User talk:Rorybowman

"The Wrestlers" from Uffizi Gallery, Florence.

Easy link for new entry on talk page...

Template:AfD_in_3_steps Wikipedia:Websites Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ Wikipedia:Logos
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style: Help:List Wikipedia:Citing_sources Wikipedia:Naming_conventions
Be bold with NPOV. NOR and Wikipedia:Citing_sources for Wikipedia:Verifiability. Perfect!
Wikipedia:Merge /RSA /MA /FH /LPwS /Chess Archives 2005

Modus Operandi

One of my favorite Wikipedia techniques is to find and upload public-domain pictures to illustrate spatial things such as anatomy that are difficult to describe verbally. Any publication by the US federal government is an excellent source for these, which should then be uploaded to WikiMedia Commons. When possible I try to find a picture which (a) illustrates more than one thing, (b) can be clearly documented as public-domain and (c) is as small (in file size and pixels) as appropriate. Very few Wikipedia articles need more than one good thumbnail, and if a picture can be used in more than one place, this is efficient. I always try to explain enough about the source that others can jury my contributions or mine the same data. Someone who is good at finding and tracking down attributions for public-domain media can do a LOT to help Wikipedia in this way, especially if they assign keywords and categories within the Wikipeda Commons.

In one case I took a scan of a common-angle picture of a famous statue and then popped it into Photoshop where I altered it enough to void the original copyright, while still retaining the relevant parts Wikipedia purposes. It is very important when uploading pictures to be certain of copyrights as best you are able, and to provide "trackback" URLs so that others with more subject matter expertise can jury your decisions.

Other small things that can help are: alphabetizing longish lists; fixing redlines; fleshing out references and; currecint mizpellings (rampant on teh Internets).

Direct instruction article / education philosophy

Hi, Rorybowman.

I noticed some of your comments on the Direct Instruction: Talk page, and I'm curious as to what you've been experiencing WRT the DI partisans, and also regarding your negative view of the instructional approach. I have difficulty understanding why someone would consider any instructional method to be inherently "political."

My perception and experience is evidently quite different from yours, and I really would like to understand where you are coming from on this.

I'd very much like to discuss this with you. Incidentally, I'm a life-long Democrat, socially liberal and fiscally moderate. So I don't think my politics plays into this!  :-)

Best,

Rosmoran 02:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not having noticed and responded to your comment sooner. The article in question is often a magnet for various commercial products (usually focussed around "phonics" in some form) and as a public-school teacher I have seen these issues addressed in various political ways, usually by "back to basics" parent-pressure groups, by textbook vendors or state representatives who generally try to "teacher-proof" the curriculum from a perception that teachers are all subversive Marxists who cannot be trusted. A good article that touches on the conflucence of these is http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020128/metcalf . School curriculum and textbook publishing is a HUGE market, especially if a group can get a large adoption in populous states such as Texas or California. The political aspects of this generally come down to a focus on an "empty vessel" theory of instruction (wherein the child is to be filled with the preapproved fluids of authority) or the more "meaning-centered" or "constructivist" theories. Ed-school shorthand for these two schools is often "sage on the stage" (mass indoctrination) versus "guide to the side" (adaptive coaching). Does that answer the question? If one imagines a triangle of authority/teacher, material/curriculum and citizen/student the political issue is clearer. Through micro-management of curriculum and immediate disregard of the student (except as a data point in high-stakes monitorging), programs such as DISTAR deify the curriculum makers in a way that is inherently authoritarian and anti-democratic: basic "my way or the highway" stuff. - Rorybowman 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Boxing Gloves

In the article on boxing gloves, you wrote that "professional fight gloves are specially packed to protect only the person who wears them." Where did you pull that piece of nonsense from, exactly? Holymolytree2 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Only the person who wears them" would be a poor way to state it, but the general point from John Brown's Ringside DVD on hand wraps was that professional gloves do not offer as much protection and the main goal in packing the gloves is to protect the hands of the fighter who wears them without as much regard for the safety of the opponent. Indeed, I have heard various ways in which the design of professional gloves creates more opportunity for cuts and such. The general point is that fighter safety is not as much of a concern for professional bouts. Do you fight? Rorybowman 04:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I did boxing for two and a half years, but with breaks, so roughly a year and a half in continuous time, sparring, but never competed in the amateurs.

