those rules against other people.

Do you or don't you agree to stop breaking the rules, Russ?

And let me repeat what somebody else has already warned you earlier on this very page: "First of all, deleting messages on your talk pages without responding is considered quite uncivil."

Xardox (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will you agree to stop breaking the rules, too? Criticizing someone in a Talk page in a way that would never be tolerated in the Article is NOT KOSHER, and I will bring in an admin to get you to stop doing it. RussNelson (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Russ, for someone whose talk page is FULL of numerous examples of you flaunting the rules, you're walking on very thin ice and hardly in the position to make an ultimatum that you refuse to follow the rules if I won't. You're the one who's been breaking the same rules time and again, and who has been warned repeatedly about doing the same things, and keeps ignoring and flaunting those warnings. So if I were you, I'd be pretty careful about attracting the attention of admins to your talk page about an issue that was started by you breaking the rules AGAIN. But go ahead: knock yourself out and call in the admins to resolve this issue -- I hope you do. The admins aren't your personal police force who always do what you tell them to. Because you kept breaking the same rules, you were warned on the talk page of your own wikipedia article AGAIN, you then argued and ignored the warnings, so I warned you on your own talk page, like MANY other people have done. Did you call the admins on all of them too? My point, which I'd love for you to bring to the attention of the admins, still stands unrefuted and unaddressed: you have repeatedly edited your own wikipedia article in violation of the rules. Now do you intend to follow the rules and stop doing that, or do you still insist that you will only follow the rules contingent on me not asking you to stop breaking and flaunting them any more? Because your record shows you can't be trusted to hold up your end of that deal. Xardox (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I can stop violating the rules. I doubt you can, but we'll see. For example, you flagrantly violated and continue to violate Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable RussNelson (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peekskill Valley Railroad

Dear Russ. Thank you for your entries about the "Peekskill Valley Railroad" 2-foot gauge - 1873. You might be interested in proof-reading the new article about the Peekskill Valley Railroad. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Appreciate the nice comment! Hope all is well. Red Director (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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) 00:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]