User talk:Fyddlestix/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Fyddlestix, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! WikiWinters (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion of Alec Rayme

Hi Fyddlestix, I wanted to let you know that I have declined you speedy deletion of Alec Rayme because being an actor is a claim of significance so WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply, even if he is not notable. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedboat (Novel)

I had tagged it the other day for a copyvio and was about to again, but you got it. Thanks! Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 18:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding proposed deletion of Beyond the Page Theatre Company of West Potomac Page

The West Potomac Theatre Company is notable and I am still in the process of editing the page. I'm new to Wikipedia, so it's taking me a little while to figure everything out. If you could be more specific as to what I need to do to improve my page, that would be helpful.

Thanks - will correct, appreciate the hints...

Hello Fyddlestix,

I appreciate the notes you left explaining the issues and linking to the guidelines. I am new to this, and it has been 20 years since I was in Grad School. And even then my research didn't involve much documentation - It was self-validating or self-negating. I worked in the analysis of syntax, and applied semantics. Much of the reason I joined wiki is because I noticed tons of phrasings all over the wiki that had serious issues with connotations, both intended and accidental. Sometimes when information is paraphrased from the source, well-meaning writers can add layers of implied meaning without realizing it, and very much undermine the information being presented. However, I am much more skilled at turning abstract propositions into concrete statements than I am at proper citation, note keeping, and other important administrative things. Please, if we continue to both work on the PA page, and if we ever cross paths elsewhere, do not hesitate to explain things in detail - You have my cordial invite to be downright professorial, and I will appreciate the schooling!

I will refrain from returning such a favor:) Gst.steven (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Project AWARE

Hi Fyddlestix, You have added an OR template to this article which has at least one inline citation for every paragraph. This is not helpful, as there is no way to identify what you consider original research without checking all the references. Please use inline OR templates to indicate exactly where you think the problem is. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Hi PBsouthwood, thanks for the tip - I've added inline OR tags for this article as you requested and removed the article-wide tag. I'll be sure to do this on other articles in the future as well. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that is much better, and it makes it reasonable to inspect the reference to see whether it supports the text, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

notability tag on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Meshaka,_Jr.

Hi Fyddlestix, this individual is the leading authority on exotic amphibians and reptiles introduced to the United states (Think Pythons in Florida?), and has around 200 publications in herpetology. This places him easily among the top 0.01% of herpetologists in history by numbers of publications!!! I will add a notation with citation to the actual ranking. Thank you for your help! I am not certain if the "resume-like writing" is still true. I have been updating this for a few hours, but it is still rough! :) Herpetology2 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)herpetology2

Hi Herpetology2, as you'll see I've removed the notability tag for now, mainly because his publications have been cited quite a number of times by others according to Google scholar. Other editors might think differently though, you might want to brush on WP:ACADEMIC so you know what other people are looking for when they try to determine notability for someone like this. Simply declaring that someone is an expert on something or listing minor awards doesn't really help, what's needed is reliable sources that show the impact of their research/scholarship.Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Trey Songz: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. ToonLucas22 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! That was actually a revert with twinkle, but somehow I forgot/failed to click "submit" on the talk page message and it ended up buried beneath a bunch of windows. Appreciate you catching it!Fyddlestix (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

opinions must be cited as opinions

Is per Wikipedia policy. And a violation of policy even a hundred years old remains a violation of policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I'm sorry, but what's this in reference to exactly? Please point out exactly where you think I've violated this policy.Fyddlestix (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The lead violated policy - including using material not supported by sources, and using a source which published an opinion as though it were fact in Wikipedia's voice for PNAC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but I didn't write the lede, and I haven't edited it. Why are you bringing this up here rather than on the article's talk page? Fyddlestix (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

To avoid a thousand word post from another editor who seems to always do so? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect:Fair enough - I don't have a problem with your edit anyway, although I think there are probably better sources to cite there.Fyddlestix (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

see also

For fun, I suggest you look at Ubi's record on controversial topics with many other editors and his multiple current topic bans. I am far from the only one who has had problems with him. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The Gods of Antarctica

At the AFD for this book I noted that the authors BLP has been deleted twice. Do you know if Mynameisyvs (talk · contribs) was the BLP creator? 220 of ^Borg 09:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: Sorry, I can't remember who the creator of that page was. I remember thinking it was probably the same person who created the article for the book, as they used the exact same set of sources, but it looks like they may be using multiple accounts: Davidblues291278 and Blues291278 are probably related, for example. It doesn't look like Mynameisyys created the article to me though - wouldn't there be a notification for the AFD or speedy in their talk page history? Fyddlestix (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Should be. I found that account through a Google search. People are apparently so desperate to have their 'notability' confirmed on WP that they create pseudo biographies on their userspace. Probably should be deleted per wp:NOTHOST. 220 of ^Borg 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

Not wanting to start the conversation over here or anything. I am just curious if my request for a statement of what he understood the theory under discussion to be was either unreasonable or phrased so poorly as to warrant such a strong reaction from Collect? I do not do a lot of online stuff so maybe I crossed some line or wrote something easily misread. If so I would like to know so I can apologize, if I have been an ass it is perfectly OK to say so. If not... meh... It was a discussion about an interesting topic... Jbh (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I can see both sides - I think you were quite correct to suggest that a misunderstanding of Wolin's basic point was probably causing a lot of the issues/tension there. It would have been quite helpful for him to state what exactly he thinks Wolin is arguing, but I can also see why he might have thought your wording was condescending. Personally, though, I wouldn't worry about it - debating on someone's talk page (about an issue that isn't even related to a specific article) is kind of a waste of time, and I don't think there is/was much to be gained by prolonging the debate at this point. Not sure if that's helpful - FWIW I don't think you were out of line given what had been said/argued before. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for the input. - @Collect: I apologize if you found the wording of my request to be condescending in any way. It was not intended to be so. I merely wanted to move the discussion forward from an impasse. I will honor your request to not comment on your talk page. - @Fyddlestix, thank you for the use of this space to send a ping from. Enjoy the remainder of your weekend. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of BLPN discussion

An issue you may be involved in is being discussed at BLPN. Jbh (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 March

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 List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush page, your edit caused an ISBN 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) 00:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Something other than a barn star for you

Fyddlestix You have been given a box of ferrets!

Thank you for all of your work cleaning up sourcing at Ankit Love and List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush. I would give you some sort of barn star but I think ferrets are cooler and I have a bias for the curious little buggers.

-- Jbh (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

@Jbhunley: Yay, ferrets! My life-long dream of becoming a ferret owner is fulfilled. And thanks for remembering/noting Ankit Love, having the closing admin note that I'd convinced them of non-notability is actually my proudest moment on wikipedia so far. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

We made Jimbo's talk page

I now know why there are so many drive by comments at AfD. Collect has had a thread going on Jimbo's talk page. It is quite a tread. He mentioned you, Ubikwit and I without so much as a ping. He also quoted me at length, twice, without a ping. The thread is quite 'interesting'. At the very least you will see what happens when I finally get fed up with being diplomatic. It is sad, right up until I saw Collect's behavior in that thread I at least respected him as an editor and a decent human being.... now... well... Jbh (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

PS I'm not sure why the ferrets want to run to the bottom of the page. Jbh (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I went on a bit of a rant, hopefully it won't bite me in the ass. I can't believe he lumped all of us in together and accused of wanting the old version of the article back. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nah.. I doubt it will bite you, you were much more polite than I was. It was a very impressive rant though :) Oh well I have another chapter of so of proofreading to go before I call it a far too late night. Jbh (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You are a braver man/woman than I

If you think you have seen drama just wait until the ANI gets going... I will work on compiling my diffs tomorrow. I agree ANI is really the best and only recourse. Campaigning on a talk page monitored by thousands on the sly, where the general reader has no idea of the context of his comments is so far over the line... I simply have no words That I can say here. At least my temper is now well immunized. Cheers :)
Jbh (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well that was quick

@Jbhunley: @MrX: @Ubikwit: Sorry if I bungled this - as JBH pointed out, this was my first experience with an ANI and I did not realize that I needed to request a specific admin action. I also had some sudden RL issues (a suddenly and un-expectantly very cranky 4 month old), and did not get a chance to respond to the comments/responses as quickly as I had planned to. Lesson learned, I recognize that I ought to have asked some of you more experienced editors for advice before posting that. I made the mistake of assuming that Collect's conduct (particularly misrepresenting other editors positions & actions, refusal to retract allegations that are patently and demonstrably false) spoke for themselves, and I now regret that I didn't formulate the ANI post well enough to give other concerned editors like you guys and more time to weigh in (or give you a heads up). My apologies.

@JzG: Sorry to ping you, I'm not trying to get you to re-open the debate here or anything - I accept your decision. But I would like to say one thing: in your closing statement on this ANI post you characterized my complaint as "querulous," and intimated that I might not "drop the stick." I feel this was unfair, and perhaps based on a misunderstanding of my position.