You're talking about handwraps now or gloves? Handwraps are solely used to protect the fighter. In manufacturing the gloves, they may have to focus on protecting the fighters hands, but that doesn't mean that the actual main purpose of the gloves is to protect the fighter's hands. It may just mean that the difficult aspect of designing and making them is in the protection of the fighter's hands.

When you say "the design of professional gloves creates more opportunity for cuts and such," are you talking about in comparison to sparring gloves or in comparison to bare knuckles? If you're comparing to sparring gloves then obviously, but if you're comparing to bare knuckles then not a chance. You can get wobbled by a gloved punch without even getting a mark on your face. Think about it. Do you watch boxing? How many boxing matches have you seen where someone gets knocked out but doesn't really recieve any noticeable facial injury, or just some minor swelling? Now how many times have you seen someone who has been in a street fight in which he didn't get knocked out or wobbled or anything like that, but ended up with cuts, scratches or a black eye?

Have you ever seen a twelve round boxing match after which a fighter doesn't really have any major facial injuries? Do you honestly think that he'd look better than that if he was getting hit by his opponent's bare fists? Go watch Mayweather-De La Hoya or Trinidad-Hopkins and tell me.

Have you heard about the story of Billy Collins vs Luis Resto? Panama Luis, Resto's trainer, took padding out of Resto's glove. Collins ended up with eye damage and could never fight again, and Resto and Lewis both got sent to jail. If boxing gloves are designed to protect the wearer and not the opponent, why would Lewis have taken the padding out of the gloves? Holymolytree2 18:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your statement of the case is absolutely correct and your revision is a good one. Thank you. Rorybowman 02:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver and Esther Short Park

Nice work so far on editing/expanding the Vancouver Washington article. It prompted me to start the long overdue Esther Short Park article. Are you a Vancouverite too? VanTucky ^(talk) 03:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Born and raised. Right now I am working on The Vancouver Food Co-op, where I learned a lot of this stuff while doing research for the business plan. Perhaps after the co-op is open I can write something abot the history of groceries and such in Vancouver. Did you know, for example, that there was a public market at Eighth and Main, founded approximately the same time as Pike Place Market? It might be an interesting article for The Vancouver Voice. Rorybowman 03:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we've met. I'm a friend of Laurie Loranger's kids, and I came to one of the co-op meetings. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I recognized you from your picture. I think I suggested an ongoing column on food issues, but I certainly haven't had time to write it. Good job promoting "the Couv!" Rorybowman 04:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, we just started a blog feature on the voice website, and my editor has been bugging everyone to post. I think a food series focused on vancouver would be something that is most welcome... VanTucky ^(talk) 04:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Send me an email as Rory (at) Vancouver Food and we can discuss this some more. Anything to make people more aware of local food systems would be terrific, and there are several good food writers in the region... Thanks for the heads-up! - Rorybowman 04:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Lake

Hi Rory! Nice job expanding the Vancouver Lake article. Do you have any sources you can add to the article? Nice to see you're pecking away at WP and keepin' it real in Clark Cty - I'm surprised our paths haven't crossed more here! -Pete 08:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The main one is the timeline which I bopped onto. The other stuff is pretty darn obscure, like county records on DDT and stuff, the assemblage of which places me perilously close to violating WP:NOR. I can back up each fact with a reference if needed, but as with Vancouver, Washington, a lot of this stuff isn't worth doing a ref for, espcially as convoluted as the new ref styles are. I'm sure I shall see you more as I procrastinate on Vancouver Food Cooperative stuff. - Rorybowman 08:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

People in my neighborhood assn are trying to set up some sort of bulk purchasing project. I'm not directly involved (too busy), but it seems like a great idea - so I'll definitely be interested in the progress of your coop! I'm sure you're accumulating some valuable infos.

Also FYI, one of my favorite procrastination techniques is finding unformatted citations, and formatting them with templates. So if you put in raw citations – like just a link – there's a reasonable chance I might come along and do the rest of the work. -Pete 16:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Casablanca class carriers edit

Appreciating the fact you're a lifelong Vancouverite and local historian, I thought I'd drop this note here instead of making the changes myself.

