Academic38

Stop changing the Princeton endowment. It's 11.3 billion now.http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/princeton_u_proposes_170m_in_b.html

I am keeping an eye on Raymond Keene and the talk page, although I'm not in any way official. I don't know anything more about Kingpin than what the wikipedia article tells me, but discussion at Talk:Raymond Keene leads me to believe that it is probably not a reliable source for a BLP. The "enqiries" bit is troubling also. In a discussion about this problem held earlier at WT:CHESS, Fewwords who seems to be an SPA intent on smearing Keene, suggested that he could "put the suggestion" to some sources. My comment was that this suggested that he might be too close to the source or the subject, and the I think the same applies to ZincBelief. If you think that "official" assistance is needed on the article, options include involving the reliable sources noticeboard or the biographies of living persons noticeboard. I have no experience with either of these, as I have never been involved with a contentious BLP before. Personally I don't think that's necessary yet as I think we can improve the article to meet WP:BLP requirements. The small number of editors strongly in favor of including a large number of negative claims about Keene have argued their case passionately, but that's their prerogative. I don't think they have been in any way disruptive, just stubborn on talk pages. Quale (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Academic,

Thank you for contacting me rather than reverting my edit. The problem with the hatnote is explained in the link I provided in my edit summary. According to the guidelines, hatnotes should not link to articles that are highly related to the topic. Hatnotes are used for disambiguation purposes, not supplementary information purposes. For example, if there were a film called Unitarian Universalism, the film could be linked in a hatnote at the top of the Unitarian Universalism article. Links to such articles as Unitarian Universalist Association, Unitarianism, and Universalism, however, should be located in the text of the article and not in a hatnote. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me again.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi i am hoping you may be able to help me, i require access to a paper on JSTOR and was pointed to wikipedians who have a access page. I need access to this paper [1] to see if R. J. Rummel`s theory`s are in there. Thanks for any help you might offer mark nutley (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Mark, there are a couple of mentions of Rummel but no real discussion of his work in depth. It mentions he was one of the first to use factor analysis in political science, but there is no explication of any of his findings. Could you explain a little more what you need? Cheers. Academic38 (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well his theory`s are being described as fringe, so i am looking for any supporting documentation which shows they are not. It was posted that i require a source which lists another group of paradigms As it is now being said that he is fringe based on This source mark nutley (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello A. As you can see from this section of the Holodomor talk page [2], editors have requested the statistics and context of a 2003 paper, "A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses during the Crises of the 1930s and 1940s" [3]. You are alphabetically the first person in the Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR, so I thought it probable that you would also have access to the famine article. If you have access and are willing to email it to me, could you use the email option at my user page User:Novickas. If not, could you post that here and I shall then ask others in the category. Regards, Novickas (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

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) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply