User talk:Wuerzele/ archive box 2015

Happy New Year!

Dear Wuerzele,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Precious

flow and resistence

Thank you, user who signed the Neurotypical / Autism spectrum interaction pact, for "added references, summary of facts", for quality articles based on professional expertise, such as Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and Physicians in the United States Congress, for welcoming new users with individual advice, and your plans for Antibiotic resistance which will need resistance, for "I think knowledge is like clean water and must flow" and Amen, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I used your lovely nightingale award on AE, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

PEGIDA

Thanks for your contributions. FYI, there was a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

I have stopped counting 2a02:xxxxx reverts. Please notify me if there is a discussion at RPP or ANI. JimRenge (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your rebuke over the West/Abendland/Occident controversy: it was well-merited, and my edit was over-bold.

I now recognise the logic behind the use of "Occident", though I have to say that on balance I'm not altogether convinced. I'm not a native German speaker, but I don't get the sense that either "Occident" or "Abendland" is "archaic". However, their overtones seem to me to be very different. In English, "Occident" is rare and rather technical (usually in the historical sciences), and it is generally used in contrast to "Orient" (itself a word whose use in English has shifted, referring in the 18th century to anywhere in Asia or Egypt, but now (pace Said) pretty well exclusively confined to the (largely non-Islamic) Far East); in addition, having a Latin rather than a Germanic root it has an intellectual, analytical feel, remote from emotion – I don't know how this observation stacks up against your feel for the use of "Okzident" in German. However, apart from the euphony of the acronym, what presumably struck those who chose the word "Abendland" in this context would have been the reference it makes to Spengler, which it is very hard to convey by any English rendering. "West" may be the closest way of getting to that (it's the word always used to translate Spengler's title), though the analogy is weak (it depends, I suppose, on the "West" being the "paradise" of Tennyson, Kingsley &c).

What I would certainly contest, however, is that there is anything "literal" about translating "Abendland" by "Occident"; a literal translation would of course be "Evenland" (which would be a coinage so obscure as not to work, and would anyway be a very bad translation because it would not convey any of those overtones at all). Diomedea Exulans (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Diomedea Exulans, i've long enough hesitated to respond to you, because I explained my point on the talkpage- But maybe you are looking for a response. So: I dont understand your latter paragraph: How is translating "Abendland" as "Occident" not literal?

Further, what would be a real and literal translation of Abendland into English?

Of course 'Evenland' is not even a translation; it's an alliteration at best, as Evenland does not exist. The latinised form of a potential "evening-land" however, is occident, a real word and that's why to me its a literal translation. And no, of course, nobody uses the word "Okzident" in German, because it does not exist! why should we need a second latinised word, when we already have one, right there amidst us, the Abendland ? almost magically sounding, as magical as Morgenland. isnt it interesting,that neither Abendland nor occident are a page on the en.wikipedia? (wikipidia.de of course has a (big) page on Abendland.)

More to my point: PEGIDA's use of Abendland is very clever absolutely no accident. Its a show off we stand on teh shoulder of giants AND It's a clear counterpoint to the word "Levant" (Morgenland), which you well know is used in ISIL. --Wuerzele (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, now you made me curious about your work. Kinda WP as social medium. "Okzident": "Orient und Okzident sind nicht mehr zu trennen", Goethe 1826. Also vielleicht aus der Mode gekommen, aber nicht unerhört. Lustig, PEGIDA und Goethe in Verbindung zu bringen. Es möge mir der alte Meister verzeihen. Übrigens, ich habe Dir auf meiner Talk-Seite etwas zu Nemtsov geantwortet. Machs gut,Arminden (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spotted lanternfly has been accepted

Spotted lanternfly, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Wuerzele. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Is edit #641543166 at Bitcoin article neutral?. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ladislav, thanks for letting me know. I ll see what I can do. I have boarding fatigue, as you know (no excuse, I know...).--Wuerzele (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Hi, as you may have guessed, there is link again. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ladislav: It is sickening, really . I saw the reverting binge on Bitcoin first, then your notice. must be the weekend. I already drafted the first diffs of the ANI, but AlbinoFerret was faster. Thank you ! Thanks for sharing the burden, both of you.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you do not know this one: "Everybody is a madman, only I am an airplane." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I dont know "it". A standing expression in Czech? I guess I can guess the meaning (you know...)the airplane has a pilot named F for Flugzeug ? but no, please educate me. I d rather say Je suis Charlie or hands up or thank you for the 10th ANI. Maybe Catholicism. Ave Maria!--Wuerzele (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a favourite joke of mine. (Czechs are laughing beasts) At the first sight it says something about the sanity of everyone, but, when inspected, the only person, whose sanity it describes, is the speaker. "Je suis Charlie" is on my Facebook. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Everybody is a madman, only I am an airplane" favorite joke? must sound awfully good in Czech - i tell you it sucks in English..... But Oh, I forgot our son Matthias, he thinks he's an airplane, 8 and a half years old, lego, wood, paper, styropene, whatever- maybe the developmental stage we're talking about: omnipotence by day, but crawling into parents' bed at night!

and plse paste my award on your fricking empty talk page award section, will you ? - I didnt figure out how to place it with that automated thingy, award maker. oh, one has to do everything from scratch these days. :-)--Wuerzele (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice picture, warming. I like it and keep it where it is now. My translation ability is questionable, I was unable to come up with a better one. It is not easy to translate jokes to foreign language. Ladislav Mecir

(talk) 09:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

you're welcome. your English is superb. not easy to translate.. ?-jokes cant be translated, only reinvented.look at Asterix. I read them in German, I am reading them now again with Matthias in English- totally different jokes. pantomime however....

anyway dont take me so seriously and yes, thank you for taking me seriously.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Another (similar one), just to check whether I can come up with a better translation: Traffic news: "Drivers, look out, please! There is a car going in the opposite direction on the highway!" Driver, listening to the message, says: "A car? All cars!" Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

yeeees, I snickered about that one! -I really have to make a picture and upload it, it's the photo topic of the month, you know? Outliers --Wuerzele (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I am debating bringing the previous unanswered 3rr section into the present one, if there isnt an answer soon I will showing that not taking action leads to further problems. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the nice post on my talk page. AlbinoFerret 19:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

United States Central Command

bobrayner, I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from United States Central Command. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. It appears that:

• You have accidentally confused globalresearch.ca with a reliable source. It's not.
• You think that an experienced editor removing badly-sourced content is actually a noob who deserves a templated warning about content blanking and censorship.

I have fixed the first problem. Don't worry about the second one. Feel free to restore the content if there is some other reliable source for it. bobrayner (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Bobraynor, you reverted a sentence and its source removing a third party editor's contribution, instead of flagging the sentence and source, discussing the issue and peacefully resolving the struggle to improve the United States Central Command page. In anticipation of some increased page views since CCOM's twitter feed was hacked, I copy edited and improved. I started a discussion on Talk :United States Central Command about the quality problems, the lede being unrepresentative, the page being largely unverifiable. Have you noticed these larger problems? If the page was in any way dear to you or if you wanted to serve the commons by improving it, you'd fixed anything, else but would not zero in on that one, the only, source supporting a critical view of CENTCOM.

Digging into it deeper I see that you've been battling the source, the centre for global research and its founder Michel Chossudovsky and are well known for doing so.

If you were sorry, you wouldnt use rhetoric and false fixes (reverting my reversal is not a fix of content issue). I have confused nothing. You appear to be pushing POV by singling out. As far as the template: It is courteous and your (pretended or real) sensitivity shows that your focus is off. You weren't sensitive enough to post on my talk page as requested above. I insist that you discuss any remaining issues on United States Central Command.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your advice is welcome

Hi User:Wuerzele. I am coming to your talk page as I note you signed the The Autie Pact in 2014. I am a non-neurotypical who lives with Autism in the form of Asperger Syndrome. If you know much about those of us on the Spectrum as well as Wikipedia editors on the Spectrum, you probably understand that editing and communication can be difficult enough for neurotypicals, excruciatingly difficult at times for editors like me with Autism. I am here on your talk page not because I am asking you to intervene, I am not canvassing for support. I am here because you signed the Autie Pact that is meant to be a way to move toward bridging the gap between neurotypical editors and editors with Autism Spectrum Disorder(s). Currently, there has been a discussion for a few days at AN/I regarding my ability to edit. I have been open there about being a person with Asperger's. When that information was brought forth, the reactions have been -- shall we say -- less than complimentary to those expressing their views about editors with Autism. This discussion and the comments from long-time and not-so-long-time editors is, in my opinion, an example of how far we still have to go in Wikipedia toward understanding that we are made up of editors with different editing styles and different ways of seeing the world. Of course, the difference in editors with Autism is more obvious and can be, at times, more maddening to neurotypicals. That said, with the rate of autism being somewhere between 1:55 - 1:110 and Wikipedia being a magnet for those with ASDs, I think it's fair to say that awareness is extremely important. Also important to remember is that discrimination against editors because they have ASDs is just not appropriate nor does it echo WP:AGF. If you are interested in seeing the thread at AN/I I am referring to, the link is here [1]. I have no expectation that you will look at it, my purpose here is really just awareness that Wikipedia still has a long way to go in the way of interactions and understanding between autism-spectrum editors and neurotypical editors. And, as the title of this section says, your advice would be welcome. Thanks for your time. -- ] ● ✉ ✓ 16:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi WV. Thanks for posting your concern here, and hat off to your courage to "come out". -Not towards me since I have the Autie Pact label on my door, so to speak, so it's reasonably safe, but coming out in front of the general anonymous audience at AN/I. I can imagine that this must be as difficult as coming out for GLBT people.

