![]() Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 Proposed Expansion
- 2 Antifeminism discussion on AN/I
- 3 RFC closure challenge
- 4 Thank you
- 5 Dalton McGuinty
- 6 Agim Hushi CSD nomination
- 7 Christina Hoff Sommers
- 8 A barnstar for you!
- 9 Echosmith
- 10 Thank you
- 11 Thanks
- 12 Speculation
- 13 Sorry re: ES
- 14 Regarding your message to me
- 15 Please comment on Talk:Antikyra
- 16 Please don't edit war
- 17 Umm... Not sure what you are accusing me of
- 18 Jerry Speziale
- 19 Hounding
- 20 Help, -concern about your edit on the AFP page
- 21 Discretionary sanctions notice
- 22 James Robison (singer)
- 23 Please comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar
- 24 Messy Article of Living Person
Proposed Expansion
I hope its possible to do the Proposed Expansion of my article suggested by Marchjuly. I know you worked diligently on this too. Thank you. Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Article inclusion of references greatly appreciated. The breast implant business, though nicely softened, is a bit one sided. Just please allow me to say this: the NIH was worried enough about silicone immune problems to convene a symposium in Mharmfularch 1995 in Bethesda, shortly before the NYT declared that the matter was settled. The Preface and chapter citations written by me were from the proceedings of this meeting in the series "Currents Topics in Microbiology and Immunology" published the following year. Would it not be possible, since this is a third party opinion, to state that after the NY Times comment in the article,"However in March 1995 at the National Institutes of Health, a meeting was held to evaluate the potential biological activity of silicones" or similar language and cite the Proceedings as cited below? also I had no part in huge awards; i worked for the court to implement a court-approved class action settlement, not any trial work. in paragraph two "the effect of aspirin on heart disease" (citation needed), perhaps more in keeping with the references which don't mention aspirin directly, one might state "the effect of platelets and thromboxanes on heart disease" instead and then cite those publications (2,4,6-11) in References section. Finally the exact reference for my membership in MMRF Legacy Society showing my name is www.gftpln.org/Article.do?orgId=757&articleId=15295 Thank you Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Kingseaon: Please bring this up (and raise future issues/concerns) on the article's talk page - there's not much point just addressing these kinds of questions/comments to me, because there are multiple people who have been working on the article and weighing in on it's content. It's really best to keep all the discussion in one place. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Antifeminism discussion on AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Didaev (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Have fun with that, I really don't think this is an AN/I-worthy issue. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
RFC closure challenge
The closing of an RFC in which you participated, is being challenged at WP:AN#RFC closure challenge - Cwobeel (talk)
Thank you
Hi Fyddlestix. Thank you for making me aware that someone was slandering me. That user's talk page was not on my watch list, so I would have never known had you not raised it at AE. I very much appreciate your diligence and concern.- MrX 16:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- @MrX: No problem! It was such an over-the-top (and non-sensical) personal attack, reporting it at AE kind of seemed like a no-brainer. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Dalton McGuinty
Dear Fyddlestix i know your concern about the safety of the Wikipedia but the article of Dalton McGuinty has a very perfect detail with a date prefix is not harm at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.79.32 (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Agim Hushi CSD nomination
Next time could you please check the origin of the material before you nominate? Wording like ""he specialized in pedagogy of singing...." existed on Wikipedia in 2012 and the website you are flagging says "copyright 2014". The fact that errors in grammar and wording are copied wholesale from Wikipedia that are shown to have evolved on Wikipedia clearly indicates the site is copying without attribution. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also - it should have been super clear from the website and the format that Wikipedia was the original source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@ChrisGualtieri: Fair enough, not sure how I missed that. I'll check twice next time. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
-
- No worries, just saw on it on the Dr's page and noticed the template despite him having no responsibility for the incarnation or the supposed issue. Wikipedia's informative templates are mean sounding by the way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Christina Hoff Sommers
I was curious why you deleted the last post to Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers. I disagree with the IP's recommendation, but I thought it was worth maintaining. Andrew327 15:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Andrewman327: Thanks for noticing, I fixed it. I was actually trying to sign the comment for the ip - no idea how I managed to delete it. I guess that's what I get for trying to edit a talk page on my phone! Fyddlestix (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Nice work on Jerry Speziale. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC) |
@Drmies: Hey, thanks! There's still a ton of work to do - it was a pretty bad puff piece to start, and this guy has attracted a ton of controversy over the course of his career - it's hard to figure out what to include/how to treat some of this stuff. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. Well, the article needed someone like you, and you have gone beyond the call of duty. (I get so boooooooooooooooooored with writing biographies...). Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Echosmith
You do not appear to be an admin so you really should not contribute to an edit war that you were not previously involved. There is already much discussion going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyth83 (talk • contribs)
- @Nyth83: I'm aware that I'm not an admin, thank you. Fortunately, there's no requirement that I be one in order to prevent someone from re-inserting a potential BLP violation, against an apparent (or at least emerging) consensus at BLPN. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
I am indeed an idiot. I have fixed the closure. Unfortunately it's still not going to please anyone. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- @JzG: Yeah, the dispute over that article is a total shit show. A "no consensus" result is unfortunate as it likely means that the dispute will drag on for even longer, but I'm glad that that particular RFC has been put out of its misery finally. Thanks for the correction and sorry if my complaint/explanation wasn't clear at first. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
I appreciate your willingness to help on Panos G. Georgopoulos. I always have some trepidation as to how much cutting to do in such circumstances, finding the right balance between a bloated c.v. and a reasonable encyclopedic entry. I figure unless the subject is Chekhov or Oppenheimer, a dozen publications should be enough for a listing. Which raises a broader point--do we have a guideline re: such lists for academics, or are we left to make subjective decisions on how much to include? I couldn't find any guidance on the matter. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- @2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2: Thanks! As far as I know it's a subjective evaluation - but if you look around you'll see that the "publications" list rarely takes up more than 1/4 of an article for most articles of this type, often less. If someone has a really long list of publications that are all notable, they will often be spun off into a separate list article, but this is usually only done for very notable and prolific writers/authors/academics. My approach to such matters is to take my cue from WP:BOLD - I guess some people might see that as a "bull in a china shop" approach, but I think it's important not to let wikipedia turn into a database of CVs. People are always free to re-add content if they think too much was removed. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Very best, 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Speculation
[1] Removing cited material from an article based on your own speculation as to where the reliable source took it from is not how we do things here. If you disagree with putting it in Wikipedia's voice, it's better to add, "According to TVQC, so-and-so later advocated for the use of violence...". Cla68 (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Cla68: I'm well aware of "how we do things here," but thanks for your patronizing note! I think you misunderstood my edit summary - I was not speculating about where the source got its information, I was suggesting that the source is not a reliable one, especially for content that clearly violates WP:BLP (accusing an individual, by name, of a serious crime, with only a tabloid-quality, obviously POV "news" source as the only supporting reference would seem to fit the bill there). I've raised this on the article's talk page, please reply there rather than here. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry re: ES
Sorry about that. I don't normally edit on controversial topics, and thus it doesn't even occur to me that I should be doing so. This issue has just really caught my attention. I'll try to use them more going forward. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your message to me
Hi,
You asked me to stop disruptive editing. the editing was personal accusations against me which is untrue and had no relevance to the discussion. If you look at the top of the page, it says "This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability." Therefore you are wrong to say this. Ibt2010 (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- @Ibt2010: The comments you deleted were a legitimate attempt to discuss the issue - you are not allowed to delete other people's talk page comments like that. Please stop. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, please provide source to rules why you can't delete swearing, spamming and defamation. believe you to be wrong here. Ibt2010 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- See here. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Hi, please provide source to rules why you can't delete swearing, spamming and defamation. believe you to be wrong here. Ibt2010 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Ibt2010: The comments you deleted were a legitimate attempt to discuss the issue - you are not allowed to delete other people's talk page comments like that. Please stop. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Antikyra
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antikyra. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Please don't edit war
[2]. If you disagree with an edit, and it isn't an obvious BLP violation, take it to the talk page first. When someone takes the time to add info to an article, it's very rude to erase it forthright like that and that's not how we try to do things here. Cla68 (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Cla68: It's very hard to believe that someone with as many edits as you can be this confused about what is or isn't an "edit war." You added content which I did not think was acceptable, so I removed it. For you to add it back without consensus would be edit warring, but my removing it is emphatically not. See WP:BRD. You should now seek consensus on talk before once again adding this (obviously inappropriate and unacceptable) "source" back into the page. Good luck with that. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Umm... Not sure what you are accusing me of
Regarding the André Marin page, I only have one editing account. If anything in the last edit I tried to fix non-NPOV that someone else had added but didn't spend a lot of time on it. The previous format had a strong voice that took away from a neutral POV near the end of the article. I'll take a look again to see if I can figure out what is going on, but I did notice non-NPOV, and did try to fix it. It detracts from the strength and balance of the article. Unfortunatley the whole thing started out very poorly and seems to be swinging back to non-NPOV from time to time. It seemed to settle for awhile but it seems to be coming back again. I'll check it out and see what I can do. In the meantime I'd appreciate it if you could point out specific areas somehow so I'm not searching all over the place. In addition I don't appreciate your insinuation that I have as you put it, an "axe to grind" although you clearly have one to grind with me for some reason. So in the future, please try to avoid flaming so what needs to be done, CAN be done, and keep your crappy opinion to yourself. Love, CheckersBoard. <3 CheckersBoard (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- @CheckersBoard: I have no particular axe to grind with you, and apologize if I gave you that impression. I agree that the Marin article needs considerable improvement and work - but I have noticed that a number of your edits, including these [3][4][5], among others, are problematic. They violate wikipedia's policies on original research, and seem unduly focused on adding negative information about Marin, while removing - or failing to mention - information that might be construed as reflecting positively on him. I urge you to review wikipedia's policies on biographies, on WP:NPOV, on original research, and on neutral point of view if you plan on making similar edits to the article in the future. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Jerry Speziale
I'm trying to get someone to repair the page under Jerry Speziale. Being someone in the court system, I have reviewed the page and see that information was removed about the case involving Lori Mambelli. Mr. spazzing out in that case was found and completely exonerated not guilty and all civil accounts. The page is making it appear as if he was involved when in fact it was clear he was not in the court transcripts and articles.
I believe that information and slanderous and making the perception that Mr. Spence yeah did something inappropriate with Mambelli. You clearly appear to have the best handle on these pages and editing and I am reaching out to see if you can change the page back to it without that information because it is damaging and a very big mischaracterization that could create liable for slanderous issues.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatricekerwin (talk • contribs)
- @Beatricekerwin: As luck would have it, it looks as though the information was removed by another editor (courtesy ping for @Mdann52:) just this morning. I think his rationale for the removal was reasonable and have no plans to re-insert the content. Assuming no one else re-inserts it, does that address your concern?
- I have spent far too much time on this article and am hoping not to make further edits unless there are further conflict of interest editing problems, so if you have concerns that weren't addressed by Mdann's edit, I suggest doing the following: first, post your concerns on the article's talk page, and then (if you do not feel that your concerns are addressed there), post a new topic on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. That is the go-to place for getting problems and issues with biographies addressed. Hope that helps, and let me know if you have any further questions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hounding
Thank you for your concern. I wasn't sure if you saw my reply so I will also post it here: "I am not attempting to hound anyone. Hugh has added material from and a ref to (what I and other editors find to be) an inappropriate opinion piece from Mother Jones to many articles. This after not achieving consensus at the first such, perhaps doing so as to make a POINT. Hugh was warned by another editor about this. He edit warred to achieve the additions. Having seen Hugh blocked and topic banned for similar behavior in this vein I think am less tolerant of the behavior. Having said that I will confine my criticism of this content to the talk pages and allow the behavior to continue in its natural ultimate course. I find my own edits to be close to edit warring as well and will revisit the pages and self-revert any that Hugh's editing has left."
- After leaving that reply to you I self-reverted at the many pages that Hugh inserted the material into. I do not want to Hound anyone. Life is too short. Thanks for your note. Truly. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- @Capitalismojo: Hope my comment on Hugh's page did not come across as too snarky, or as "calling you out" or anything - you and I have been on opposite "sides" of a couple of different disputes now but I've actually always found you to be a reasonable and smart editor, which is refreshing given how stubborn and un-hearing some people (on both sides) of those same disputes have been. I've been half-watching the templates and warnings (all from the same 3-4 editors) pile up on Hugh's talk page over the past few weeks and yours was just the straw that broke the camel's back and led me to comment, I didn't mean to single you out.