I'd like to point out that I was very careful to keep the focus on Collect's conduct as an editor in my post, and to leave the content dispute(s) that we've had out of it. My position on the list article and AFD is also not what you seem to have assumed it was. As I have already indicated in several posts, I was opposed to the creation of the article being discussed in that AFD in the first place, and have gone almost totally silent in that discussion since I realized that consensus was leaning towards deletion. I've also already indicated to Collect that I am happy to accept the verdict of the AFD discussion, and am more than willing to "drop the stick." The issue, as I indicated there, is Collect's behavior, not the content of any article. I'm sorry for not communicating that more clearly in my original post.

This was my first time at ANI and I have only been actively editing wikipedia for a couple of months. As you can see above, my main regret at this point is that other editors like MrX and @Viriditas:who have also expressed concerns about Collect's behavior, and are not involved in any specific content dispute with him, did not get a chance to say their piece. My sense, when I made the post, was that there are a lot of editors who have observed Collect exhibiting unacceptable behavior recently. As a new editor, who has been somewhat shocked to see Collet getting away with the behavior he's been exhibiting for weeks now, I have been waiting and waiting for someone to take action, and ultimately last night figured "someone's got to do it" and stepped up. Apparently that was a mistake. Anyways, sorry for hauling you here I just wanted to make you aware of some broader context. If you read all of this, thank you for your time and attention. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: I stated that I was going to provide evidence and ask for specific sanction and requested that an uninvolved admin needed me to do so. You did not please re-open this. Also your call that Fyddlestyx DROPTHESTICK was totally inappropriate. Jbh (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Fyddlestix: I don't think the report was premature, but maybe needed to be presented more compactly, in readily consumable portions. AN/I is not a forum that has a professional feel, and admins are not inclined to investigate complex cases in detail. There are other forums for that.

@JzG: I also feel that the thread was not querulous and actually somewhat overdue. When that happens the amount of material that needs to be covered becomes somewhat unwieldy. The dispute on neoconservatives related articles involving Collect stretches back a couple of months now. I understand that there are a lot of threads on multiple pages (BLP/N, NPOV/N) to cover even only within the scope of Fyddlestix's postings, but, as @MrX: alluded, the scope and duration of the disruption is probably a reason why this needs to be brought before Arbcom. I brought Collect before Arbcom only a month or so ago, and did have occasion to mention the neoconservativism related articles.

I also noted that MONGO basically threatened Fyddlestix with sanctions on Collect's talk page, saying he's "seen about enough of Fydllestix"[1], calling the AN/I filing a "bunch of bullshit". What kind of conduct is that?

The thread was closed before some of the involved editors even had a chance to comment. Editors offering words of support for Collect that did not address the specifics of the complaint were out of order, diverting attention from the actual content and turning the thread into some sort of popularity contest. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree Arbcom is the place for this. I fixed the procedural issue at ANI. I may get tagged for it but I said I had sanctions to request but wanted to get evidence together right at the top of the ANI. I also asked the admin to ping me if they needed it earlier. Chances of anything happening at ANI are pretty low, he is pretty well insulated but he was also, in my opinion, way over the line even for 'established content creators' Jbh (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

And, that is why no one goes to ANI with problems about established editors. Re-calibrating my definition of 'the line' while munching on fish that tastes an awful lot like crow. :) Jbh (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, - MrX 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed External Links from Software Testing Page

Hi,

I'm fairly new to editing on Wikipedia and just wanted to know (specifically) which links were removed and why? I would like to learn so I don't make those mistakes again. Thank you!

Jenny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakosjen (talk • contribs) 23:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Bakosjen:, please see WP:EXT for the link guidelines - generally external links are allowed, but not in the body of the article itself - rather, they go in a section at the bottom of the page under "external links." Also adding a lot of links to the same site across multiple articles may be considered spamming. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Fyddlestix: Great, thanks! I appreciate your help. :)

Arbitration Case Opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Roger that, thanks. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Noted, thanks! Fyddlestix (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For great detail work and Verification efforts the PNAC article. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

semi protection request steps

Hellow ir, I need to know the steps taking after placing the {{edit semi protect}} template for semi-protecting the article Firoza Khan. let me know. Waiting for your reply.--Roshan014 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Roshan014:, there are instructions on how to request page protection here, that is also where you make the request. I would recommend checking out and reading the protection policy first, though, as it's not clear to me why page protection would be needed for this article. Usually the admins only protect a page that's been subject to repeated vandalism or edit-warring, and this does not seem to be the case with Firoza Khan. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Clatterbaugh

Did you ever find a way around the paywall for the Clatterbaugh article? I still haven't had the opportunity to read the full text. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:Sorry for not following up on that sooner - unfortunately I haven't found/don't see anywhere that the article is available for free. I'd offer to share a pdf with you, but when I download a copy it gets stamped with an identifier and my real name. Not something I'm comfortable posting online or emailing, hope you can understand why! Fyddlestix (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That's inconvenient. Thanks anyway.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ooops!

