24.69.177.182

The article seems fine as it presents only factual information. I'm not sure why the "autobiography" disclaimer has been added. If there is not protest by Jan 19, I'll remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.177.182 (talk • contribs) 02:13, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back now, Jan 20th, and haven't received an objection to removing the "autobiography" disclaimer. I'm not sure how it go there to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.177.182 (talk • contribs) 00:40, January 21, 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Stefan Dollinger. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Your talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss a maintenance tag on an article. Why would you expect any of the people interested in that article to be watching you talk page? And you didn't even link ot the page so anyone watching your page would not have known what article you were refering to. . Meters (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ Meters (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Canadian English‎ for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.Meters (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, 24.69.177.182. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Stefan Dollinger, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID). The fact that you are a WP:SPA on the Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles 2 (DCHP) and its editor, have stated that the DCHP is the only viable source to use for Canadianisms on Talk:Canadian English, and have advocated that Wikipedia editors should contribute material to the DCHP suggest that you may have a conflict of interest. ‎ Meters (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have a conflict of interest! I am neither "friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". I used to volunteer for their project, but this is a couple of years back. However, I think I'll leave wikipedia alone now, because clearly not all contributions are appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.177.182 (talk • contribs) 00:45, February 10, 2018 (UTC)

I would say that having volunteered for the DCHP project certainly could be a conflict of interest. Your pushing the project on Talk:Canadian English‎ and near total lack of interest in editing anything not related to the project of its editor are bad signs. There are lots of other places to contribute on Wikipedia. If you have no interest in contributing anywhere but on articles related to the DCHP and its editor, well, that's your choice. Meters (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)\

I'm sorry, I disagree. Who else would write on Humanities projects? They don't get the exposure of medical things. I get the point that you want to get good info on academia, but what you're doing here is not serving it. DCHP-1 is THE best source of CanE lexis. Read about it if you don't believe me but don't criticize me out of a vague suspicion and a construction of a conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.177.182 (talk • contribs) 15:29, February 11, 2018 (UTC)

Please learn to sign your talk page posts.

This is not a vague suspicion. You are a WP:SPA. on this topic You have contributed to the DCHP project. You have inappropriately canvassed Wikipedia editors to contribute to the DHCP project. You have incorrectly stated that the DHCP is the only acceptable source for what is a Canadianism. Your claim that no-one else would contribute is not only incorrect (clearly others have contributed) but would not be a justification for COI editing even if it were true.You said you were going to leave Wikipedia. As I said, If you have no interest in contributing anywhere but on articles related to the DCHP and its editor, well, that's your choice. Meters (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I object to your way of treating contributors, that's all. I did not canvas. Look at the context of the posting about, I think it was "stickhandle". All I said is contact the team to ask, they have the best info. What's wrong with that? You can construct what you wish and who tells you it's the only entries I did? Even if that was the case, what does that have to do with it. You're over doing it, my friend. It's nice that you invest a lot of time into wikipeida, but you need to ask yourself when you do more harm than good. Here you have done so. I did not say it's the only source, it's the best and most complete source out there for Canadian English words and meanings. Like the OED for English more generally. Now what's wrong with that? These are not my words, these are the words from their peers. I think it's great harm you're doing to a collaborative encyclopedia if you try to construct a conflict where there is none. The result is that noone would write about such projects because they are small in the big picture. You're welcome to improve the article, of course, rather than continuing to berate me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.177.182 (talk • contribs) 00:29, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Again, please sign your talk page posts.

You said Check in the Dictionary of Canaidianisms to see what is said there (www.dchp.ca/dchp2). If not there, don't include here but write to the editors of that dictionary to keep an eye out for it. That's your opinion that this is the only acceptable source for what a Canadianism is, and you canvassing Wikipedia editors to contribute material to the DCHP. I pointed out that it is not the only source and you replied with another opinion and a repeat of your canvassing It's the best source, by a long shot. Like I said, write to the editors if not in there. I then pointed you to WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Your opinion does not have any bearing on what reliable sources we may use in Wikipedia, and your exhortation to report new Canadianisms to the DCHP has no place here. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. If you don't like my polite responses to your additions to a six-year-old talk page thread then I suggest that you read the links and not make such edits. Meters (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ronald James Baker. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The source you cited did not support the claim. Meters (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Franziska Donner. Please stop adding unsourced or improperly sourced material. YouTube is not a reliable source. Neither is Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---