-
- Honestly I could care less about the MJ article and Hugh's edits. In fact, just between you and me, I'm happy to concede that the MJ article probably doesn't add much to those articles. But I am pretty uncomfortable with how a small circle of editors (all of whom were recently involved in a very long, very tense previous dispute with Hugh) seem to be following him around, reverting his edits, and generally poking him with a stick wherever they can. Even if there are legit issues with Hugh's behavior/edits, it just feels... wrong, to see the same 3-4 people constantly warning and reverting him. If y'all really see his edits across multiple articles as such a big problem that he needs to constantly be reverted, watched, and warned, I suggest reporting him to ANI, flagging an un-involved admin about it, or raising it on a noticeboard rather than trying to deal with it yourselves. It just looks/feels wrong to me to see someone getting followed around like that.
-
- Anyways, like I said I've got zero interest in getting involved in this dispute, and I meant my comment over there as friendly advice rather than a warning or a reprimand, I hope it didn't come across that way. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- No, it is greatly and warmly appreciated. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
-
Help, -concern about your edit on the AFP page
Fyddlestix, Sorry to bother you this way. I saw that when you made this recent edit to the AFP page [[6]] you removed the synthesis tag that A. Rubin added. I'm not sure you addressed his claims but I didn't want to revert your edit and figured it was better to ask here vs on the talk page. I didn't fully follow AR's in line note so if you feel like you did address it that is fine. If not would you please add the note back in? Thanks and again, sorry to bother you on your talk page. Springee (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Springee: It's no bother, and no need to start with a "sorry!" As I understood it, Arthur's concern was that the article seemed to claim that AFP's interest aligned completely with those of the Koch brothers, when he did not see evidence of that in the sources, and had seen evidence elsewhere that some of AFP's policy positions might not jive with the Koch's business interests. I took a while to look at the sentence and the sources again, and it seemed to me that his concern could be easily addressed by changing the wording; some of AFPs policy planks do align with the Koch brothers interests, and multiple RS state that very clearly. But to state that all of its policy positions do is over-reaching, especially since some of the RS (like Skopcol) note that AFP is willing to support & be supported by a wide range of people/positions to achieve its main goals.
- I do think my edit fixed the issue that Arthur identified - he also "thanked" me for the edit, which to me suggests that he is ok with the revised wording (and thus the removal of the note). If I'm wrong about that, or if people still think there's a synth issue there (I don't), then it can be raised on the article talk page. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK! I understand your changes now and agree that would address the problem. Given all that is going on I figured it was better to ask first vs edit first and then find that I was working from a false impression. Springee (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate that! Fyddlestix (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK! I understand your changes now and agree that would address the problem. Given all that is going on I figured it was better to ask first vs edit first and then find that I was working from a false impression. Springee (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notice
![]() |
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
--slakr\ talk / 03:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
James Robison (singer)
Just so you know, I reinstated the CSD tag on the article because the creator's talk page shows that s/he keeps posting the same article under slightly different names; in addition, it looks like it was copypasted from somewhere (complete with reference numbers in brackets). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Erpert:, thanks - appreciate it! I only removed the "no context" tag cause the criteria no longer applied, was going to revisit later and see if it still needed tagging - glad you beat me to it! Fyddlestix (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Messy Article of Living Person
Just wanted to thank Fyddlestix for the response (Living Persons article, Andre Marin), I think I understand better now and appreciate it. I admit, for some entries I became a bit rushed, lazy and impatient (eep) sorry. I wanted to skip editing the article but kept coming back because it bothers me to leave it; I don't like that unfinished feeling.
On the upside I did find a source that was neutral on a controversial and seeming non-POV entry by another editor, but was hesitant to go ahead with it, it meant deleting someone elses entry and I don't think wiki likes that, neg points! But I think it needs to be added.
In addition, there is another problem, don't know if you have encounterd this anywhere before, but there were quotes inserted from a video that had been published on YouTube; I saw the video, and one question entered in the article (by another editor) was supposedly from the video, but was never even asked. I saw the video myself and I'm almost positive the quotation is false. But I'm also worried I may just not have heard it. I don't want to encourage anyone to numb their minds by watching this long 30 min video (it's very dry stuff), but I don't think it belongs in the article at all. I have my doubts.
Sorry to bother you, just wondering if anyone has any ideas how to go about this one? It seems pretty tricky. I want to see if I can figure this out in case I come across this problem again somewhere else. Thanks for your help, I appreciate it! Hope I don't take up too much of your time - Love, Checkersboard :) CheckersBoard (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)