I was trying to restore the consensus version, you beat me to it.... Self-reverted. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: No worries, we've all done stuff like that! Fyddlestix (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

My list of boy's life characters took my 8 hours, it is separate from the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLOPO (talk • contribs) 23:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@JLOPO: Sorry about that, I know it can be frustrating to put that much work into something only to have it nominated for deletion. I'm pretty sure that others will agree with me that a separate list article is unnecessary, but there's no reason why your work has to go to waste. Why not just incorporate the list into the existing article on the book? Fyddlestix (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix It should be a seprate article becuase it is very detailed like many other novels that do.

@[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] I have merged it you can delete the other one now, thanks.

The Truth About Hansel and Gretel (book)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		To Fyddlestix, for an excellent write up. This is really well written - clear, precise, concise, scholarly. Please enjoy a well deserved barnstar award. Best wishes. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@FeatherPluma: - hey, thanks! Fyddlestix (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Fyddlestix, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Official language Correction for Vidyaranyapura wiki page

Hi, Kannada is the only official language of Vidyaranyapua, Bangalore. Refer your own wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore to see kannada the official language. Vidyaranyapura is the part of Bangalore and Official language must remain same. Unwanted languages have been put there and I have corrected it, kindly approve my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.70.117 (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've changed it. Per this, the official government report on official languages in India (which is the only source we should accept for it), Kannada is the only official language in all of Karnataka state. Thomas.W ^talk 19:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W and 117.192.70.117: Sounds good, thanks for the correction/clarification! Fyddlestix (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

New section

How may i contact you to discuss your edits? Thank you very much. Email possible or,this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk • contribs) 13:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingseason: If you really want to email me, there is a link on the left side of this page titled "email this user" that you can use. But assuming that this is about the article Robert Ira Lewy, I strongly suggest that you start (or join) the conversation on that article's talk page, here. I am only one editor and there are others who have been or will be editing that page - it's usually best to keep discussion related to the article on its talk page, where everyone can see and read it.

Also, while I have your attention - please read up on some of wikipedia's policies - especially on:

• conflict of interest: if you have a close connection to the subject of the article, you really should not be editing it. That doesn't mean you can't be involved, it just means that it's best to suggest revisions on the article's talk page, where other, un-involved editors can evaluate them impartially.
• reliable sources - many of the sources you had linked in the article weren't verifiable or reliable, and un-sourced material in a biography often gets removed.
• What Wikipedia is not - wikipedia is not a means of promotion.

I hope you can join the conversation on the article's talk page, that is really the very best place to raise any concerns that you have or settle any disputes about the article's content. Best, Fyddlestix (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

An RfA you might be interested in

The editor we worked with on Ankit Love is being nominated to become an admin. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NeilN Jbh^Talk 13:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Oh cool, thanks! I see/run into NeilN all the time, I think he'd be a great candidate. Never would have noticed if you hadn't mentioned it though, RFA is not a page/area I watch usually. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I keep his talk page on my watch list and saw the discussion there. I think he would make a great admin also, I just wanted to keep the notification neutral since I am not sure if CANVASS would apply. Enjoy your weekend! Jbh^Talk 14:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Breast Implant litigation

the references paint the experts as paid persons who will say anything for money. What I was trying to prove was that my contributions were peer reviewed scientific contributions of national note. Refs 4 and 9.could not a statement be made that my interest was scientific and predated the litigation? Likewise, I'd appreciate omitting the dollar figures. Do they add anything more than just being inflammatory? Irrelevant to the scientific issue? I believe my peer reviewed papers reviewed by editorial boards of respected journals should trump a one sided newspaper article. Sincerely yours Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingseason: I do understand your concerns and I want to make sure that the article is fair to its subject - I've raised the issue at the biographies of living person's noticeboard here and asked some other editors to weigh in, but I wouldn't get your hopes up that the article will be returned to its former state. The NY times articles are the most reliable and notable sources that we have on Lewy, there would need to be a very compelling reason for not summarizing/acknowledging what they say about Lewy in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Expansion

I hope its possible to do the Proposed Expansion of my article suggested by Marchjuly. I know you worked diligently on this too. Thank you. Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Article inclusion of references greatly appreciated. The breast implant business, though nicely softened, is a bit one sided. Just please allow me to say this: the NIH was worried enough about silicone immune problems to convene a symposium in Mharmfularch 1995 in Bethesda, shortly before the NYT declared that the matter was settled. The Preface and chapter citations written by me were from the proceedings of this meeting in the series "Currents Topics in Microbiology and Immunology" published the following year. Would it not be possible, since this is a third party opinion, to state that after the NY Times comment in the article,"However in March 1995 at the National Institutes of Health, a meeting was held to evaluate the potential biological activity of silicones" or similar language and cite the Proceedings as cited below? also I had no part in huge awards; i worked for the court to implement a court-approved class action settlement, not any trial work. in paragraph two "the effect of aspirin on heart disease" (citation needed), perhaps more in keeping with the references which don't mention aspirin directly, one might state "the effect of platelets and thromboxanes on heart disease" instead and then cite those publications (2,4,6-11) in References section. Finally the exact reference for my membership in MMRF Legacy Society showing my name is www.gftpln.org/Article.do?orgId=757&articleId=15295 Thank you Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kingseaon: Please bring this up (and raise future issues/concerns) on the article's talk page - there's not much point just addressing these kinds of questions/comments to me, because there are multiple people who have been working on the article and weighing in on it's content. It's really best to keep all the discussion in one place. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC closure challenge

The closing of an RFC in which you participated, is being challenged at WP:AN#RFC closure challenge - Cwobeel (talk)

Thank you

Hi Fyddlestix. Thank you for making me aware that someone was slandering me. That user's talk page was not on my watch list, so I would have never known had you not raised it at AE. I very much appreciate your diligence and concern.- MrX 16:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: No problem! It was such an over-the-top (and non-sensical) personal attack, reporting it at AE kind of seemed like a no-brainer. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Dalton McGuinty

Dear Fyddlestix i know your concern about the safety of the Wikipedia but the article of Dalton McGuinty has a very perfect detail with a date prefix is not harm at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.79.32 (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Agim Hushi CSD nomination

Next time could you please check the origin of the material before you nominate? Wording like ""he specialized in pedagogy of singing...." existed on Wikipedia in 2012 and the website you are flagging says "copyright 2014". The fact that errors in grammar and wording are copied wholesale from Wikipedia that are shown to have evolved on Wikipedia clearly indicates the site is copying without attribution. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also - it should have been super clear from the website and the format that Wikipedia was the original source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Fair enough, not sure how I missed that. I'll check twice next time. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries, just saw on it on the Dr's page and noticed the template despite him having no responsibility for the incarnation or the supposed issue. Wikipedia's informative templates are mean sounding by the way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers

I was curious why you deleted the last post to Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers. I disagree with the IP's recommendation, but I thought it was worth maintaining. Andrew³²⁷ 15:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Andrewman327: Thanks for noticing, I fixed it. I was actually trying to sign the comment for the ip - no idea how I managed to delete it. I guess that's what I get for trying to edit a talk page on my phone! Fyddlestix (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally understand. Wikipedia is stuck in 2005 when it comes to mobile editing. Andrew³²⁷ 15:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Nice work on Jerry Speziale. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hey, thanks! There's still a ton of work to do - it was a pretty bad puff piece to start, and this guy has attracted a ton of controversy over the course of his career - it's hard to figure out what to include/how to treat some of this stuff. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. Well, the article needed someone like you, and you have gone beyond the call of duty. (I get so boooooooooooooooooored with writing biographies...). Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Echosmith

You do not appear to be an admin so you really should not contribute to an edit war that you were not previously involved. There is already much discussion going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyth83 (talk • contribs)

@Nyth83: I'm aware that I'm not an admin, thank you. Fortunately, there's no requirement that I be one in order to prevent someone from re-inserting a potential BLP violation, against an apparent (or at least emerging) consensus at BLPN. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your willingness to help on Panos G. Georgopoulos. I always have some trepidation as to how much cutting to do in such circumstances, finding the right balance between a bloated c.v. and a reasonable encyclopedic entry. I figure unless the subject is Chekhov or Oppenheimer, a dozen publications should be enough for a listing. Which raises a broader point--do we have a guideline re: such lists for academics, or are we left to make subjective decisions on how much to include? I couldn't find any guidance on the matter. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2: Thanks! As far as I know it's a subjective evaluation - but if you look around you'll see that the "publications" list rarely takes up more than 1/4 of an article for most articles of this type, often less. If someone has a really long list of publications that are all notable, they will often be spun off into a separate list article, but this is usually only done for very notable and prolific writers/authors/academics. My approach to such matters is to take my cue from WP:BOLD - I guess some people might see that as a "bull in a china shop" approach, but I think it's important not to let wikipedia turn into a database of CVs. People are always free to re-add content if they think too much was removed. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Very best, 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Speculation

[2] Removing cited material from an article based on your own speculation as to where the reliable source took it from is not how we do things here. If you disagree with putting it in Wikipedia's voice, it's better to add, "According to TVQC, so-and-so later advocated for the use of violence...". Cla68 (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: I'm well aware of "how we do things here," but thanks for your patronizing note! I think you misunderstood my edit summary - I was not speculating about where the source got its information, I was suggesting that the source is not a reliable one, especially for content that clearly violates WP:BLP (accusing an individual, by name, of a serious crime, with only a tabloid-quality, obviously POV "news" source as the only supporting reference would seem to fit the bill there). I've raised this on the article's talk page, please reply there rather than here. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry re: ES

Sorry about that. I don't normally edit on controversial topics, and thus it doesn't even occur to me that I should be doing so. This issue has just really caught my attention. I'll try to use them more going forward. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your message to me

Hi,

You asked me to stop disruptive editing. the editing was personal accusations against me which is untrue and had no relevance to the discussion. If you look at the top of the page, it says "This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability." Therefore you are wrong to say this. Ibt2010 (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ibt2010: The comments you deleted were a legitimate attempt to discuss the issue - you are not allowed to delete other people's talk page comments like that. Please stop. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please provide source to rules why you can't delete swearing, spamming and defamation. believe you to be wrong here. Ibt2010 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

See here. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't edit war

[3]. If you disagree with an edit, and it isn't an obvious BLP violation, take it to the talk page first. When someone takes the time to add info to an article, it's very rude to erase it forthright like that and that's not how we try to do things here. Cla68 (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: It's very hard to believe that someone with as many edits as you can be this confused about what is or isn't an "edit war." You added content which I did not think was acceptable, so I removed it. For you to add it back without consensus would be edit warring, but my removing it is emphatically not. See WP:BRD. You should now seek consensus on talk before once again adding this (obviously inappropriate and unacceptable) "source" back into the page. Good luck with that. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Umm... Not sure what you are accusing me of

Regarding the André Marin page, I only have one editing account. If anything in the last edit I tried to fix non-NPOV that someone else had added but didn't spend a lot of time on it. The previous format had a strong voice that took away from a neutral POV near the end of the article. I'll take a look again to see if I can figure out what is going on, but I did notice non-NPOV, and did try to fix it. It detracts from the strength and balance of the article. Unfortunatley the whole thing started out very poorly and seems to be swinging back to non-NPOV from time to time. It seemed to settle for awhile but it seems to be coming back again. I'll check it out and see what I can do. In the meantime I'd appreciate it if you could point out specific areas somehow so I'm not searching all over the place. In addition I don't appreciate your insinuation that I have as you put it, an "axe to grind" although you clearly have one to grind with me for some reason. So in the future, please try to avoid flaming so what needs to be done, CAN be done, and keep your crappy opinion to yourself. Love, CheckersBoard. <3 CheckersBoard (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@CheckersBoard: I have no particular axe to grind with you, and apologize if I gave you that impression. I agree that the Marin article needs considerable improvement and work - but I have noticed that a number of your edits, including these [4][5][6], among others, are problematic. They violate wikipedia's policies on original research, and seem unduly focused on adding negative information about Marin, while removing - or failing to mention - information that might be construed as reflecting positively on him. I urge you to review wikipedia's policies on biographies, on WP:NPOV, on original research, and on neutral point of view if you plan on making similar edits to the article in the future. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Speziale

I'm trying to get someone to repair the page under Jerry Speziale. Being someone in the court system, I have reviewed the page and see that information was removed about the case involving Lori Mambelli. Mr. spazzing out in that case was found and completely exonerated not guilty and all civil accounts. The page is making it appear as if he was involved when in fact it was clear he was not in the court transcripts and articles.

I believe that information and slanderous and making the perception that Mr. Spence yeah did something inappropriate with Mambelli. You clearly appear to have the best handle on these pages and editing and I am reaching out to see if you can change the page back to it without that information because it is damaging and a very big mischaracterization that could create liable for slanderous issues.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatricekerwin (talk • contribs)

@Beatricekerwin: As luck would have it, it looks as though the information was removed by another editor (courtesy ping for @Mdann52:) just this morning. I think his rationale for the removal was reasonable and have no plans to re-insert the content. Assuming no one else re-inserts it, does that address your concern?

I have spent far too much time on this article and am hoping not to make further edits unless there are further conflict of interest editing problems, so if you have concerns that weren't addressed by Mdann's edit, I suggest doing the following: first, post your concerns on the article's talk page, and then (if you do not feel that your concerns are addressed there), post a new topic on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. That is the go-to place for getting problems and issues with biographies addressed. Hope that helps, and let me know if you have any further questions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hounding

Thank you for your concern. I wasn't sure if you saw my reply so I will also post it here: "I am not attempting to hound anyone. Hugh has added material from and a ref to (what I and other editors find to be) an inappropriate opinion piece from Mother Jones to many articles. This after not achieving consensus at the first such, perhaps doing so as to make a POINT. Hugh was warned by another editor about this. He edit warred to achieve the additions. Having seen Hugh blocked and topic banned for similar behavior in this vein I think am less tolerant of the behavior. Having said that I will confine my criticism of this content to the talk pages and allow the behavior to continue in its natural ultimate course. I find my own edits to be close to edit warring as well and will revisit the pages and self-revert any that Hugh's editing has left."

After leaving that reply to you I self-reverted at the many pages that Hugh inserted the material into. I do not want to Hound anyone. Life is too short. Thanks for your note. Truly. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: Hope my comment on Hugh's page did not come across as too snarky, or as "calling you out" or anything - you and I have been on opposite "sides" of a couple of different disputes now but I've actually always found you to be a reasonable and smart editor, which is refreshing given how stubborn and un-hearing some people (on both sides) of those same disputes have been. I've been half-watching the templates and warnings (all from the same 3-4 editors) pile up on Hugh's talk page over the past few weeks and yours was just the straw that broke the camel's back and led me to comment, I didn't mean to single you out.

Honestly I could care less about the MJ article and Hugh's edits. In fact, just between you and me, I'm happy to concede that the MJ article probably doesn't add much to those articles. But I am pretty uncomfortable with how a small circle of editors (all of whom were recently involved in a very long, very tense previous dispute with Hugh) seem to be following him around, reverting his edits, and generally poking him with a stick wherever they can. Even if there are legit issues with Hugh's behavior/edits, it just feels... wrong, to see the same 3-4 people constantly warning and reverting him. If y'all really see his edits across multiple articles as such a big problem that he needs to constantly be reverted, watched, and warned, I suggest reporting him to ANI, flagging an un-involved admin about it, or raising it on a noticeboard rather than trying to deal with it yourselves. It just looks/feels wrong to me to see someone getting followed around like that.

Anyways, like I said I've got zero interest in getting involved in this dispute, and I meant my comment over there as friendly advice rather than a warning or a reprimand, I hope it didn't come across that way. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it is greatly and warmly appreciated. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Help, -concern about your edit on the AFP page

Fyddlestix, Sorry to bother you this way. I saw that when you made this recent edit to the AFP page [[7]] you removed the synthesis tag that A. Rubin added. I'm not sure you addressed his claims but I didn't want to revert your edit and figured it was better to ask here vs on the talk page. I didn't fully follow AR's in line note so if you feel like you did address it that is fine. If not would you please add the note back in? Thanks and again, sorry to bother you on your talk page. Springee (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: It's no bother, and no need to start with a "sorry!" As I understood it, Arthur's concern was that the article seemed to claim that AFP's interest aligned completely with those of the Koch brothers, when he did not see evidence of that in the sources, and had seen evidence elsewhere that some of AFP's policy positions might not jive with the Koch's business interests. I took a while to look at the sentence and the sources again, and it seemed to me that his concern could be easily addressed by changing the wording; some of AFPs policy planks do align with the Koch brothers interests, and multiple RS state that very clearly. But to state that all of its policy positions do is over-reaching, especially since some of the RS (like Skopcol) note that AFP is willing to support & be supported by a wide range of people/positions to achieve its main goals.