Regarding your recent additions to the Casablanca class carriers' page, nicknames such as Baby Flat-Tops and Jeep Carriers were not exclusively used to describe any one class of escort carrier. In fact, you attempted to support each moniker with an explanation - such as: Baby Flat-Tops because the Casablancas were the smallest of all escort carriers. This is hardly the case. The Bogue class carriers were a few thousand tons lighter and over 20 feet shorter in length. The terms Jeep Carriers, Woolworth Carriers, Baby Flat-Tops and Two Torpedo Ships (among others) all refer to escort carriers in general - of all classes. If you would care to consult a book regarded as authoritative on escort carriers try Y'Blood's Little Giants, United States Naval Institute Press, which covers all classes of escort carriers built in the US. He discusses this very issue with great clarity.

I thought you might appreciate rephrasing your comments to suit yourself. five 01:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I was working from local sources here in the library and county historical society, but if you have more authoritative sources, please feel free to rephrase it. I am absolutely NOT an expert on anything nautical and firmly believe that someone's willingness to be edited is in inverse proportion to their need to be edited. I had not heard the nicknames "Woolworth carriers" and "two torpedo ships" so will probably just hop in and undo the edit. Thanks for letting me know! Rorybowman 01:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Having studied the Kaisers for a few decades, and realizing you were from Vancouver, I had already put it together that you were working from a local source. Problem is, most of the local (to Vancouver) material was penned by Kaiser's PR people back in the day. And trust me, they didn't know anything nautical either.

You might enjoy a brief story about these carriers.

The second part of your edit concerned the aircraft assigned to these carriers. Avengers were the heaviest and largest dimensionally of any carrier based aircraft in WWII. This point about how the smallest and lightest carriers were assigned the smallest and lightest planes must have been just assumption. Avengers were very big planes that required a three-man onboard air crew. Avengers were so big that they couldn't get off the deck via "flyway" like the fighters and required to be shot off catapults. The 50 Kaiser carriers were equipped with the Navy's H2 high-pressure hydraulic catapult expressly for the bombers. The problem was: The Avenger wasn't the bomber the Navy intended to use aboard the Kaiser carriers. They had planned on using Wildcat fighters along with dive-bombers, whereas the Avenger is a torpedo-bomber. The reason this turned out not to be possible is where Edgar F. Kaiser comes in. Your local hero, Edgar F. Kaiser, who acted as overseer for the three local yards, OregonShip, Swan Island, and Vancouver, was a chip off the old block. There wasn't anything held sacred to a Kaiser, not even disciplines such as Naval Architecture which they knew little of. What they did know, with great expertise, was how to maximize profits.

Their contract with the Maritime Commission was structered such to pay them a set bonus amount for EACH day in which a ship was launched prior to its originally planned launch date. So Edgar started fiddling with the design of the ships. Why? Because less material meant fewer man-hours in the Plate Shop; fewer hours to pre-assemble the now smaller sub-asemblies; and finally fewer hours in "erection", or adding it to the ship itself.

Kaiser built the hangar decks with a clearance of 17'3". The dive-bombers required 17'6" minimum. This threw a nasty wrench into the government's Controlled Materials Plan which finitely orchestrated the materials required to match planes with carriers. The Navy's Bureaus of Ships and Aeronautic were livid when it was discovered the Kaisers had taken it upon themselves to build the hangar decks three inches too small in height. How did the Kaisers react? They offered the government a new contract that would then pay them to change it all back to original specs. Incredible, but true. You got to love those Kaiser boys. They were true pieces of Americana.

The Navy just went with Avengers instead, which featured folding wings which would clear the hangar decks. But it threw their production schedules for both Avengers and SB2C Dive-bombers out of whack for over a year to make the necessary adjustments on the fly out of necessity. five 02:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! And absolutely believable. I saw one passing reference to a few Corsair flights off of a Casablanca-class carrier, but most of the photos and models I could find seemed to show Avengers and Wildcats. Please, please make whatever edits you feel are appropriate, as you obviously know much more about this than I. I'm going to poke around for Little Giants in my local libraries. Great stuff to know! - Rorybowman 03:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User IDs