I agree with all your points. WP as ASD magnet, need of awareness, need to learn, for both sides, but probably more for neurotypicals - ah, it depends- who when afraid, resort to discrimination. - let me just make a plug for the fact that discrimination hits a number of other leagues on WP too (gender, race, country of origin etc), speaking from experience...

Now, as far as the AN/I: I looked at it briefly, and because of the accusation I read, that you had an obsession with the topic and caused damage like an editor had nt seen before, my interest was of course peaked. I looked at Bess Myerson, at your edits, and-- shrugged shoulders. maybe I didnt study it long enough, but I didnt see anything that would get me to try to block you. Maybe your edit summaries concealed reversions. But I am not going to go to ANI- I honestly have board fatigue, have spent way too much time there since November. I cant imagine that you get blocked.

Advice? Stop digging/ worrying for now. You are welcome to join us at Bitcoin, if that interests you at all. Look at the edits that are made and you'll see plenty "obsessions" and I don't think we are all autistic. I didn't even check your userpage yet, sorry I am super tired, need to go. I just wanted to reply to you quickly. I hope to stay in contact- you are the first autistic adult (adult I assume) I have communicated with. The other autistic person i ve met merely reverted and reverted me ! Best, --Wuerzele (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, User:Wuerzele. I have several things I could say in reply, but will decline to do so now. Those seeking to have me sanctioned are now taking what I've said to another editor on that editor's talk page, have twisted it to mean something I never meant, and are using those words as part of their case against me. Even more egregious is one of those editors stating I am "self-identified" as having Asperger's -- in other words, I really don't have it and am lying to gain sympathy. That comment really hurt when I first read it, but then I had to chuckle, because editing in Wikipedia could never be important enough to tell such a story. But, truth be told, to say something like that is just a slap in the face of everyone on the Spectrum, everyone with special needs whose disability or "different-ability" isn't immediately obvious. That kind of thinking, plus the general feeling expressed among a number of those in the thread that being on the Spectrum = incompetence and editing with them is a "burden" and "waste of time", is truly bigoted against those with special needs. It's discrimination, plain and simple, but in Wikipedia terms, it equates a specific type of personal attack that is "never acceptable". See this section of the NPA policy for more.

I appreciate your words here, including your advice. We can discuss more at a later time when things have calmed down to less than a dull roar. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for updating me, WV. Stay strong. We need you.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Improve Pegida article

Hi Wuerzele,
regarding the photo issue I left a reply on the talk page. At the same time I reinstated the other changes you reverted with even more detailled explanations. The restructured version is clearly favorable to the disorganized content hopping forth-and-back.
Rest assured that while of course I do have a personal (though rather complex) opinion on Pegida, I'm clearly committed to NPOV. I've been watching the article for a while but didn't join earlier because I temporarily didn't find time and nerves for controversial discussions, and hoped the article would draw enough attention. Now, while we shouldn't give in to POV pushing from the one or the other side, we really need to work hand in hand improving the article, which still is in a poor state though the topic is highly relevant. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't convinced that "Pegida" is more common than "PEGIDA". Therefore, it was moved back. You can request a move. --George Ho (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

John Leggett and other things

Thank you very much for finding more sources for John Leggett. I noticed you have other drafts and open projects. When they are finished, you can move them to mainspace and add the {{authority control}} template to them, based on what I have found.

Jill Leovy

Jaromír Korčák

Best, Vycl1994 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Vycl1994, well, thank you for putting the Leggett article online. you beat me to it.

I deleted my draft which was about the same as yours after you put the article online. You must not have seen it when you searched online.

Did you look up all the numbers in the authority control template? I read

"Simply adding will display all the authority control information associated with the article", but it looks like you put them in manually?--Wuerzele (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I regularly hang around at the Death in current year article, which is where I first came across the John Leggett link. As such, I clicked the link, gathered some sources and began writing. I did not notice your draft because I did no on-WP research. This is a personal oversight for which I apologize.

The authority control template uses the corresponding values inserted into Wikidata pages. Wikipedia drafts cannot have Wikidata datasets until being moved to mainspace, which is why I added the values manually. When the above articles are live, the values can be transferred to Wikidata. Then all that needs to be on the en.wiki article is {{authority control}} and the full template will appear. See Gerrit Kouwenaar and his wikidata page for an example. Vycl1994 (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks, Please dont apologize. the early bird...you see the List of iowa writers workshop people had misclassified John Leggett as Jack Leggett, so all links looked blue ( for a different person). I entered him on deaths in 2015 as John Leggett (then red) and that was your signal. I dont blame you for not doing WP searches, but I tell you, I saw my own WP draft on google (!) even though I deleted it. weird world. One more thing: you should archive ALL links- NYTimes archive lasts "only" 10 years , all others less.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Most archived links have been added to references through the |archivedate= and |archiveurl= parameters. However, the Wayback Machine doesn't seem to like the Napa Valley Register article. Vycl1994 (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with COI request for edit

Hello, Wuerzele: I am contacting you directly here to seek your assistance in updating a page on which I currently have a conflict of interest (Oil and Gas Commission). I had posted a request to edit on the Talk page of the article, but it's not been picked up yet.

As you had added information on which there is now a resolution, if possible, it would be very helpful if you could do that edit request.

I have tried to follow all the right WP protocols but please accept my apologies if I am going about this the wrong way! Many thanks for your time. Wrightwords (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Wrightwords thanks for posting the edit request on the Oil and Gas Commission talk page, your patience and contacting me here. I linked to a newspaper article, more for reader convenience.

Is there a photo or two you could contribute to the page, maybe ? --Wuerzele (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

wheel truing stand

Andrew, Before I ever accuse someone as a WP:vandal, as you did on Talk:wheel truing stand, I look at their editing history, their user page. I first rule out an honest error, before insulting someone.( You didnt and shot from the hip)

Your userpage very proudly claims that you are one of the 5,000 most active wikipedians of "all time" (which is idiotic hybris if you think about it - how can anyone claim into the future? ) I honestly cannot find you as such and not even as one of the 10,000. Looks like this decor is a shot in the foot. Have you ever thought about removing your unsourced (maybe outdated?) claim, before someone -equally martially as yourself- accuses/shoots you of misconduct? Live and let live, man--Wuerzele (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's see...

1. The link you inserted in this edit is to Howard Hawkins, "an American politician and activist with the Green Party of the United States."
2. I checked the link you inserted, and even though I reside in Milwaukee, as my user page indicates, and ride a bicycle to work every day, I did not find any indication that the linked article mentioned truing stands, so I removed it with the edit summary "No mention of truing stand in linked article."
3. You reinserted the link with this edit to an article about "an American politician" without addressing the issue of there being no mention of truing stands that article. Your edit summary simply asserted that it was "sourced" material,
4. I once again checked all the sources provide in the article, read the linked article, and found no mention of a connection between truing stands and the subject of the linked article. I even checked your user page, but I found no mention of bicycles or cycling, so I removed it again with the edit summary "No source provided. No mention of truing stand in linked article. Stop adding link spam."
5. I came to this talk page and itemized the reasons for removing the link.
6. You went to my talk page, accused me of edit warring, and began making personal attacks:

a. I display idiotic hubris by having some little box on my user page.

b. I display unsourced and maybe outdated claims on my user page. Simply following the provided link would lead you to the list which indicates that I have made 14,489 and which lists me as the 4628th active editor.

c. I "shot from the hip" when I did no such thing.

7. You came to this talk page and began making more, uninformed personal attacks:

a. I don't ride the right type of bike to edit this article correctly.

b. I don't live in the right location to edit this article correctly.

8. You finally discovered your mistake and inserted a link to the correct article with this edit and falsely suggested that you were reverting my edit with the edit summary "Undid revision 645844543 by AndrewDressel".

Obviously there is no reason to revert your third attempt to insert the correct link, because you finally inserted the correct link. If you had instead, continued to insert the incorrect link, I believe that my previous assessment would have been correct. It would have been spam at best, and more-likely persistent vandalism. I stand by every edit I make, and I sign my real name. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay provided an edit summary

Apologies that I didn't :-) Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Prepared to apologize for any inadvertent subject line omission, I looked for the Trans-Pacific partnership edits that I'd made where you noted that I hadn't provided an edit summary. I'm a bit confused. I've made 11 edits to the Partnership's page, to its TALK page and even added a section to a TPP disambiguation page. I didn't notice any where I didn't provide a subject line. Since you didn't provide a date for my omission, I looked through all the edits for any I might have made in the last year and didn't see any additional ones. Can you direct me to where I failed to provide one? I'm not perfect of course, but I certainly didn't intend to be discourteous. Thank you. Activist (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Activist, Thank you for your detailed response. I am terribly sorry ! I made a huge mistake accusing you completely falsely. I meant to tell this another user. You are completely right, you wrote edit summaries everywhere. I am in your debt.... --Wuerzele (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No big deal, and thank you for the apology. Activist (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Fishman article

I think I now understand what you were looking for when you flagged something for page numbers. I thought you simply meant you wanted the pages of an article within a book. But now I think you are looking for relevant pages in a whole book. When a whole volume is dedicated to Fishman, citing the "relevant" pages would be a challenge. Or have I still misunderstood you? Seeking peace and appropriately relevant and complete source info. Pete unseth (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I am glad you see the challenge. This essential discussion per WP:BRD belongs on the talk:Joshua Fishman page, Pete unseth ! I will move it there. BTW I already started discussing the problems this article has, you didnt look. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you reverted the edit war notice on my page. I was working hard to correct things and not tying to war.Pete unseth (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please undo the edit war warning you posted for me. Repeatedly, I was inserting page numbers that you had specifically requested by inserting banners requesting page numbers. That sort of activity should be seen as cooperating with you, not edit warring. Please remove the edit war posting. Pete unseth (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As I see you now know, being improperly accused of edit warring is very unpleasant. I would be grateful if you would remove the accusation related to my efforts to insert the very changes you called for. I have heard people saying that Wikipedia has become a hostile environment. Let's show them this is not true.Pete unseth (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Pete unseth, I cannot and willnot remove the statement. You were edit warring, read the definition. If you have done anything SINCE, thats good, but that doesnt change the fact that you were editwarring. Please stop posting on my talk page.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You introduce 40 changes, many to the worse, many with grammatical mistakes, some even non-sensical. This is more than bold and so it is my duty to revert. And I am not done reverting, as I find out the damage you have done.

It is you who deserves an edit war sign.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

7 May

What do you think of Erda on her birthday? (I would have chosen Erda for DYK if we hadn't had Erda just recently.) Did you know that we had 9 DYK articles on contraltos so far, but in the few weeks of 2015 four (two to come)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is midnight where you are. Do you mean the Maria Radner DYK on Maria's birthday? that aside, sure go for it! it's quite veiled , and maybe should be pointed out in the hook. I love Easter egg hunting and have never missed to organize the spectacle in our yard here in teh US ( but the German way) over the past 8 years of our sons life... but you really do leave me behind in the dust with your "hidden" connections! and most people would call me an association freak.

i dont know what to say about the number of contralto DYK's because I am ignorant about it, but at the very least it looks like someone (other than me) is successfully producing articles in that field, or ... chance. Chance like being on the wrong plane at the wrong time, or living out a pilot's dream with a common mental condition that German society discriminates against, at the wrong time.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

We had a DYK about a great woman on the fifth anniversary of her death, without mentioning it, - resulted in one of the few times a hook for "my" article attracted more than 5k clicks. Erda-Maria gets more than that every day, still, did you see? We are responsible for what the readers get to know ... - Did you follow the link to the 11 contraltos (one male). I was part of six of them, including the male ;) - Just found another link to him where I didn't expect it: Tristis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

no, not yet - have to run pick up my son , cook and all the rest...--Wuerzele (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

enjoy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Still unsure what you want, please let me know.

Hello,

Regarding edits to Thomas Andrews Drake, John Kiriakou, and Jesselyn Radack https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.84.81.66&oldid=653090839&diff=cur. Retrieved 29 March 2015. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

For your benefit, I have logged in to prove my existence of having an account. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.84.81.66&oldid=653090839&diff=cur. Retrieved 29 March 2015. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

I immediately returned to your talk page to see if there were any instructions for me to improve, or at least an explanation of your enigmatic "edit war" message having no other information to support it.... only to find you have deleted everything.

Again, if you are the one I am supposedly in a "war" with, I have two requests a) please stop deleting relevant information and corrected reference detail which were incomplete and incorrect in prior versions (which you or someone keeps reverting them to). b) if you do not like the complete data nor the corrected references, will you please explain why and how I can improve to meet wikipedia standards?

Tis quite odd that corrected detailed facts and references continue to be deleted, and replaced with incomplete detail and incorrect references... am confident wikipedia.org would prefer the former, not the later. If this is wrong, please explain why.

If you are deleting corrected facts and corrected references, and continue to refuse to communicate factual reasons for this, I will then need to report your unprofessional actions to your supervisors and colleagues.

Please communicate and explain what I possibly have done wrong and need to improve.

V/R COL M.D.B., MD

my reply to your first message is on the Talk:John Kiriakou, where I moved it, as indicated in my edit summar not deleted as you surmised. I think you did not read my edit summaries on John Kiriakou either. you were impatient, reverting a third time

you were impatient the second time now, posting here again. there is absolutely no rush.

you mention in your message edits to Jesselyn Radack Thomas Andrews Drake. I dont know what you are talking about. you seem confused

the last sentence you wrote is a threat. you appear to be ignorant of all basic WP rules. for the threat alone you deserve to be reported to ANI. --Wuerzele (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Wuerzele, I have responded to your question on my talk page. Orderinchaos 12:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

edit war over Dresden article

Are you sure that a link to a further wikipedia article doesn't constitute an adequate reference? evidence please. List of German defence ministers To my mind the fact that the list is on Wikipedia is source enough, given that it does claim a source for itself, though a German language one that is not accessible to a non-German speaker; that's a fact that could be improved upon - providing a direct link to the list on the site.

What however IS true is that Maizière is no longer defence minister - as the reference on his bio page surely does establish. That fact DOES need to be corrected. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

GERAC, Wikistress

Hi, just an "FWIW" observation that may be totally off-base because I'm ignorant of the history and am just commenting on the talk page and recent edits: as frustrating as it can be when one feels one's concerns are being ignored by other editors, it's better to avoid "raising the temperature", and better most especially for one's own stress level. This is something I'm still learning... not meaning to lecture at all.... it's just that I sense high-ish Wikistress on your end, so I decided to err on the side of encouraging the most relaxed, Wikipedia-enjoying stance possible. :-) You seem right on the merits, but it's a judgement call on which competent editors can disagree; I could see consensus going either way. Happy editing! --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 22:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

U.S. Central Command

I have laid out my disagreement with your edit, referenced to a book published by professors at the National War College and Carleton University, at the talkpage. Please feel free to respond should you wish. Additional details can be seen at the new article Combined Joint Task Force 180. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing Media bias in the United States, Pro-Israel media

Hi, I checked the book in question for the quote and could not find it. The original is, however, in the Mother Jones article I cited, and more accurately reflects the date of the original quote. So I thought to put that in. What do you suggest?

The 2007 book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy argued that there is a media bias in favor of Israel. It stated that a former spokesman for the Israeli Consulate in New York said that: "Of course, a lot of self-censorship goes on. Journalists, editors, and politicians are going to think twice about criticizing Israel if they know they are going to get thousands of angry calls in a matter of hours.The Jewish lobby is good at orchestrating pressure.The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy - John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt - Google Books. Books.google.com. Retrieved 2013-11-12.

Changed to :

Manachem Shalev, a former spokesman for the Israeli Consulate in New York, was quoted in Mother Jones Magazine in 1987 as saying that: "Of course, a lot of self-censorship goes on. Journalists, editors, and politicians are going to think twice about criticizing Israel if they know they are going to get thousands of angry calls in a matter of hours.The Jewish lobby is good at orchestrating pressure.”Quote attributed to Menachem Shalev found in Robert Freidman, "Selling Israel to America: The Hasbara Project Targets the U.S. Media,” Mother Jones Magazine (Feb/March 1987), 25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.198.54 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 01:53, 3 April 2015‎

Dennis Keeney draft

Following your technical question to another editor, seems you want this page deleted. I'm going to WP:BOLDLY delete it; can always resurrect it afterwards. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

yes ! thanks, are you following me?--Wuerzele (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

For now, yes. I'm waiting for you to come back to me at Talk:United States Central Command. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought you might get a kick out of this

Its in the NY Times, I came across it by accident link AlbinoFerret 00:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, thanks !--Wuerzele (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Seeking clarification on whether I have a "conflict" over a personal biography I'm preparing to Wiki.

Here is the situation:

I'd like to offer a BLP as a first article. It is about F. Scott Yeager, a tech entrepreneur who was born and lives in Texas. Yeager figured in the Enron Energy scandal {{http://abc13.com/archive/7073979/}}and, while he was director of sales for Metropolitan Fiber Systems, was a cocreator of MAE East{{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAE-East}}, which, significantly spurred the commercialization of the Internet.

I did not know Yeager until a friend introduced him as a person seeking to hire someone to help him complete a personal manuscript. I accepted the work and became aware of the role Yeager played in certain developments pertaining to the Internet. Though it perhaps amounts to only a footnote, Yeager's career does add to our store of knowledge about the Internet's evolution. I wish to stress that I am not being paid to prepare this proposed Wiki entry and will of course rely on outside secondary sources, etc. I'm confident the entry will be sufficiently sourced, unbiased and verifiable and look forward to seeing what results from the contributions of others. I have a draft prepared and am currently completing the inline sourcing.

What is the appropriate way to proceed?Danan (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Danan, write your thing, and the community will judge.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Maria Radner

Harrias ^talk 00:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

2, 4-D

there has been a flurry of edits over stupid "a" vs "an" and I think you miscontrued what i did there... Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You are uncivil, using "stupid", "misconstruing" without actually having studied the edits. How could you study the edits- you have no time in the flurry of YOUR edits everywhere. No real discussion can be had with someone who is insulting. You are no longer welcome on my user page and should post all your comments regarding my edits on the talk pages of articles. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Pegida article

I reverted your edit because it is simply bad use of the English language. Hohenloh ⁺ 09:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This has no place on my user page.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

edit war warning

If you are going to revert, you must discuss your reasons. Please do not revert again without explaining your reasoning first, and talking it through. If you just go ahead and revert without doing that, I will bring you to the edit war noticeboard. I have asked for your reasoning several times on the talk page already. Thanks.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of documents such as contracts as citations

I have a pdf of a contract for the creation of MAE-East by UUNET and MSF Datanet. I'm a newbie and haven't quite figured out if this document can be cited and made accessible in support of a claim that a particular person signed the document. Danan (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Danan, I couldnt read your msage because you put it in these brackets <>. why did you do that? I cannot see how a non-public contract could be a reference. please familiarize yourself with WP:ref and WP:RS. If you dont hear from me, try teh WP:teahouse.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh oh

I hatted that whole TP. It's moved now. Will probably archive it all, so there's nothing on it worth going to 3RR. It's 1:30 am here - and I'm . Happy editing! Atsme☯^Consult 05:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning

I will say this one time. do not stalk me. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This was posted just after I edited on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#reordering, where he had reverted me.

First, I have told him on April 16 that he is no longer welcome on my talk page and must respond to edits elsewhere. Yet he has posted twice since this request.

Secondly, the post is hollow, as evidence shows that he has been stalking me.

Thirdly, the post is a threat, and no "appropriate project notices and communications".

Fourth, as jytdog is so busy on ANI etc, his friend Kingofaces reliably turned up to help in the cause, and was WP:wikilawyering with WP:NOBAN, which says "it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to).".--Wuerzele (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I saw you post on the COI talk page. I thought you might be interested in related discussions going on such as these:

• Advocacy Ducks Draft Essay
• Talk about Draft Essay
• Discussion on SlimVirgin's talk page about COI and use of MEDRS (if you are unsure of which discussions are relevant, please let me know. Mostly topics: 1, 7, and 11 until present)

• Archived discussions about COI on Jimbo's page:
  • The Newsweek Article, and Battleground Wikipedia
  • Lawsuits for contributions that readers expect to be unbiased but are paid advocacy
  • Regarding Wifione ArbCom case
  • Proposed new permissions group: Auditors (A direct appeal to Jimmy)

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Neonicotinoid. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Your tag on User:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks

Please review the following to see if my changes address your concerns: [2] Atsme☯^Consult 22:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

@Wuerzele: - thanks very much for your thorough, respectful and kind edits on the WP pages edited by the students in my Environmental Disruptors of Development class. Very very helpful! Generous with your time! Interested in conveying knowledge, constructive criticism and facilitating learning. Yay! Very, very much appreciated. Hakeleh (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

well thank you ! now i have to look if we met , Hakeleh , did we?--Wuerzele (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy ducks

Could you help me understand the nature of your objection? I left an edit summary so "unexplained" is incorrect. The original author even thanked me for changing to the proper template, so I'm puzzled. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Silly me....

I thought keeping the word "generation" was overkill, but that goes to show how much I know about that particular topic. [3] Atsme^📞📧 20:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Atsme thanks for allowing me to correct you . you know this includes fracking, where dog has been active and reverting environmental concerns for example.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wuerz - I much prefer to collaborate than elaborate for months. It doesn't take me very long to figure something out. It probably could be attributed to things I have actually experienced first-hand. Having said that, if I had believed the revert was not substantive, you probably would have gotten the full monty. (not really, a discussion on the TP would have ensued) Atsme^📞📧 20:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

DDT carcinogenicity edits

Thanks for your rewrite of the paragraphs summarizing the findings on DDT carcinogenicity. I removed the summary of those two review articles a couple of weeks ago because it blatantly contradicted the findings of the reviews. I meant to go back in and summarize the review articles, but I see that you've done so, and your rewrite is a significant improvement on that section. Thank you! Jinnantonix (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

de nada, Jinnantonix and thanks for your comment.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Time to cut the drama

It's starting to seem that any mundane edit I make where you are involved results in tirades on the article talk page [4], [5]. Doing things like casting aspersions claiming someone is coming in with a particular bias, whitewashing, etc. when it was a mundane edit as picking between two somewhat synonymous words seems to show this problem is getting worse. Please be aware that making these kinds of comments on an article talk page are not welcome per WP:TPG, and we should solely be focused on content there. Attacking editors as you are is disruptive to the project. If you want to comment on editor behavior, user talk pages or other appropriate noticeboards are the place for that, but do be aware you are risking a WP:BOOMERANG if you continue to cast aspersions or make overall uncivil remarks about editors in those venues.

If this disruptive behavior continues, the next conversation will about the appropriateness of a ban (interactions or otherwise), so please just stick to the talk page guidelines instead of prickly behavior in these topics. You might find that people will also be more willing to discuss with you if you aren't starting out conversations with various accusations about editors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I´ve seen your so called ¨"discussions" for years. You are a master at rhethoric, veiled threats and generic platitudes. I see you as completely counterproductive on the articles i have seen you edit. You are not welcome on my userpage, for the exact same reason that you pretend to post here´.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Modification of Elias Murr

Hi Wuerzele, thank you for your message and awesome contribution. 2 years and a half contribution on wikipedia is awesome, thus i would be talking to someone who can help and guide about the wikipedia rules. The reason i am removing the spy falciani, is because it is endangering the reputation of Elias Murr where he did not do any wrong but it seems wrong. First, the Lebanese law does not have any taxation rules outside Lebanon. Second, he is a very rich person, which it seems silly to tell people they discovered 42 million which already this company only works in Switzerland you can check www.groupmurr.com. Third, it does not give any more information about him or any valuable news other than trying to ruin his reputation and harm him in a bad way. Please look it at that way as i know it is not your intention Will be looking forward to consider my suggestion Wuerzele. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljoumhouria (talk • contribs) 08:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

2,4 D

Have you seen this? link AlbinoFerret 00:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:AlbinoFerret, I am still in Spain and I will be able to see this in 8 days, when I am back, sorry.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources

In this edit you used a primary source [6]. Much better to use secondary sources such as review articles. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

oh yeah, really? Man, you seem to get a kick out of teaching me how to suck eggs. What do you know about Chagas cardiomyopathy, or ID , really? Please, get a life.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You will never gusess what I got today.

In the mail a box came, and inside was a large Fenton, Lotus and dragon shallow bowl. I will have to take a photo and add it to one of my glass articles so you can see it. AlbinoFerret 21:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret yeah please do ! I ll look forward to it! Let's have some fun in this serious WP world of COI interest proceedings.... --Wuerzele (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles 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, -Tryptofish (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Full Reference on General Electric Page for my Contribution

Thanks for your message. I have cited full references for my contribution on General Electric page. -- User:Franklyn.issac (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Your recent editing history at Kevin Folta shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Edits 1, 2, 3 Glen 21:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Glen First link does not exist, if you would correct please. I hope you added this template on the pages of Jerodlycett and all other users that are editwarring, I have no time to check now.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wuerzele. You have new messages at Jerodlycett's talk page.
Message added 02:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just in case you didn't get the notification. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Kevin Folta. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Kevin Folta. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wuerzele (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

multiple aspects have not been considered. I also do not count 4 reversions in the diffs mentioned below I am requesting reconsideration of this block, because multiple aspects have not been considered. I also do not count 4 reversions in the diffs mentioned below. I have filed 3rr only three times in almost 3 years of busy editing and never filed it, if I believed that I violated it.

I offer to walk away from this article, if this is acceptable.

When unblocked, I will continue to help Wikipedia by adding references, copyediting/ grammar spelling issues, expanding short articles, which is my main activity as can be seen from my record.

Behavioral issue: Administrator Drmies posted on the Talk:Kevin Folta page here accusing me of "launch into a personal attack that makes not a bit of sense". I disagreed with his opinion. I had mentioned the word troll, which to me is no personal attack, but a fact-based description of what one can see for oneself in the diffs of Silver seren's immediate bad faith interaction to a newbie of the page, calling my contribution "rubbish", and continuous casting of unfounded aspersions. In retrospect I can see that the word troll is inflammatory and feeding the behavior and I would not spell it out again.

I am responding to the diffs cited by jerodlycett as violating 3rr, which in hindsight, I should have done right away before being blocked:

1. [7] This is a copy edit improving the sentence " NATURE alleges...". a journal cannot allege. an author writing in Nature can. I also cut the repeated use of the word allege per WP:ALLEGED. I wrote in the edit summary to write what was quoted on the talk page in order to paraphrase the facts neutrally.
2. [8] This edit corrects demonstrably false information, which I laid out in the talk page. It is an incorrect quote of the source, not found in the source. Such a correction is exempt from the 3RR rule "Removal of biased, unsourced, contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).." There was never any reply to this issue, up to the moment of filing this request.
3. [9] Here I reinserted properly sourced info which had been removed by Jerodlycett without explanation. The phrase "amongst them email exchanges with Monsanto" was key to understanding the paragraph and removing it was adding WP:undue weight to the BLP. I asked what the problem with this statement was, asked to discuss and not edit war. He did not discuss this, and there is no evidence on the talk page, that he discussed this issue, despite of his assertions on the 3 RR report; all of his discussions were PRIOR to my arrival on the page. The removal served to keep the name Monsanto out of the beginning of the paragraph, which is detrimental to the understanding of the paragraph titled "COI", since it is the crux of the COI and has to be mentioned, so removal made no sense and seemed POV guided. This edit could be seen as allowable, per WP:BLP rules
4. [10] This diff isnt mine, should not have been listed Removed POV sentence, because source unacceptable per WP:BLPSPS. WP:BLPREMOVE states that such a correction is exempt from the 3RR rule "Removal of biased, unsourced, contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).."
5. [11] This diff isnt mine, should not have been listed this is a revert and could be seen as an unnecessary edit. Nobody replied to this issue on Talk.
6. [12] This is inserting a sourced quote, and it is no reversion- this quote still stands as of now, uncontested.
7. [13] This is an edit where I marked an unreferenced statement and deleted the erroneously attributed reference. The reference cited did not contain the claim made, as pointed out, and as in[14]. In hindsight I could have just marked it, and leave the erroneous ref in, this could be seen as an unnecessary edit. Nobody replied to this issue on Talk.

The latter 2 diffs should also not be counted as two diffs , because "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". Of the remaining 6 diffs 3 were allowable per WP:BLPREMOVE, so the 3 RR rule was not broken.

Comments: I could not have survived 2 and a half years of editing controversial articles in a wide variety of different fields (incl Bitcoin) without these skills and without a block up until today. I do strive for NPOV, and am not a partisan warrior, which I declared on the talkpage, while the editors that reverted have expressed clear POV as I laid out.

• I am aware of what WP:Revert only when necessary#Unacceptable reversions are: I do think that I made one unnecessary edit, as noted in the diffs above.
• I know what allowed reversions are: I did two.
• I am aware how to handle edit-warring behaviors: I did open a talk page section addressing what I saw. editwarring continued and editors in question did not respond to any issues (like user silver seren). I admit that his immediate hostility, innuendo culminating in trollish behavior affected me.

At that point I should have asked for a WP:third opinion or started a WP:request for comments already. This is one thing that I could have done, that I will consider immediately if there is ever such a time.

Context: I do not understand why jerodlycett 's reversion have not been mentioned, not considered, nor been found a violation of WP:3RR. I do not understand how the template on his user page that I mentioned in my comment was not considered in decision making, a template which states

• difficulty with altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions addressed to them;
• limited capacity to respond to other Wikipedians via talk page messages or e-mails in a timely fashion, to participate in conflict resolution, or to complete their usual workload of Wikipedia tasks.
• If you are here because I reverted an edit of yours it's likely by accident or because your edit damaged enough, that I assumed you made a mistake. Feel free to undo my revert if you fix what was messed up.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 September 2015‎ strike outs and corrections added, because I had erroneously retrieved wrong diff by manual entry of the raw diff number. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring and in this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I'm not going to respond to all of your points except to express some astonishment at how little understanding you have about policy. But your rebuttal of each of the reverts is worth a short response. First, overall, all of the them are reverts and none is exempt. Second, #10 and #11 are yours. I have no earthly clue why you say they are not. Beyond that, I'm not going to get sucked into a point by point wikilawyering discusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Re "no earthly clue..." : The two diffs are for the action of ANOTHER editor, not my action.

Re "wikilawyering": The protocol for unblock requests contains a template for discussion of diffs, so the term wikilawyering (which nobody has ever accused me of!) appears uncalled for. what exactly are you criticising?

your reply so far is unhelpful to me, as my points are unanswered, eg why Jerodlycett's 3RR was completely dropped and what mixed message his template is sending. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I should really give up on this, but I'm curious. The two diffs that you say are of another editor. When you look at those diffs, who is the other editor? BTW, Drmies is right. If an administrator acts on your unblock request, they will most likely look at this discussion, which is what you want. If it were I, I might say something slightly different like "Please look at the points I make below this request." Otherwise, they may focus only on the diffs issue. Just a thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23Thank you for your comment, which made me go back and look at these 2 diffs once more. I looked at them in a different way by clicking on this page, which showed, that previously I had erroneously retrieved the wrong diff by manually entering the raw diff number from the draft page, which created the wrong diff. So thanks for your persistence.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Yes, that's a lot of points, but I noted one salient point, about the word "troll"--thanks. Now, this block should be over shortly, and when it is I look forward to your response on the talk page about that Novella blog. A policy question, sure, but with a slight twist--context. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies Please clarify: who is the reviewing administrator for the unblock request? Per my information "any review will be carried out by another administrator (not the one who blocked you)."--Wuerzele (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• There is no unblock request that I see, Wuerzele. The way to go about it is via Template:Unblock. If you're really asking why Bbb responded, it's because some of your comments were directed at them. But it's quite usual for a blocking admin to respond or comment. Wait, now I see it: you're "requesting reconsideration of this block". Yes, you'll need to use the template, though by the time you get this your block is probably over. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, thanks for pointing out the missing template. I had it originally, but it got lost and I have e never seen such an unblockrequest before. Does this format look ok/conform to the rules or should I have pasted the whole discussion into the template ? (I followed the guide minutely)--Wuerzele (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure--I think not having all that in there is acceptable, I think. I'd certainly make sure I'd follow the "below" marker. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Drmies thanks for the reply (since "thanks" in view history mode is disabled). I do not understand though, why when I did post the template below, you mentioned "I'd certainly make sure I'd follow the "below" marker", as if I hadnt. (?)--Wuerzele (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"If I were the administrator reviewing this unblock request I would read the word 'below' and look underneath for further explanation of why the editor thinks they should be unblocked, even though those reasons are placed outside the block template whereas usually they are placed inside." Drmies (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on Wuerzele's revised unblock request, his statement that diffs #12 and #12 are consecutive edits is correct. However, just to be clear, that means that they should be counted as one revert, not two. That doesn't change the conclusion that he breached WP:3RR, just that instead of seven reverts, as listed at AN3, there were six. Although I reviewed all this before I blocked him, I actually just satisfied myelf that there were at least 4 reverts. Without re-reviewing the diffs again, I cannot say with absolute assurance whether there were 4, 5, or 6. I don't intend to re-review the list.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thanks for your statement mentioning me! Which are the diffs you found most compelling? FYI. A couple of minor revisions for things said about me: My last name is spelled "Tornheim" rather than "Thornheim" (a common misspelling). Jytdog took me to AN/I twice, but not to COI to my knowledge, despite numerous allegations of being an Single Purpose Account, etc.:

• Jytdog v. DT 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Jytdog v. DT 23:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

He took DiPiep to AN/I ostensibly for behavior, but more likely because DiPiep disagreed about content (the second case above was retaliation for trying to keep DiPiep out of trouble by warning him the group would take him to AN/I without a second thought and win for behavior that is tolerated on other pages):

• Jytdog v. DePiep, 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There was an early case where Canoe got into trouble by this same group:

• IRWolfie v. Canoe1967 18 August 2013

Those are the only cases I have handy. I remember seeing a case against Viritidas about name-calling towards the group, but I have not found that case or I would give it to you. Perhaps someone else has seen it and can refer to it.

Also I believe Gandydancer stopped editting GMO articles because of this group, but may work on pesticide articles. (However, I think the way you worded it in your statement is close enough, especially given the word count constraints.)

So I hope you revise your statement for accuracy about both spelling of my name and that it was AN/I for me rather than COI. Thanks again for your statement and positive comments about my work.

Referred to or possibly interested in this post: Jytdog, Kingofaces43, Viriditas, Canoe1967, Second Quantisation (fka Irwolfie), Gandydancer, DePiep, SlimVirgin, Petrarchan47

David Tornheim (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the mistake. I mixed you up with SageRad, after reading your talk pages a little too late in the night....I revised my statement accordingly- couldnt ni do it earlier because of my first block (admin Bbb23). I did email you, because i couldnt post, but think you didnt open/ see it? let me know. maybe this means that the email doesnt work when one is blocked? let's hope arbcom is starting soon. cheers --Wuerzele (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Folta Mediation

I have asked for mediation in regards to Kevin Folta. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Kevin Folta". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 September 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Kevin Folta, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Kevin Folta

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Jerodlycett (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Wuerzele (talk · contribs)
3. 2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk · contribs)
4. Silver seren (talk · contribs)
5. SageRad (talk · contribs)
6. Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs)
7. kevinfolta (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Kevin Folta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Kevin Folta

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Is a lack of evidence of any connection between Monsanto et al and Kevin Folta evidence of a lack of any connection.
2. Is there a smear campaign brought against scientists, specifically Kevin Folta, supporting GMOs as being safe.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Why would Wikipedia take it upon ourselves to decide whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence when Folta's university has already conducted an investigation and unambiguously stated that there is no misconduct? Surely second-guessing external sourtces is the very definition of WP:OR and is doubly unwise on a WP:BLP. This is not something to mediate, it's something expressly forbidden by policy. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Agree, though I don't know if it'll do much good. Silverseren^C 18:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I'm not seeing specific content mentioned here that's really needing mediation at this time for issue 1 or 2. Nothing on the talk page makes that apparent to me right now, so I think it's better to have a conversation on focused content at the talk page and other noticeboards prior to this option. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Neutral. My willingness to participate wasn't high to begin with. Evidence: I'm still an IP user. I've initially uttered some thoughts about NPOV on the article's talk page, and those issues were quickly resolved by very capable editors. But now I'm finding myself being dragged in a fruitless debate on very basic principles, which I normally assume as granted. I don't even want to go there, sorry. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
5. Agree. I just wandered onto the Kevin Folta article today while looking at the recent history of another editor, and then made a couple comments on things that seemed to be very biased to me, but i am somewhat up on the recent controversy regarding Folta and Monsanto and USRTK, and i am willing to participate in this, i suppose. SageRad (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

   Comment, with apologies if I put this at the wrong place on this page. ArbCom is on the verge of accepting a case whose scope includes the dispute here, and MedCom may wish to be aware of that fact when deciding whether or not mediation is appropriate at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." The "GMO articles" case pending at ARBCOM constitutes a related DR proceeding. If there are still issues outstanding when that case is closed or rejected, this may be refiled here. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)

Genetically modified organisms 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/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

Chronicler

Thank you for expanding Mankell! I added two references, from Chronicler of the Winds, - where you might find more, + there's more plot in German. I am with friends and have no time, - a lead for Mankell would be great ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, thanks to you, as well. Lede: you're completely right, but reflecting meager body.

myself, am distracted by harvest and Arbcom evidence... which i suspect you are aware, without GregJack's presence, alas.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't watch arbcom if I don't have to, miss Greg and ... and ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Stuttgart

Hey Wuerzele, just wanted to stop by and let you know we were almost very near each other at one time. I was only a week away from beginning school in Universität Tübingen when I fell off a cliff, and sort of had to make other plans. I still don't know who took my dorm room that semester. I had already paid the rent. My one way plane ticket is all that remains of that great (almost) adventure. I had planned to graduate and then make my way to the Trans-Siberian train and then to Asia, finally resting in Bali, where at the time one could live on $5 a day.

Thanks for the reminder of lovely Southern Germany. Tschüss ~ petrarchan47คุก 21:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

thank you for this. Petrarchan47, you are making me very curious now! why Tübingen ...what were you wanting to study....of course you dont need to out yourself... coincidentally, I always dreamt to study in Tübingen, but never could. in retrospect a blessing in disguise maybe.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's beautiful there. I was finishing up my last semester of school, so my studies in Psychology were pretty well behind me. I was simply fulfilling a desire for adventure (and had a boyfriend who lived in Heidelberg, that's what I was actually studying). petrarchan47คุก 06:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 wow! and heidelberg isnt exactly near...what years are we talking about ? --Wuerzele (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's the part that verges closer to OUTing than I'd like ;) petrarchan47คุก 06:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason, you may not want to answer... but are you still in Stuttgart? petrarchan47คุก 07:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Haralson

Haralson (apple) covered in sooty blotch and flyspeck, partially removed, exposing healthy apple peel

Hallo Wuerzele,

weißt du, wie man Sooty mold auf Deutsch nennt? Bist du dir sicher, dass die Berostung / Fäulnis beim Harolson auf einen Pilz zurückzuführen ist?

Viele Grüße,--Kopiersperre (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kopiersperre, thanks for the message. nein den deutschen ausdruck kenn ich leider nicht ! Aber ich bin mir sicher, weil ich habe das vom agricultural extension service gelernt. papers habe ich auch rausgesucht. - habe ich sie nicht in sooty mold zitiert? gibt wirklich genuegend papers darueber. wieso fragst du? hast du auch einen Haralson?Wuerzele (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hallo,

sooty mold müsste auf deutsch der Rußtau sein. Dieser siedelt auf dem Honigtau der Blätter.

Sooty blotch ist auf deutsch die „Regenfleckenkrankheit“ (Rußflecken / Fliegenschmutzkrankheit). Sooty blotch and flyspeck (SBFS) wird von Pilzen aufgelöst, die die Wachsschicht (cuticula) der Früchte verschiedener Obstarten besiedeln.{{A New View of Sooty Blotch and Flyspeck doi:10.1094/pdis-08-10-0590}}

Beides sieht aber nicht wie das Schadbild auf deinen Äpfeln aus.--Kopiersperre (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Kopiersperre Hmm. danke fuer deine infos. dann sind meine infos vom agricultural extension service falsch? bist du ein botaniker, phytopathologe oder ...? ich hatte die anderen beiden seiten, Sooty blotch und Sooty blotch and flyspeck uebrigens auch gesehen und finde die unterteilung fragwuerdig.

hast du bilder ? wenn ja wieso nicht einfuegen? ich werde/du kannst das bild entfernen wenn du dir sicher bist, dass es nicht korrekt ist. gruss,--Wuerzele (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ich bin kein Akademiker, meine Eltern sind lediglich Obstbauern. Bilder könnte ich erst nächste Saison machen.

Vielleicht hat dein agricultural extension service auch recht. Ich bin aber dafür, einen weiteren Experten zu konsultieren.--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Kopiersperre, stimm dir zu. von wegen "lediglich": es macht doch nichts woher einer kommt. fuer mich ganz im gegenteil, fuer mich bist du lebende autoritaet. mikrobiologie ist eins, erfahrung mit dem makro-lebendigen ist ein anderes. ich habe ein foto von einem apfel gemacht,bei dem ich den "Russ" abgekratzt habe. du kannst sehen, wie der Russ darauf waechst, und nicht teil der schale ist. bilder könntest du "erst nächste Saison machen": heisst dass bei euch keine aepfel mehr am baum haengen, echt? hmm bodensee oder eher norden?--Wuerzele (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ich bin aus dem Alten Land. Was du auf deinen Äpfeln hast, kenne ich von Streuobstbäumen – in unseren Anlagen, in denen der Schorfpilz regelmäßig bekämpft wird, findet man so etwas aber nie. Und: Wir sind auch immer noch am Ernten.--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Kopiersperre danke. was du sagst ist genau das was ich in den artikeln gefunden und im ueberarbeiteten sooty blotch and flyspeck artikel zitiert habe. ich kenne das alte land leider nicht, hab aber einen kollegen aus Buxtehude, der hier im mittleren westen wo ich wohne, seinen garten voller apfelbaeume gepflanzt hat, "nur so"!

Hallo Wuerzele,

ich komme aus der Nähe von Buxtehude. Wo in den USA hast du dich eigentlich angesiedelt?--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Twinkle

Hi, Wuerzele. I've reverted your edits to the WIkipedia:Twinkle page. I appreciate that you're trying to help, but maintenance tags, citation needed tags, and the like are meant for articles, and this page is not an article; it's a documentation page for a feature of Wikipedia. It's not subject to things like the requirement for citations or a restriction against unencyclopedic language, because it's not actually part of the encyclopedia; it's part of the manual that sits beside the encyclopedia, and so there are different expectations and requirements for it. That's not to say it couldn't be improved, but you shouldn't approach it the way you'd approach an encyclopedia article, and in particular, putting maintenance tags on it is of little help. Thanks for trying to help, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Writ Keeper appreciate the message.

Re: "not actually part of the encyclopedia...and the like are meant for articles.. " actually, that may be your impression (ref?) but it is not quite true. even wp pages underlie a certain standard. I suggest you look at other Wikipedia pages, to see where things have been going lately. maybe the standard of the twinkle page just is (has always been ?) low.

ok, looks like you got the message: the page needs improvement. its ironic and proves my point of twinkle users in a way -:) you reverted every one of my edits, even constructive edits BTW ! --Wuerzele (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it could be considered ironic, since I didn't use Twinkle to do so. ;) I reverted you by hand, and with an appropriate edit summary. Also, while I don't doubt that your edit was in good faith, I must beg to differ on whether it was actually constructive. There's nothing wrong with reverting good faith edits, as long as you have a good reason for doing so and explain that reason in the edit summary.

Seriously, though, you're welcome to suggest improvements, and I'm not saying there aren't standards for Wikipedia pages, but specifically the act of putting maintenance tags on a non-article is not helpful. For one thing, those tags are designed for article space, and don't function properly outside of it; it won't put a non-article space page into the appropriate maintenance categories. The fact that they are specifically designed this way should be telling. As inclusion in those categories is a major part of the functionality of these templates in articles (otherwise, nobody would ever come along to fix the issues), the templates lose most of their meaning outside of article space. You can see in Wikipedia:Template_messages that the cleanup tags are all listed in the article namespace section; the templates that are applicable for the Wikipedia namespace are quite different. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

thank you Writ Keeper for replying, and specifically, the page for Wikipedia:Template_messages that I had not seen! i also struck my remark on irony because you didnt use twinkle. okay one last {small) thing i want to mention, but then I fold...

Re "There's nothing wrong with reverting good faith edits": say some (and ive certainly lived by that), but others argue WP:EDITCONSENSUS, Wikipedia:STATUSQUO, WP: TALKDONTREVERT say that reverting is mostly appropriate for vandalism. I do agree with that after years of pretty intense editing, maybe am having a change of heart, because I think a revert is unnecessarily aggressive on a busy page and, when someone has shown their willingness to discuss. ( in an unbusy page and when I se a user has a pattern of frive by flagging I agree a revert may be ok. fyi I had started a talk section, before my edits. I told you how much I appreciate your message, so your aggressiveness was definitely cushioned in non-aggressive language and the little discourse (maybe should have been on Wikipedia talk:Twinkle ?) was helpful, for me at least, dont know about you.

I will make simple edits - ping me if you reply there plse, because my watchlist is (too) long for me to see changes more than once every day or 2.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, I suppose my posts here did come off a bit aggressive; I'm sorry for that. Still, though, reverting in and of itself is not an aggressive act. In fact, your first link does acknowledge that "If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it should be reverted." After all, it's not like there is any way to reword a template! Reverts happen, and they're not necessarily bad. (also, I did reply on Twinkle's talk page, but I forgot to ping you. I'll just let this be the notice.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Drmies, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your post.

I knew that you two administrators were close: one got involved and attacked me, and then the other one takes the 3RR case and turns it against me, blocks me.

If I posted the above on your user page (plus diffs of course), plus telling you to "detach and feel the world for a while", would you call that harassment?

You think you can really attack a fellow wikipedian , calling a sourced post "blatant harassment" and threaten me ?

Arent you going a bit too far, administrator Bbb23? --Wuerzele (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Drmies

(edit conflict) with Bbb23. Your post on Drmies's page comes across as an attack, even if you didn't mean it that way, and that's a really bad thing on the page of a user on break. You see several respectable users have removed it, because it sounded like an attack to them. Don't put it back again, or you may be blocked for edit warring and disruption. Bishonen | talk 23:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC).

look, I am sorry you see my post as an attack, administrator Bishonen.

facts: I was attacked by Drmies on 9-15, as can clearly be seen from the diffs I provided. ( nobody ever told him to stop!!)

It had far reaching consequences for me.

Later I saw how emotional Drmies had been, overwrought.

today i noticed mies changed his userpage with a head in the sand cartoon. and i put 1 and 1 together. he's overwhelmed !

today people posted niceties on his page. and I posted what I remember about him, facts with diffs,PLUS that I hope he detaches and feels the world a bit. - and you come here call that an attack.

first say, whats your involvement with Drmies?

I dont know you. at least you are using no template!

as far as throwing the "respectable users" out at me, about users i also dont know: why should I believe you, who calls me attacking when I didnt? scolding me then demanding respect is a bit fear inspiring, besides being a bit non-factual.

when someone supplies diffs, you know where the wind blows: content. good evening administartor bishonen, if you'll excuse, i have to go.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement. Your behavior here is a really bad idea, and I encourage you to stop now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that reverting several times on any page isn't a great idea. I think the timing could be better too; this issue should be handled at AN, rather than a talk page, IMO. Perhaps Wuerzele felt this was a last chance to set the record straight, and anyone can understand that if a past block was inappropriate (I don't know the story, but have a lot of trust in Wuerzele, so tend to assume this has merit), there might be a feeling of urgency. I also think we should trust that Wuerzele did not see their words as an attack, cultural differences and all. Wuerzele, there is an unwritten agreement here that we verge on the side of caution when our words could be seen as grave dancing, and when we are in an open ArbCom case ;) You can be forgiven for not knowing these things. We all step on toes once in while. petrarchan47คุก 02:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Tox

I wonder if I could get the benefits of your POV at WP:BIOMEDICAL. So far, this has been written with the general idea of, "If I were writing an article about a typical disease, then..." One of MEDRS's important weaknesses is its failure to deal with toxicology in any sensible fashion. The "must have this" sources simply don't exist in toxicology. (Don't cite any studies in mice!) I'm extending the standard offer: post your ideas on the talk page or boldly edit the page if you want, whichever you like. The worst that can happen is that I'll revert you, and we'll have a nice long chat about it. I really do need someone who knows something about toxicology to help us address that subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

well hello ! Thank you for considering my opinion. are you a mindreader? it never occurred to me to go to medrs with this- I had posted my ideas on the chemistry page instead, see 'template should contain sections on toxicology and environment'. lukewarm response there.

i' m winding down after a long day -I only looked up Hans Mommsen who died today, and saw your message- will write tomorrow. this is something that truly interests/concerns me.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:There is no deadline for this. I've been writing that page for almost a year, and thinking about it for several. Take your time. Getting it right is much more important than getting it done. I've got your previous post open in a tab now and will hopefully read it before long. I'm determined to get caught up with the mess at WT:MEDRS tonight, but that may be all I manage now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the archived discussion at WT:CHEM. It looks like one of your interests is changing the outline for the pages (e.g., WP:MEDMOS#Sections, only for chemicals rather than diseases and such). That should be achievable, especially if you can show two or three well-written examples of what you'd like to see done. (We want people to think, "Oooh, I want my favorite article to have one of those shiny sections, too!", and they're more likely to think that if they can see how shiny it is.  ;-)

Do you know whether the GHS information is available on Wikidata? User:Leyo might know, if you don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Few Wikidata items contain GHS information, see d:Special:WhatLinksHere/Property:P728. However, all chemboxes in de.wikipedia have this information, except for cases where no such data is available. --Leyo 10:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that information from chemboxes could be imported into Wikidata by bot. From there, it can be called back to templates in the Wikipedias (with real-time updates) or used to construct a simple prose section that could be used to expand to any article. Are you confident in the integrity of the data on de.wp? (It doesn't feel like the kind of thing that would get vandalized very often, but you know better than I.) Are there sources included? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, WhatamIdoing let me reply to the things you brought up:

1. Re: "The "must have this" sources simply don't exist in toxicology." I do not agree. what makes you say so?
2. Re "page I have been writing for a year": which-WP:MEDRS or WP:Biomedical?
3. Re "It looks like one of your interests is changing the outline for the pages (e.g., WP:MEDMOS#Sections" Sorry i dont know what you mean by that. I dont see toxicology or environmental fate sections in WP:MEDMOS.
4. Re "only for chemicals, not the diseases": I am not sure where you are coming from (physician?), but in environmental health it makes sense to start with the exposure (chemical, physical, biological) and then one could work towards the disease. from a clinical perspective one could write a separate article only for the big 10 topics, eg lead poisoning, mercury poisoning etc. but for the vast majority of toxicants this is impossible, so human health issues aka toxicology and environmental fate (linked to human health obviously) should be at a minimum on the page of the chemical/toxicant. so again, i dont understand what you meant.
5. Re GHS statement data: it would be a start, but if you read chemistry page post i am not interested in the chembox, but in two sections, toxicology and environmental fate. I saw that James Hare (NIOSH) has been working with Tobias1984 on an import of NIOSH's Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. Of course occupational exposures are a subset of environmental exposures and it's unclear how NIOSH's statements harmonize with the GHS statements.

Thanks leyo. i counted 39 chemicals in the wikidata w GHS hazard statement database. maybe half of them have references in the form of a raw link to the sigma-aldrich ctalog. (!) I agree with WhatamIdoing if all chemboxes in de.wikipedia have GHS information, cant the GHS be imported by a bot that assigns a parameter to a particular GHS statement which then matches with the corresponding english translation? maybe there are too many parameters? (I wonder how Sigma does it, harmonizing english and german info in their catalogue...)--Wuerzele (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Numbered to keep track:

1. MEDRS deprecates non-human studies—but have you ever seen an LD50 study in humans? I haven't, and I don't expect to. The kind of sourcing that works best for diseases isn't the kind of source that works best for toxicology and environmental fate.
2. WP:BIOMEDICAL. I've been active at MEDRS for much longer, but I started BIOMEDICAL last December.
3. The fact that toxicology sections aren't in WP:MEDMOS (even for drugs) is IMO a problem. The fact that the word doesn't appear at all in WP:PHARMOS is a bigger problem. WP:CHEMMOS gives it two sentences, which may not be good enough.
4. MEDMOS is written for human diseases. It's got some other stuff in it, but it's really about diseases. Chemicals need a different approach, especially non-drug chemicals. CHEMMOS is the most relevant page. One way to get these sections created consistently—eventually, over the years—is to have the relevant MOS pages recommend them as normal/desirable sections.
5. If you have standardized information, it can be put into a template. But it can also be put into a standardized description, using sentences and paragraphs. Take a look at Mulberry, Kansas#Demographics: That was all "written" by a script that looked up the numbers and transformed it into sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

1. i understand now. you see everything through the MEDRS lens ! try taking the glasses off: "must have this" sources, which i read as reliable tox sources, do in fact exist. now tell me whats more fundamental: the real, existing source or the wikiprojectmedicine claim that a reliable source doesnt exist, because it disapproves such a source in its doctrine? this to me is folly. thats why I am not in the wikiproject medicine, which I see thinking it knows everything.
2. thank you.
3. tox is interdisciplinary. can we agree that toxicology and, BTW ecotoxicity sections (you seem to leave that out all the time) need to enter MEDMOS, CHEMMOS, PHARMOS? ecotoxicity is important to educate about additional exposure/ contamination pathways (air, water, natural products used) for all disciplines involved, ie medicine (+vet), pharmaceutical sciences/pharmacology and chemistry.
4. thank you for pointing out the CHEMMOS as the go-to-point. I didnt know about it. i can draft a proposal and would like your input/support, so it doesnt end up as on the wikiproject chemistry page.
5. standardized tox information? may be a future focus. of course there are, but it is fragmented, like 40 detailed profiles here and 275 files there, and further fragmented depending on the particular angle CDC (toxicity) vs EPA (ecotoxicity) and others for toxicogenomics for example come to mind. (i am unfamiliar w canadian, UK or australian repositories) we can talk about it. -i've seen the machine written demographic sections, of course, and think they are horrible, cannot imagine them for oral reference dose, inhalation reference concentration, cancer descriptors, oral slope factor and whatnot, but thats just me!--Wuerzele (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

1. My goal is to keep the lenses on, and to fix the lenses. MEDRS (which does not belong to WikiProject Medicine anyway) needs to be expanded to explain what an ideal source is for toxicology information.
2. You're welcome.
3. I would start by adding tox and ecotox into CHEMMOS. It's easier to change one guideline at a time, sort out any "bugs" in the wording, and then propagate it when we can plausibly claim that it's already accepted.
4. Post your proposal at WT:CHEMMOS, and feel free to {{ping}} me. Generally speaking, changes that seem smaller are easier to get approved, so I recommend thinking in terms of baby steps (or camel's noses and tents  ;-).
5. Standardized tox information is probably better than no information, and a variation on Cunningham's law might help us: the fastest way to get good tox information into articles might be adding incomplete, simple, automated (but accurate and sourced) information to them, and then letting people expand and improve upon it. With the help of a few well-written examples, we might be able to inspire improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Thanks for your response above. What am I doing? -haven't forgotten about the above, what i consider a "project" - just need to gather some strength.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A few months ago I wrote a proposal for writing about toxicology. Feel free to work on it. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

James, I wonder if you have thought about how to integrate tox information directly into CHEMMOS. I'd also like to have a good list of things that editors could/should include. For people who aren't experts in the area, but who are good at looking up individual facts, then having a list of individual facts that could be included might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the GHS issue: A large fraction of the GHS labelling data in de.wikipedia was taken from the GESTIS Substance Database (see Template:GESTIS). This includes substances that have harmonised classification (and labelling) according to Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation). The reason is that the minimum classification is found in Annex VI of CLP Regulation. This gap is filled by GESTIS based on additional information/test and safety data sheets by the companies. --Leyo 23:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Leyo, that sounds like a good basis for importing it to Wikidata. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not have the technical skills to do that. BTW: It might be a good idea to move this discussion, e.g. to d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Chemistry. --Leyo 00:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Spanish and Santa Monica-Malibu environmental problems

Hi! Do you know any people who speak/write Spanish who can add info to es:Distrito Escolar Unificado de Santa Mónica-Malibú about the environmental problems? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. interesting idea! i thought it was a school for the rich white and famous and not hispanic families... (?do you know?) i can take a crack at it and send one of my many bilingual friends to check.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! I believe they do have a lot of wealthier families (especially in Malibu) but there are also enough Hispanic families to the point where they publish documents in Spanish such as this one http://www.smmusd.org/complaints/UniformComplaintFormSP.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Somebody had started a Spanish page on the high school es:Escuela Preparatoria Malibú. I also found the Spanish handbook for SMMUSD http://www.smmusd.org/StudentServices/pdf/HandbookSP.pdf - Also the district's welcome letter is in both English and Spanish http://www.smmusd.org/superintendent/pdf/SLtoParentsWelcome091514.pdf and the Samohi profile is in Spanish http://www.smmusd.org/SARC/SARC2014/SAMOSARC14SP.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! If you have a friend who wants to do proofreading you can ask him/her to do some edits. Alternatively I can help you look for an ESwiki editor to do proofreading if you'd like. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

yes, please do, WhisperToMe by all means. it took too long for my impatient self to wait for my friends so i took a crack. why are you asking me ? i mean you are as good an editor as I... wishing you a good rest of Armistice Day (boldly assumming you are in the U.S.)--Wuerzele (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Griswold v. Connecticut

Hi,

First off, thanks for the offer of help you made to my talk page. I was curious what gave you the impression my recent edit to "Griswold v. Connecticut" was a test edit and therefore in need of reversion. I just made a simple fix (which was explained in my edit summary) to make the header for a section agree with the section's content.50.157.104.147 (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

thanks for writing. you are right, 50.157.104.147, I made an error and am sorry. reverted myself. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Wuerzele. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Summaries

I will continue to use edit summaries when they are necessary; that's been working fine for the decade I've been here. —Swpb^talk 23:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC) —Swpb^talk 23:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Swpb since you didnt in that instance you are telling me you deemed it unnecessary. but an edit summary facilitates working through one's watch list a lot. It's a simple form of paying respect to others. seniority has nothing to do with it.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I did deem it unnecessary, and I still do. If you want to talk about respect, start by not templating the regulars; that's never going to get you what you want. —Swpb^talk 23:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a quick reading of the section in the norms and practice document titled always provide an edit summary is order. It's linked on Wikipedia:Etiquette, among many other pages related to editing guidelines. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks 208.81.212.222 for pointing that out. I dont think that Swpb did though. Three more things I noticed: he doesnt follow other forms of netiquette, like indenting his comments or informing someone of a reversal by cut paste and finally he edit warred (reverting a revert )... 4 red flags .... lost cause? but i tried.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is ever a lost cause. Some are just a lot more work. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		You may be new, but at the root, you're trying to improve Wikiedia and educate other editors. Keep up the good work. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy page

Hello, Explain on talkpage ,why have not you re-reverted the DOB edit.I have given sites as sourcing. 2How to know copyright violation..i did not understand why that is copyvio... Thanks Happy sage (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Be careful when using automated tools to revert

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to do what you did here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed

• I have commented elsewhere regarding this, and while I am not familiar with you it appears this topic ban was an injustice. We have lost some good editors in this GMO issue, and I hope you will stick around. I did not have your Talk page watchlisted and have now done so. Jusdafax 09:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

thank you J. you likely dont know me, because i dont amply write on talk pages like our friends sageRad, Petra, ATSME, DrChrissy, so i dont get a condolence section like this.

rather than watchlisting me check my contributions- i know its more cumbersome; but thats how i learn to know and follow editors. besides now that I am GMO-banned i dont expect activity on this page. i've said this on the arbcompage: King and trypto are WP:not here if you look at their contribs.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

note that oh-so-civil editors KOA and Tryptichon, who smeared honey around Sage's beard on his talk page here are snipers, when it comes to me (same edit and check KoA's campaign on teh arbcompage for FOF for me etc). That should give you a clue of how they evaluate my contributions. --Wuerzele (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the arbs got it wrong on you wuerzele, while letting some who are disruptive off the hook. I dont normally edit in the topic area, but I am sure I will see you on other articles like Bitcoin. PAG based editors like you are needed. AlbinoFerret 17:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment is a clear and unambiguous violation of your topic ban. I urge you to remove it. If you are unsure of the breadth of the ban, I urge you to read the sections at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. You have also violated the topic ban on at least two other occasions since it was imposed. If you leave the statement in place, I will make a request that the topic ban be enforced. Looie496 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Looie496 Per WP:BANEX one of the exceptions to limited bans is asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban in the appropriate forum. Since arbcom gave the ban, I can think of no place better suited to asking for clarification than the board setup for this exact purpose. AlbinoFerret 13:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That statement goes far beyond asking for a necessary clarification. Those exceptions are not to be interpreted as license to use the arbitration pages as a forum for extended discussion of the topic. Looie496 (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I will leave that to the arb's, but background on the reason for clarification is sometimes needed. AlbinoFerret 14:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether the edits above fall under BANEX I guess could be debatable. These [15] [16] however are pretty blatant. It seems the recently TBed editors are getting a little adjustment time but I'd be wary about pushing it too much. Capeo (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Epilogue: Thanks, AF for your wise words. The whole section is tale telling: intimidate, accuse and assault and see what sticks. for me it was WP:BAIT, not worthy a reply at the time. obviously Looie496 and Capeo's accusation was wrong. it was false. PLus consider the double standard not posting the same threat on their friend's Jytdogs page, when he made way more statement (bordering on soapbox) says it all. But which ARb looks at such details? noone. --Wuerzele (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Not that we had a lot of interaction but as an inveterate "watcher", I was well aware of your work on this wikywackyworld we inhabit. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk, all right ! how sweet. I have to research you for adequate wikywackyworld seasons greetings, man...--Wuerzele (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)