I do think my edit fixed the issue that Arthur identified - he also "thanked" me for the edit, which to me suggests that he is ok with the revised wording (and thus the removal of the note). If I'm wrong about that, or if people still think there's a synth issue there (I don't), then it can be raised on the article talk page. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

OK! I understand your changes now and agree that would address the problem. Given all that is going on I figured it was better to ask first vs edit first and then find that I was working from a false impression. Springee (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that! Fyddlestix (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--slakr^\ talk / 03:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

James Robison (singer)

Just so you know, I reinstated the CSD tag on the article because the creator's talk page shows that s/he keeps posting the same article under slightly different names; in addition, it looks like it was copypasted from somewhere (complete with reference numbers in brackets). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert:, thanks - appreciate it! I only removed the "no context" tag cause the criteria no longer applied, was going to revisit later and see if it still needed tagging - glad you beat me to it! Fyddlestix (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Chicago-style politics (meme) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chicago-style politics (meme) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. You did some recent edits on the related Chicago-style_politics article. This one is a recent fork from the earlier article. Springee (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Antifeminism discussion on AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Didaev (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Have fun with that, I really don't think this is an AN/I-worthy issue. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Fyddlestix. Can you please revert the Masculism Wikipedia page back to how it was before? Why are you writing about Masculism being a male superiority movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery1818 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chicago-style politics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Democratic Party, Republican Party and 2008 Presidential Election. 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) 11:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Messy Article of Living Person

Just wanted to thank Fyddlestix for the response (Living Persons article, Andre Marin), I think I understand better now and appreciate it. I admit, for some entries I became a bit rushed, lazy and impatient (eep) sorry. I wanted to skip editing the article but kept coming back because it bothers me to leave it; I don't like that unfinished feeling.

On the upside I did find a source that was neutral on a controversial and seeming non-POV entry by another editor, but was hesitant to go ahead with it, it meant deleting someone elses entry and I don't think wiki likes that, neg points! But I think it needs to be added.

In addition, there is another problem, don't know if you have encounterd this anywhere before, but there were quotes inserted from a video that had been published on YouTube; I saw the video, and one question entered in the article (by another editor) was supposedly from the video, but was never even asked. I saw the video myself and I'm almost positive the quotation is false. But I'm also worried I may just not have heard it. I don't want to encourage anyone to numb their minds by watching this long 30 min video (it's very dry stuff), but I don't think it belongs in the article at all. I have my doubts.

Sorry to bother you, just wondering if anyone has any ideas how to go about this one? It seems pretty tricky. I want to see if I can figure this out in case I come across this problem again somewhere else. Thanks for your help, I appreciate it! Hope I don't take up too much of your time - Love, Checkersboard :) CheckersBoard (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@CheckersBoard: Thanks for the note, I'm glad I didn't put you off editing the article altogether, and I apologize again if I sounded brusque originally. Re: the video, if you can't find the quote in the cited source, and kind find it in any other source (did you try googling the quote?) then it should probably be removed. If anyone objects they can always re-insert it with a proper source, but we shouldn't leave something that fails verification in the article, especially if it's presented as a quote. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Sorry to bother you again but could probably use your help. The information I was previously concerned about was already removed, and more. It made it pretty clear the article really isn't fit for wiki. I had a tag/stubbed the page for deletion with the intention of having career postings listed/merged with the appropriate articles. So for example for the Ontario Ombudsman page a section can be listed for Mr. Marin with brief notes about relevent, actionable items and other previous and future ombudspersons can be treated similarly to keep the article fluid, organized and balanced rather than dominated by one single individual.

Problem is out of the blue someone removed the tag, twice. It states explicitly not to remove the tag. More games. Time to get the articles organized and end this pointless political drama. It would help the development of the other articles as well. How to I make sure the tag can't be removed until there is further discussion among editors about the prospect of deleting the page? Information can be moved elsewhere to other articles without causing any complications or drama. Sorry, hope this is finished soon enough, want to get this done. The New Zealand Ombudsman article is good example of what I had hoped the one I was working on could emulate. Thanks.

@Checkers Board:, the user who removed the speedy tags (@GB fan:) is a wikipedia administrator - what they've been trying to tell you is that the page is not eligible for speedy deletion because Marin is notable. You should stop reading the tags, they're just going to be removed again. You can take the article to articles for deletion but I doubt you'll get far, since Marin is, again, a notable person. Wiki is almost certainly going to have/keep an article on him, so if you have issues with the page you should bring them up on the article talk page and/or try to fix then through normal editing. Fyddlestix (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

:@Fyddlestix: Thanks, sorry for the late reply, for some reason I missed your message. It's very helpful, still learning. The article is nicely organized again, someone obviously worked on it. Can't wait to leave it for good. Am I allowed to say that? I really do appreciate your time and help.

DS notifications

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.