Re: [1], it is a major violation of wiki policy to try to expose the offline identity of users. Please don't do it again. Rlevse 12:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the page because of privacy violations.Rlevse 12:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

For more info see WP:HA#Posting_of_personal_information and Wikipedia:Privacy (especially the last line).Rlevse 13:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that (1) it was reasonable conjecture, (2) not specific enough to be actionable and (3) relevant to the NPOV content of edits. A city is not an address and is listed on the public records of the organization's web page. No "real-world" action other than critical thought was intended and this does not violate WP:NOR because it is not article content, nor is it fundamentally different than WikiScanner. I have made my primary point and I encourage you to esalate to a cabal if you seriously believe this in any way endangers Rick Ross (consultant) or personally harasses him in violation of WP policy. Rorybowman 17:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You tied an IP to a name and that is a violation and blockable, but I'd prefer to avoid that if possible. If you cabal, you mean to include ArbCom, you are correct that these cases often end up there. At this point, I strongly encourage you not to reveal any more personal info, name to IP or otherwise, about any user without their consent. Rlevse 01:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Altering a user page of someone else is not appropriate, esp not something like WP:COI. If a user is involved in COI, it should go on their talk page. This is your last warning on this. See [2], Rlevse 13:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)...I've deleted the page again, but the diff here will show an admin how to find it. Rlevse 13:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note

Hey Rory, when you revert this nut who keeps vandalizing the Vancouver article (or any article), please make sure to give him the proper warning (i.e. {{subst:uw-vandalism}} with the appropriate number between 1-4 added after vandalism. Once he's vandalized after the fourth warning, he can be blocked again. Without warnings, another block may be denied, and we'll have to waste more time on this annoyance. Happy editing, VanTucky ^Talk 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't had cause to use these templates before and am not certain of the proper syntax, but we'll take a look at it later. Cheers! Rorybowman 19:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mankind Project

Please see this section of the Talk page before making further edits to Mankind Project. I have given thorough explanation for removing the material: for instance, some of it is repeated word-for-word elsewhere in the article. Whistling42 (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Stalking (disambiguation)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Stalking (disambiguation), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Stalking (disambiguation) is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Stalking (disambiguation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Culture

This article used to be a trainwreck and I have been trying to rewrite it to cover all academic approaqches to "culture". The section on "cultural studies" is weak, and one topic that perhaps could be better explored is the idea of "anti-essentialism" as an important theme of or infuence on cultural studies' approaches to "culture." Could you look at the section and see how you could develop it? Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 15:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look over the next week, but don't have any particular expertise and so am wary to be too bold. If valor trumps discretion, I'll wade in. Thanks for the complement of asking. Rorybowman (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - it seemed to me that you had some informed thoughts about debates about "ssentialism" - anything that bears on how people in "cultural studies" either conceptualize or study culture, even if it is a small contribution, would really be welcome. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Franklin Planner

The article Franklin Planner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable software. I can't find any reliable source about it on Google.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Laurent (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, WikiLaurent, for notifying me of this concern. I have made a few changes to the article which I hope clarify that this is a PHYSICAL product, not software, and remove some advertising-like, promotional language that could reasonably be seen as objectionable in tone. Although the parent company Franklin Covey had briefly introduced a variety of software products in the late 90's that sought to make them less irrelevant with the transition from paper-based planning toward electronics, the flagship product has always been their physical binder. I'd have to check if they even had a software product called Franklin Planner but this article is about the physical item, which may be viewed at FranklinPlanner.com. Rorybowman (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgiveness

Thanks for adding the info on Luskin. His work is very important and a real benefit to the article. Makana Chai (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Very welcome. I think that very brief summaries of work can help a lot of people when gently folded into articles. I assume that you were involved in the section on Ho'oponopono, yes? I had never heard of that and was delighted to learn of it just this morning. All the best! Rorybowman (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that summaries of work help. And I was one of two people who worked long and hard on ho'oponopono. Thanks for noticing! With warm aloha, Makana Chai (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

CRC

So happy to see your work on the Columbia River Crossing article! Hope you've been well :D -Pete (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for all your work on Washington Initiative 502 (2011). Let me know if you want to collaborate on anything in the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and cheers! Rorybowman (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just found your infographic and thanked you on commons. Thanks again. Do you live in Seattle? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I'm actually in southwest Washington about 150 miles south of Seattle, and this seemed the most useful graphic. Thanks again for the kind words. Rorybowman (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I-502

Hi Rory. Looks like it's just been you and I working on I-502 lately. Hey, I'm not categorically rejecting your last edit, getting rid of the entire 'Concerns' section, but I am a little, well, concerned about that. Is this a balance issue, in your mind? Or is there some intrinsic flaw in the content that you stripped out? Just askin'. I might decide to move some of that stuff back in, and I figure I have a better shot at making a consensus-worthy edit if I hear you out. Belchfire-TALK 18:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries. If you can make sense of it, please do. I've been looking at it off and on and it just seems a huge steaming pile of mess, so I went Alexander. Someone who is better (or more patient) at untying knots is absolutely encouraged to do so! Rorybowman (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You've done a bang-up job of cleaning it up, which is greatly appreciated. Belchfire-TALK 19:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Responding in more detail, paragraph by paragraph:

Initiative 502 is similar to Washington House Bill 1550 (2011), a "fiscal note" on which was completed by the Office of Financial Management (OFM) on February 23, 2011.[11] Summaries of that analysis showed law-enforcement savings of approximately $22 million. The fiscal note for HB 1550 projected revenues of approximately $215 million per year.[6] [7] A more recent March 2012 analysis by the OFM projects annual revenues above $560 million for the first full year, rising thereafter.[12]

Although it's not directly a part of Provision IV, this section seems very closely related to it and so I moved this data up to the previous section.

In addition, as the Washington State Patrol states in its fiscal note to the OFM, if I-502 passes, all state patrol officers will be trained to identify those under the influence of THC and instructed how to obtain administrative warrants for mandatory blood draws of suspected users.[citation needed]

I simply cannot find any support for this assertion, and I'm pretty sure that WSP is already trained in probable cause and search warrants.

Because THC blood levels do not behave similar to alcohol blood levels, critics have stated that I-502 will criminalize medical cannabis patients who drive vehicles whether or not they are actually impaired. [13] Since the penalty for DUI is significantly greater than that for simple possession, some question whether I-502 actually increases the potential penalty for moderate to heavy smokers, and fear a new wave of repression under color of DUI prosecution.[14] Washington’s Medical Use of Cannabis Act, codified at chapter 69.51A of the Revised Code of Washington provides qualified patients with terminal or debilitating medical conditions with an “affirmative defense” against cannabis related charges brought by state and local court. RCW 69.51A would remain unchanged by I-502.[15]

This seems to me very close to violating WP:NOR by tossing these together here, with the issues covered more succinctly in the first paragraph of "Opposition" below

Part IV of the act is the tax mechanism which establishes a 25% excise tax upon every transfer from producer to processor(s) to retailer and earmarks the majority of such revenue. Some financial analysts[citation needed] question how competitive the State's cannabis will be, since it will be taxed twice or three times at 25% in addition to the 10% sales tax, and sell for a projected $12 a gram. Whether producers will be able to produce top quality product at a projected producer to distributor sale price of less than $90 an ounce is another possible concern. If state produced product is not competitive in the marketplace, it is possible that the state run outlets will capture significantly less than the projected 100% market share. The actual costs of I-502 to the State have not been precisesly assessed by the OFM, since the primary assumption of the fiscal note required by RCW 29A.72.025 is that the impact will be "substantial but indeterminent", and some believe that it is possible the State run cartel system set by I-502 will not capture a significant market share and the administrative and other costs of I-502 will actually be a net drain on State resources.[citation needed]

Phrases like "some financial analysts" and "some believe" without citation just seem WP:WEASEL

In addition, since Cannabis remains illegal under federal law, some theorists[citation needed] believe the concentration of the trade and state involvement in large scale distribution may draw some form of federal response, such as a lawsuit or federal crackdowns on the producers who register with the state to provide large quantities of product. Former U.S. Attorney John McKay is on record as stating he believes that the federal government is already writing a suit to be used if I-502 prevails.[citation needed]

This is covered in the intro re "doctrine of dual sovereignty" and in Christine Gregoire's opposition

I hope that is a slightly more polite response, but one which covers my thinking quickly. Rorybowman (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't see anything even remotely impolite about your first response. Sorry if that got implied somehow. Thanks for this, it's much more detailed than I was hoping for, and it does expound your solid reasoning very well. In the interest of integrity, I will confess that a slight POV bias is driving my watchfulness here. I'd like to see the article retain mention of the taxing provisions reiterative nature, and also retain how the new DUI model for THC is based on the existing model for alcohol DUI. Off-hand, I'm not sure how to do that without putting in an anti-502 slant, so I'll have to ponder that some more. But certainly, inasmuch as what you removed was repeated elsewhere, the material was disposable. Belchfire-TALK 19:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the taxing provision's reiterative nature," but assume you mean the way that it "compounds interest" at each step of the process to maximize revenue. I'm not an expert on the subject of drug effects or safe-driving data in any way, but suspect that the best place for such a discussion is in the driving section of Effects of cannabis. It seems logical to flesh that section out and perhaps "hive it off" as a separate article as it gets larger, rather than try to cover it well here in one article about one initiative in one state for one year. There are a lot of very interesting discussions to be had about different metabolites and other things that mostly make my eyes glaze over (for very non-drug reasons!). I'm also thinking that there are a fairly significant number of Wikipedia editors with scientific backgrounds who could flesh that out in a solid way. "DUIC Concerns" could be given its own subsection within "opposition" but doubt that a legislative article is the best place for that data over the long term. Rorybowman (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

talkback

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

Hello, Rorybowman. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- I opened a discussion about this ballot naming issue there. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Washington initiative page moves

• See Talk:Washington Initiative 1029#Move for further discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For this. That is all. Pete (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Rorybowman (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Washington Initiative 522, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Ferguson (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) 11:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

i522 Washington_Initiative_522,_2012

I noticed you changed "Exceptions" to 'In compliance with federal law, exceptions". I think plain 'Exceptions' is best as not all of the exceptions are related to federal law. The Seattle Times article goes through this in some detail here http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022103454_truthneedlegmoxml.html Also a lot of people have questions about this due to the NO campaign's TV ads etc so I think putting it out there as simple as possible may be most educational. Would you mind reverting it and possibly linking the Times reference? Also thanks for your work on the article. YakbutterT (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out, and for the terrific link. The relevant quote I'm seeing from that article is "A review of corresponding federal laws and interviews with a Washington State University agriculture professor and a U.S. Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman separately confirmed most of Bialic’s assertions about existing federal labeling exemptions." Given that might I propose the wording "Exemptions in compliance with federal law?" My thinking here is that "exemptions" is a better word than "exceptions" and that this is reinforced in the Seattle Times article you reference. I'm happy to revert but feel that the source your referenced does support the general notion of "exemptions in compliance with federal law." Rorybowman (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Washington Initiative 522, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Stranger (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) 14:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 April

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

• On the Troy Kelley page, your edit caused a coauthors without author error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Granby roll

The article Granby roll has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unsourced wrestling move of questionable notability

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. only (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Your input requested on Washington state cannabis article

Please see here: Talk:Washington_Initiative_502#Rename_to_Cannabis_in_Washington_.28state.29_or_split_off.2C_or_what.3F

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rorybowman. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rorybowman. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rorybowman. 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)

Orphaned non-free image File:UNFIlogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UNFIlogo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Kellie-Jay Keen edits

Hi Rory!

I was noting the discussion regarding your existing WP:COI on this topic, which you should be sure to disclose in the future. It is clear that you were present at Kellie Jay Keen's controversial Tacoma rally where children as young as 8 were pepper sprayed and a 14 year old Black girl was attacked and called racial slurs by an attendee. You are seen assisting organizers of the rally, acting in a security role as well as helping to carry signs owned by the organizer wearing a green beanie with your name on it. Filiforme1312 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was present, which is why I know that her focus was woman-centered and not inherently "anti-trans." I also know that the events you describe did not happen, not least because I was standing just feet away when a 110-pound woman was intimidated by five (male-appearing) people weighing well over 800 pounds before using pepper-spray once in self-defense (as review of the video shows). I'm going to WP:FAITH here to assume you are mistaken and not intentionally lying. Rorybowman (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC),