EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN
Caution: This is a very powerful tool.
Handle With Utmost Care

Hello, David in DC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is one of the world's fastest growing internet sites. We aim to build the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopaedia in the world. To date we have over 4 million articles in a host of languages. The English Language Wikipedia alone has over 1 million articles! But we still need more! Please feel free to contribute your knowledge and expertise to our site.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Naming conventions
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Policy Library

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.
• You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David in DC 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive One: 6 February 2007 - 14 July 2008
Archive Two: 22 July 2008 - 2 December 2008
Archive Three: 5 January 2009 - 10 December 2009
Archive Four 24 February 2010 - 8 August 2013
Archive Five: 9 August 2013 - 18 November 2013

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consensus by exhaustion at Rupert Sheldrake. Thank you. I'm sorry it had to come to this, but our patience is exhausted. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Now, will you please close your RfC?
• If you want, we can all discuss and come up with some type of contained RfC that will actually actually have a chance of determining consensus on specific content that will prevent the circular re-discussions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. Please see the ANI thread. David in DC (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikibully.jpg
David in DC (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the shirt color of the victim has any significance. David in DC (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your instincts are basically sound. If you and Vtaak and TRPoD could confer and ignore the input of others I expect you could work out a compromise. You all seem to know what you are doing - the problem is the peanut gallery. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the encouragement. You're one of the folks around here I've come to respect most.

I don't think you're right though. Things would be less vitriolic and no one would have wound up going to AE if things were left to the triumvirate you've suggested.

But with TRPoD in the mix, there's no way it would work out. The peanut gallery is only part of the problem.

There's a basic tension that exists when a living person espouses theories like Sheldrake's. The editors who are most concerned that wikipedia not legitimize nonsense don't heed, and don't see any need to heed, WP:BLP. Refusal to call Sheldrake a biologist, and multiple reversions of the word, despite citations to multiple reliable sources, derogates Sheldrake, along with Morphic Resonance. His degree has not been revoked and even articles critical of him, plus numerous neutral reliable sources from the general press (BBC, Guardian, HuffPo) use the word. It can be reffed just as easily as "psuedoscientist." And both should be.

Similarly, the words theory or hypothesis are not magic. They do not confer scientific status on quackery. But there are oodles of electrons wasted and numerous reverts in the page's edit history crusading against using these words about morphic resonance. With all of the sourced material in the article critiqueing, dismissing, rejecting and debunking morphic resonance, there's not a chance on G-d's green earth that a reader with a comprehension level higher than 2nd grade could possibly come away from the article misled about morphic resonance. Biologist, biochemist or scientist and theory or hypothesis would not change that. It suggests that our readers are dolts to cling to the notion that they would. And a an arrogant dismissal of the important values embodied in WP:BLP to revert the words, time and again, with talk page entries and edit summaries that say "He hasn't been a biologist for 30 years", "Scientists do science, Shelly does psuedoscience. The two are mutually exclusive".

There's a similar arrogance, detrimental to the project, that causes Fringe-fighters to lump Sheldrake acolytes in with editors motivated by fidelity to BLP. It makes the BLP arguments easier to dismiss. IRWolfie got tired and frustrated with me for repeating this next part and I hope not to do it ever again, because I hope to steer clear of the Fringe-fighters who seem bound and determined to silence, ban and block editors who they cannot persuade. But I figure I can get away with it once more, on my talk page, responding to you: "We must treat living fringe theorists more gently than we treat their theories. Handling the tension between BLP and FRINGE in these cases requires nuanced, careful, collaborative editorial judgment. Binary, toggle-switch, on/off editorial judgment is especially poorly suited to these cases."

Again, thank you for the encouragement. It helps. There are a lot of ways I can continue to help build this encyclopedia. But I've tired of trying to correct the incorrigible. The talk at AE in the last day about "tip of the iceberg" and at AN/I about a need to go after many more editors than Alfonzo Green troubles and, to a certain degree, frightens me. And I don't need my hobby to be giving me such tsuris as it's been giving me of late.

Best regards

David in DC (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for giving the impression that you were one of the people I had in mind. I still think the RFC was not a good idea, but I appreciate your motives in bringing it forward.

Two comments: first, those of us who have spent much time on the Fringe theory noticeboard or watching one of the major fringe theory articles quickly come to have a deep empathy for Sisyphus. There's virtually no way to get the fringe partisans to behave except to get them banned; it's quite rare to come upon one of them who can approach their pet topic with some detachment. I wish it were otherwise: we had a long struggle over Ananda Marga topics with various followers who could have helped a lot, but who simply refused to do anything but evangelize. We tend to adopt an enforcer mentality because most of the time that's the way that leads to some resolution. Anyway, the second: when you have someone like Sheldrake, it seems to me that one of the crucial questions determining the approach to the article is whether or not the person would have caught our attention if he hadn't promulgated his theories. Noam Chomsky, for instance, is first of all famous as a linguistic theorist, completely apart from his conspiracy-mongering. I'm not so sure this is the case for Sheldrake; it may well be that he is a fringe theorist who happens to also be a biologist.

It looks as though any attempt to impose discipline on the article is going to fizzle anyway. Mangoe (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to offer me reassurance.

It's funny you mention Sisyphus, because that's exactly how I've felt trying to get even the slightest acknowledgement that derogating a living fringe theorist is different from derogating his theory. Is there some logical reason why calling Sheldrake a biologist or biochemist, for which there are plenty of reliable sources, or calling MR a hypothesis or theory, when that's what MR is called in plenty of reliable sources, is such an anathema to enforcers of WP:FRINGE? With those words in, and with all the debunking and refuting of MR in the rest of the article, do you really think there's some danger a reader would be misled by the article into thinking MR is anything but outside the bounds of modern science? Just how stupid would such a reader have to be? Because no amount of policy and fringe-wariness will save that poor soul. You can't cure stupid.

The absolutist red line drawn on the Sheldrake article against these words, their exasperated dismissal by editors committed to defending against a mythical danger, the repeated intemperate attacks against anyone who won't hew to an arbitrarily drawn line, the lumping together of BLP defenders with acolytes of woo --- none of this reflects well on wikipedia.

Speaking of that, upon reflection, I understand why the RfC was a bad idea. But the imputation of motives was wrong and wrong-headed. I couldn't care less about the comments of the first editor who called me out for it. He's shown poor judgment throughout this whole kerfuffle. But the next two have struck me as reasonable folk. And so I was persuaded to cry "uncle" and make clear that I regretted losing some of their respect.

But some of the more hysterical responses on the talk page, especially the first, make me wonder. Decrying an invitation to fresh eyes from uninvolved editors to look the thing over with sensitivity to BLP as well as FRINGE sure does seem to have scared some folk. One or two actually offered explicit condemnation of the idea, predicting that it would be useless or worse. If the principles being defended cannot be easily explained to editors who are previously uninitiated into woo-fighting, that calls the principles into question. As Justice Brandeis said: Light is the best disinfectant. I'm afraid the jaundiced, cynical view of long-time, veteran woo-fighters, hard-won through Sisyphian labors, doesn't --- when viewed up close on the battleground by the uninitiated --- look not too to be very many steps removed from WP:OWN. Especially when coupled with the frequent trope that editors who don't understand lack WP:COMPETENCE to edit the article. A few years ago User:The Blade of the Northern Lights and I helped prune back some of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN that the suite of articles about the World's Oldest People had become. I thought I'd seen the limits of incorrigible intransigence then. I now have a newer, and worser, experience under my belt.

I'll stay the hell away from it now. Life's too short and the toll's too great. But if you have influence among FTN-centric editors, I urge you to try to get some serious reflection initiated among them, after they've successfully "rescued" the Sheldrake article from the menace I posed. It would be well-warranted. David in DC (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did see your response, and I get a sneaky feeling I was one of the next two. I wanted to say that I am not a heavy hitter with regard to real editing, but am opinionated and find it easy to voice that opinion on Talk pages, but am not so confident when it comes to the real work here. My comment to you re the RfC lightly tripped off my paws and was perhaps a reflection on me as much as you. The advice "Don't lose heart" is good advice. Articles like the Sheldrake one will always be difficult, and our mutual interest in things fringe will always bring us to articles like it. As regards 'good faith' per my comment, I think that it was a bit rash when I look at it now. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was intended as an apology. It isn't very good, is it? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a very nice thing to wake up to. Thanks for taking the time and for being motivated to make the effort.

I'm mostly interested in biographies, so we may not see each other much except where FRINGE meets BLP, and even then, I'll be gun-shy for quite a while when I find an article with such a nexus. But I look forward to crossing paths with you in other parts of this great big, wonderful project. The only true markers of adulthood are the ability to disagree without being disagreeable and a sense of humor. You display both attributes, in spades.

As I said above, I do now understand why the RfC was a bad idea. David in DC (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need TRPoD because if you can persuade him, you have won. Try having a chat in a different context. I think you both want to do the right thing. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"An RfC" that would help determine whether the community views specific content as appropriate or not is not a bad idea. An "RfC" that asks people to put out their opinions about FRINGE and BLP about four paragraphs of content is a TERRIBLE idea. The talk page is already an unreadable wall of text of opinions and just collecting more walls of text of opinions could not possibly help determine any consensus about specific article content or how to present it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed it, but I've cried "uncle", asked to have the RfC shut down, apologized to editors whose opinion of me matters to me, and forsworn participation any time soon anywhere on the wiki where there's a nexus between WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE. I've laid out my opinions many times in places you could read, including in this thread. Guy is kind to imagine that I've got the magnanimity in me to have the conversation with you that he proposes. I don't. I'm feeling too bullied. Maybe it'll pass. But don't hold your breath. The shade of blue you'd turn by the time I recovered equanimity about our encounter would clash badly with your chosen color.

Please carry on. You'll not find me obstructing you. As Groucho once said: Don't go away in a huff. Just go away. David in DC (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I completely misread your comment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re. a point made above. The terms hypothesis and theory have specific meanings in science, which MR does not meet. It's a conjecture. Even Sheldrake should know enough to realise this. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The realty-check you've provided is welcome. I'm disengaging on a topic where my participation is not helping build the encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too. Lou Sander (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Barry McCaffrey may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charles Sheehan-Miles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• from a burning tank during the [[Battle of Rumaila|battle]] at the [[Rumaila oil field]].<ref>[http://www.sheehanmiles.com/about/ Charles Sheehan-Miles' personal web page</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askahrc (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the ping, without a watchlist I had not yet seen the statement by jps, nor the Carcaroth request-for-more-info. My statement has been slow going... as you might have guessed the 500 word limit is totally killing me.  :-)   Is there some kind of time-limit to Carcaroth's offer? Should I put some sort of "statement-by-74-in-progress" placeholder onto the page? I would have asked Carcaroth, and in fact wrote up a five-kilobyte list of questions for them <notJoking> <sad> <sigh> and then decided not to click save because maybe I'm not supposed to chat with the arbs 'privately' about an open RFAR... is it okay to *ask* them procedural questions like this, or ask a clerk, or do you know?

  Anyways, at least a *couple* of the arbs have sensed that there might just be some kinda deep and long-lasting sturm-und-drang stuff going on here. The bullying part is secondary; it's the policy-dispute, which leads to perma-frustration, which in turn leads to repeated incidents of bully-flareup, that is the key here. What is the meaning of pillar two, that is the question; does the WP:MEDRS approach, apply to *all* sources in *all* fields of inquiry... arrgh. Thanks if you know the procedural-answers, but as always, WP:REQUIRED applies if you'd rather get your cheese-grater out for another eyebrow-trimming-session, instead of mess with this any more than you have to.  ;-)   Hope you are well, aside from the ahrbcohm drahmahz. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know, but here's the approach I'd take:

A very brief "Statement by 74.192.84.101" saying something like: I'm preparing a statement that addresses an Arbitrator's observation that he'd like to hear from parties who have not yet commented before deciding on whether to take the case. I'll replace this placeholder and post my no-more-than-500-word statement w/in X (48? 72?) hours. I hope that's satisfactory.

A no-more-than-500-words statement posted within your announced time slot, focused on why this is not a content dispute but one of policy/policies that require(s) ArbCom's attention.

If necessary, link(s) within the no-more-than-500-word statement to questions of policy you'd like to see addressed if the case is taken, or other supplemental matter, said questions or supplemental matter to be posted on your own sandbox page(s).

Like the no-more-than-500-words statement, the sandbox page(s) should be concise enough to avoid a tldr response.

Thanks for your expression of hope regarding my wellness. It may simply be a manifestation of your signature courteousness, but I grok that there may be some kind of V. Michael Smith-type awareness (or perhaps its a morphic resonance-related telepathy-like phenomenon) in play, as well. Some drama IRL has been playing out hereabouts. It probably bleeds into my editorial judgment, at least insofar as my typing becomes more tart-toungued than I'd like on talk pages and noticeboards. It's why I'm trying to avoid them. But only with moderate success. :)

I hope you are well, as well.

Best,

David in DC (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No-more-than-500-word statement within 48 hours??? You are a cruel, cruel being!  :-)     Thanks, though, your advice is sound, as always. And here is a laugh-out-loud moment for you, if you would like a boost: I hurried over to add my placeholder... only to find that such a placeholder is impossible to add, let alone a statement later. The damn page is semi-prot, to keep naughty anons from vandalizing it, just like the Sheldrake mainspace! Aaarrrrggghhh.  :-)   If you are not averse, can you please post this "statement" for me underneath vzaak's? Gracias. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 74

This statement in a nutshell: I would urge ArbCom to consider this case, because disagreement about the fundamental meaning of pillar two is the root of the constant content-disputes, the resulting frustrations for all concerned, and the repeated flareups of anti-pillar-four behavior that are caused thereby. This RFAR page is semi-prot against non-auto-confirmed editors.[1][2] Please see instead — User_talk:74.192.84.101#2013-12-01_RFAR.2C_statement_by_74.2C_concerning_Rupert_Sheldrake. Thanks. — User_talk:74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:45.678, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are not comfy sticking this up there for me, no problemo, I will ping Carcharoth or some clerk or something directly. I wish you smooth sailing, both on-wiki and IRL. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks, appreciate it. p.s. And hey, quit reading the depressing Heinlein, put down that Martian tragedy and pick up something uplifting, Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.  :-)   That's *my* metaphor for wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great books all. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I thought you were talking about *my* little talkpage-novels. ;-)   Yes, great books, although Heinlein had the gall to prefer felines, rather than canines... turrible, just turrible.  :-)   Anyways, Roxy doesn't hold that against him, and *I* don't hold his gigantic computer technologies against him... the moon-cities of the future have *one* big honkin mainframe to run everything... arrrgh.

  And now, something completely different. For folks brave enough to delve into discretionary grammatical sanctions related to the provisional Irish Republican Army, there is a grammar-question I've run into. Back during WWI there was at least one, and maybe more, Active Service Unit(s), note the capitalization. Later in the post-1969 Troubles, there were many small groups which had a similar generic name, which was either Active Service Unit or possibly active service unit. There are various arguments based on what capitalization the Reliable Sources used, though even *those* arguments are tricksy because some newspapers would word-ize acronyms and say Nato rather than NATO and therefore methinks Asu rather than ASU. However, my question is different -- there is an argument which has been put forward, that says two adjectives and a noun cannot possibly every form a proper noun, and therefore active service unit must be lowercase except when initialized as ASU, similar to frequently asked questions being lowercase except when written as FAQ. Does this adj adj noun gambit hold any water? What about things like Special Air Service, which seems like a perfectly fine proper-noun-thing to me?

  Background, in the military jargon there is this concept of the brigade, which is lowercase and common-noun-generic, and refers to any organized-military-grouping of some fuzzy-varies-by-nation-and-time-period troop strength. Then, there is also the capitalized Brigade, which is used to refer via shorthand to a *specific* proper-noun-type individual brigade, such as the 137th_Armoured_Brigade_(United_Kingdom). Now, during the 1970s and 1980s and so on, the PIRA had a military-unit which was about fireteam-size-to-squad-size, of 5 to 8 troops. There is a dispute over whether those can be dubbed Active Service Units with capitals, mostly from what I can gather because they tended not to be numbered, and tended to shift membership fluidly, but I'm not really clear. Back in the day, during WWI the folks who *eventually* became the PIRA also had at least one Active Service Unit based in Dublin... and there is some claim, not sure if WP:RS or not, that other ASU stuff existed embedded in other larger groups. Anyways, apologies if neither David nor his talkpage-stalkers are interested in this grammar-quandary. Thanks for reading, either way; sarong for now. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I've noticed your recent edits to Daniel Loeb and on one of the edits in particular, you redirected Third Point back to his page until the page is created. Well, I just created the page under Third Point Management and was wondering how to redirect the wikilinks to the new page I created. Any help is appreciated. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meatsgains: Glad to help. I've turned the Third Point LLC redirect from the Loeb bio to your new article, wikilinked to your new article in the lede and put a "main article" tag in the Third Point subhed of the bio. David in DC (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for the help. Meatsgains (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. The arbitrators felt that the already imposed discretionary sanctions were adequate to deal with current issues. Failure by users to edit constructively or comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be brought up at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marsha Blackburn may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to have a friend. Thank you Billbird2111 (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who / what / when self disclosed, it's been redacted, and continuing to post diffs is not appropriate. Please knock that off. If you believe there's still a policy violation that was done please contact Arbcom in proviate (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) and ask them for their input on whether the issue constituted outing or another policy violation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my final comment on the COI string and privided Jimbo with a second perspective on an email he's received about me. I'm done. David in DC (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I find that harrassive and if you, as the fool you claim to be, are sanctioned...then you well deserve it. As for your fucking "scorn". I don't give a goddamn rat's ass about the shit. -- [Potty-mouthed critics name redacted.]"

I sure attract some odd fan mail.

David in DC (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA. Probably not...in fact that is an actual...no. LOL! But I would like to mention...it wasn't mail. I have never sent you any mail. At any rate I see you are not one inclined to assume good faith. That's cool. I do the same at times. But if you should ever choose to actually look through the history of articles and pages you may see your error. I should also mention I have no real issue with you. I have a very real history of getting over conflict and eventually respecting many of the editors that have a conflict with me. One day, perhaps that will be the same here. I won't dismiss it. I hope you don't either, even with your "scorn".--Mark Miller (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall use the word Sheldrakially. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of words that are not words, my wife (or as she prefers to be called, my Reason for Being) and I have come up wiyth the perfect one for the person sitting in the passenger seat with the maps on a long road trip. (S)he's called the "nagivator". David in DC (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey....I'm the spouse that nagivates. Its odd that GPS hasn't helped that much. LOL! Anywho, I felt obliged to mention that I self censored my uncivil response on WP:COIN. I was upset and didn't need to use that language.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Acroterion#Kerik There is a BLP former-NYC-police-captain and now former-federal-prisoner who was just released in October. BLP violations galore, by a couple editors on the pro and con sides. Want to take a swipe at fixing the page up? Acroterion is uninvolved, but was called in to topic-ban one side or the other (there is always a third logical possibility should the banhammer actually fall). As always, WP:REQUIRED applies if you are otherwise busy. Danke por improvising da pedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an Arbitration Enforcement Request "Barleybannocks" regarding an issue in which you may have been involved. --Iantresman (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in hearing your opinions as well David because although I understand you disagree slightly with the other consensus formers on the Rupert Sheldrake page, my understanding is that unlike some other editors, you understand that WP:FRINGE should apply to this page. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Barney, for your interest. I mean that. It helps me understand that the project still has people of good faith trying to build it up, and refraining from turning disagreement over editorial judgment into personal animus. What follows is more of an effort to explain myself to anyone who might be reading, rather than a diatribe aimed directly at you. David in DC (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I cannot usefully particpate in the AE complaint about which I've received notice above. My anger at how things have gone, thus far, has not abated. Indeed, it's gotten worse. I have nothing constructive to add. In my spare time, I've been trying to learn a bit of Kolinahr, but to no avail. My blood's the wrong color.

I've visited Wikipedia rarely in the past week, mostly to try to do my part to keep the pending changes backlog from stacking up over our virtual O'Hare. I thought about participating in a BLP clean-up brought to my attention by a mutual friend who has my number (or at least we all have his.) (See further above.) I could muster the enthusiasm only to make a single WP:OVERLINK edit.

I'm not on a wiki-break, but I'm scaling back my participation and trying not to get entangled in anything likely to lead to additional stress. For a while, WP was giving me a place to channel the black energy of my disquieted soul into what I thought might to a positive direction, but that time has passed.

The ongoing efforts to make sure no reader is misled into thinking Rupert MurdockSheldrake's most notable theories are mainstream science seem destined to succeed. The consensus on the talk page (and the important work being done one the noticeboards) to make sure we treat him exactly the same way we treat such charlatans as Gary Null or Kevin Trudeau, regardless of reliable sources to the contrary or the obvious meaning of WP:BLP seems to favor the success of that approach, over the long-term.

I think that's sad, but I'm done playing King Canute.David in DC (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Rupert Murdoch?  ;) --Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Roxy: He's a typo. :) David in DC (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Owner of the hypercorp News Corp, for the BLP-blackball-reference I believe David is making, see Citizen Kane which satirized an earlier titan of that same biz. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

74: Man, I wish I was that clever. Thanks for trying to make sense of my gibberish. David in DC (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, glad to hear you are working towards achieving nerdvana. Live long and prosper! p.s. Don't worry, that mindmeld stuff you alerted the borg about is *so* totally WP:FRINGE, and the article is not even in the list of pseudosciences yet! All that telepathy-woo must die, such ideas are much too dangerous for a gullible readership to contemplate, they'll just lap it up like kittens on crack, and Leonard Nimoy's BLP page must therefore be shamed! How dare he get rich and famous selling woo! Soon we will crush the pitiful vulcan religion beneath the jackboots of science, and burn their filmreels! Long live WP:SPOV! p.p.s. As you can prolly tell, I'm not done fighting the tide just yet. One anon, with just the nutshell-sentence of pillar two on their side, may yet achieve that wonderful event: consensus can change. But yes, it will be many months of pointless battle, until then. Perhaps years, though I doubt I'll hold my breath for the redacted WP:PONY *that* long.  ;-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

74: Peace, and long life. David in DC (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my suggestion for you, my friend, if you want to channel your 'mild frustration' into something ENJOYABLE first and valuable only incidentally as a byproduct of the fun -- hook up with MONGO, they spend time working on glaciers, the smaller national parks, and so on. Not the "politically" important ones, where the eco-POV and the drill-baby-drill-POV warriors live, but the quiet out of the way ones, where a giant fuzzy keyboard-chewing being can feel at peace. (Oh crap... do *not* tell the great MONGO that I just spaketh of their fuzzy fingers, please.) Put some of your refined skill into defending Shoshone_National_Forest, and enjoying a 100% requirement-free JPEG-induced vacation from wikiStress.[3] There are probably one or two Yellowstone cutthroat trout in that pic of Lonesome Lake, of course... but remember they are only File-URLs... they cannot bite. Maybe you'll enjoy the change. Heck, I enjoyed just *reading* the article. Luxuriate in the riches of wikipedia herself, it is soothing. Be well, hope this helps, thanks as always for improving wikipedia. p.s.d.e.u.x. As a wise man once said, (he was very slim), when trying to convince a pebble to fly: "c'mon, they're okay". So if you do go glacier, enjoy the challenge-taking, but don't sweat the distance-putting. Best, 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“Reliable sources to the contrary”?!?! David, the science of biology has wholeheartedly embraced genetics and utterly rejects any kind of magical explanation for biological processes. Sheldrake is the leader of an anti-science hate group. He hurls insults at legitimate scientists and recruits uneducated assholes who seethe with jealousy to troll his Wikipedia page. Sheldrake is no better than Trudeau.

Last month I told you not to go full Chopra, and you ignored me and went even further down the rabbit hole. Clearly your decision has not brought you happiness. Why don’t you just give up on all this Sheldrake bullshit, apologize to those you falsely accused of bullying, and rejoin the mainstream? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

76: "Sheldrake is no better than Trudeau." Wow. One is, in the best two-word description I've read, an amiable crackpot. The other has done jail time for credit card fraud, swindled a large fortune out of poor, gullible innocents by selling snake oil, been convicted and fined for that, continued his swindling by wrapping it in a faux First Amendment claim, been caught out at that, and been held in contempt and jailed at least twice for failing to pay his fines and secreting away his riches in violation of a court order.

You were wrong last month and you're wrong this month. But so egregiously, hilariously, incorrigibly wrong this time that it's kinda hard to take offense. It'd be like getting pissed off at a frog who called me ugly.

"Sheldrake is the leader of an anti-science hate group." Wow.

"Hurls insults"? "Recruits uneducated assholes who seethe with jealousy"? Wow.

I know this would be an inappropriate use for CU, but if anyone actually knows where 76 IRL can be found, they might want to check in on him/her. (S)he sounds a bit, umm, agitated.

Thank you, 76. You've provided a much-needed sense of perspective. Quite unintentionally, I imagine, but perspective nonetheless.

As to my saying I have felt bullied when I tried to improve our project's treatment of this living fringe theorist in our biography about him, it will be a warm day at McMurdo Station before I retract that statement. If the statement offends you, it may be a case of Shoefitz syndrome. But for heaven's sake, don't let anyone talk you into taking any additional meds for it. It could drive you crazy. Which doesn't appear, on the basis of what you've typed above, to be a very far drive.

But fear not. We mean it in different ways, but I shall, indeed, "give up on all this Sheldrake bullshit." David in DC (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t make straw man arguments David. I said that Sheldrake was “no better”. Both Sheldrake and Trudeau are hate-mongers. Trudeau stirs up hate against modern medicine while Sheldrake stirs up hate against science in general. Each one of them is, ultimately, a propagandist for the other, and so Sheldrake is “no better”.

Sheldrake may just be a harmless old crackpot to you, but he slings hate at another group of living people. After getting my biology degree I was quite surprised to learn that a sizeable chunk of the population is so overcome with jealousy that they feel the desire to go on the internet and spout utter rubbish like “evolution is just a religion” and “scientists are closed minded” and all manner of other bullshit. Sheldrake’s page may generally explain his philosophy, but it’s not supposed to be a platform for his hate, and it’s not supposed to legitimize him.

Though JzG and Vzaak may judge you by your history, I judge you by your actions David. You’ve been extremely disingenuous in your arguments about Sheldrake. If you really and truly believed that a PhD in biochemistry is perfectly synonymous with being a biologist then you wouldn’t be arguing that Sheldrake needs to be called a biologist because he’s already being described as having a PhD. Calling him a Biologist and saying that he has a PhD would be redundant if your “definition” of biologist is accurate.

Neither Barney nor Red Pen were bullying you. They wouldn’t let you have your way, and so you bullied them. At this point you sound no better than the Cowardly Lion crying “you didn’t have to hit me so hard”.

Oh, and I’ve deleted your comment about people knowing where I can be found. You know you can’t say things like that on Wikipedia. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Folks? Leave David alone. He's Good People. I don't agree with him on everything but he is not an agenda account and is a nett positive for any article on which he's involved, as far as I can see. Do not confuse David with the Sheldrake apologists. His concern is, as I see it, fairness, not a particular agenda. Remember: our aim should be an article which, whether the subject likes it or not, is transparently fair. Guy (Help!) 00:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Guy. I look forward to crossing paths with you again.David in DC (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Academic journal publishing reform, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Racket (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello David in DC: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 10:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

[4] And here's something weird: go to [5], follow to the poster's userpage [6], and compare that to [7].

All very interesting.

Thanks.

Best,

David in DC (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your input here would be greatly appreciated! The Cap'n (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My input might be greatly appreciated. It might, simultaneously, be roundly dismissed.

It would, most certainly, be unhelpful.

But thank you for notifying me that you'd mentioned me. As I understand the norms of the community, that's just polite. It's a courtesy that gives me a chance to set the record straight, were I to feel I'd been misrepresented.

I see your notification to me has been criticized as unseemly. I'd like to say I find the characterization surprising. I wish I could. All I can say is that I feel your pain, brother. I take solace in the fact that, in the long run, time generally wounds all heels. David in DC (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[8] EEng (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I haven't been around much. A prior notice took me to an earlier stage of this SPI. I think you're right. David in DC (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground Off of Rupert Sheldrake and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Cap'n (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration request involving you (Rupert Sheldrake) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. In particular, several arbitrators noted that the article is subject to Discretionary sanctions, so issues should be handled at WP:AE For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teh kitteh has to eat this becuz you got teh trout for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talmadge L. Heflin.

Bearian (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expressing this kind sentiment. I think things worked out well for all concerned. Except maybe the kitten. David in DC (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian: I tried to react to this post with good humor when I saw it. After a night's sleep and further consideration, I've got to say, I think this posting is unworthy of one who holds the admin tools. The article has sucked, apparently since 2009. It sucks a lot less now. I have no quarrel with your closing of the AfD. Indeed, I requested it. But thee's no way to look at your subsequent post to my talk page as anything but as taunting.

To quote Groucho, please don't go away in a huff. Please just go away. David in DC (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry ... going away now. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I found almost all of your edits to those by myself and others to be helpful. I have a few questions, however. I was originally drawn to this article by a mix of correct and misspellings of Stinebrickner-Kauffman's name in the Swartz article. When I returned to it, I noticed the request that a stub be fleshed out, so I tried to add useful info. Until I searched, found and serendipitously read the Hoyas article, I was wholly unaware of her dad's collegiate athletic career. It highlighted his play and I assumed that he might have been a walk on, which would have made his performance doubly impressive. He was a long way from being a bench warmer. "Star" seemed appropriate in that context. Her degree and triple major were pasted directly from the RS, though I assume you've correctly modified the description from a BS, since she would have gotten a BA in English. In the interests of accuracy, I'm pleased you caught that. However, I think that the inclusion of the identification of USAG Ortiz is important, as she was the Inspector Javert in this sorry episode, and this modern Les Miserables would be pointless without that understanding. The word "overzealous" was in one of the sources I supplied, if memory serves, and "overcharged" seems quite legitimate. Piling on charges is an unfortunate tactic employed by prosecutors to coerce a plea bargain, often even from innocent defendants. I don't know what her motivation for assumption of jurisdiction was, though I wouldn't be surprised if it was self-aggrandizement or career advancement, but by escalating from the likely probation Swartz would have received from the state case to a multiplicity of federal charges that could have resulted in a 35-year sentence and a million dollar fine I don't think it's difficult to come to the conclusion that she doomed that brilliant but vulnerable young man. In reading a number of articles about the case, a couple of which I cited (WaPost and the Boston station), the condemnation of her actions was virtually unanimous, save for the defense of her actions by her husband, herself and AG Holder. That trio minimized what may been the terrifying prospects for Swartz. I would speculate that he could have even gotten some information about the circumstances of incarceration since Stinebrickner's mother (see the Amazon cite, i.e.) is a former correctional officer. The quotes from "law and order" types such as Cornyn and Issa in the stories I read may have been generated somewhat by partisan motivation but I think they were legitimate characterizations. Lastly, this wasn't the first case in which Ortiz was thought by observers to have gone overboard. In the light of these points, I wonder if you might review your edits and perhaps restore some of mine or substitute your own? You've done a lot of work on this article over the past year and I'm certainly not going to presume I know more about the subject than you do. Thanks for all your contributions. Activist (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Activist: Hi, thanks for checking in with me. I'll lay out my thinking, but I have no corner on the wisdom market. Hell, I'm sometimes moved to wonder if I have a stall there. :)

Please take what you find valuable from below and continue editing as your judgment guides you. If you reject some of my reasoning and re-edit, and then find that another editor makes similar edits to mine, please consider taking that into account.

"...her dad's collegiate athletic career. It highlighted his play and I assumed that he might have been a walk on, which would have made his performance doubly impressive. He was a long way from being a bench warmer. "Star" seemed appropriate in that context." Might be re4levant to an article about him. Questionable whether it's relevant to an article about her. The spirit, if not the letter, of WP:INHERIT should be taken into account.

Also, "star" really doesn't belong in the article if it's based on your analysis of the events leading to his becoming a starter. WP:PEACOCK. If "star" appears in a WP:RS and you think me WP:INHERIT analysis above, it should be footnoted to that source. It shouldn't be there because of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR.

Did you read the Hoya article? I don't know if he was a walk on or not, and the Hoya's only won half their games that year, but he had a heck of a season. Activist (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I think that the inclusion of the identification of USAG Ortiz is important, as she was the Inspector Javert in this sorry episode, and this modern Les Miserables would be pointless without that understanding." I agree, as a factual matter, that Ortiz has much to answer for and I agree that the "Inspector Javert" comparison can well be applied to both Ortiz and Stephen Heymann. However, what we believe does not belong in a Wikipedia article. What's been said in RS reliable sources is what belongs there. A better approach is a simple sentence or two with links to the appropriate subsection of the Swartz article and, especially, to the United States v. Aaron Swartz article.

Remember, this is a biography of Stinebrickner-Kauffman, not a WP:COATRACK upon which hang repeat material found in these other two articles.

Stinebrickner-Kauffman was the partner who endured the prolonged, draining and oppressive prosecution with Swarts. It was she who found his body when she got home. By your reasoning, I feel, you might think that any mention of Lee Harvey Oswald should be excluded from an article about Jackie Kennedy. The trauma was very up front, immensely painful and personal for both women. Ortiz pulled a metaphorical trigger, not by homicidal intent, I'm sure, but certainly recklessly and negligently. Again, there are plenty of characterizations in the articles I cited and other reliable sources that support this view. I would hope you would read them before coming to a conclusion. Activist (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The word "overzealous" was in one of the sources I supplied, if memory serves, and "overcharged" seems quite legitimate. Piling on charges is an unfortunate tactic employed by prosecutors to coerce a plea bargain, often even from innocent defendants." Again, if overcharged is from a reliable source, that should be footnoted right next to the word. "if memory serves..." is a walk down a path you do not want to go. Overcharged seems a reasonable word to use too, but not in Wikipedia's voice. It needs a footnote. Beyond that, my suggestions about this being a WP:BLP of Stinebrickner-Kauffman, and not a WP:COATRACK about US v. Swartz applies.

"I don't know what her motivation for assumption of jurisdiction was, though I wouldn't be surprised if it was self-aggrandizement or career advancement, but by escalating from the likely probation Swartz would have received from the state case to a multiplicity of federal charges that could have resulted in a 35-year sentence and a million dollar fine I don't think it's difficult to come to the conclusion that she doomed that brilliant but vulnerable young man." will be taken by other editors as evidence that you're editing from the opposite of Wikipedia's WP:POV policy. I share your POV, but it doesn't belong in the article.

In the various discussions in RS about Ortiz, it was often mentioned that her name was being bandied about as a US Senate and gumbernatorial candidate. She seems to do nothing to dismiss that speculation or clarify her aspirations or lack of same. Her "overzealousness" (from the cited article, can best be explained by such motivation, but as you note, it mind reading and telepathy doesn't belong in the article and I didn't put it there. 19:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"In reading a number of articles about the case, a couple of which I cited (WaPost and the Boston station), the condemnation of her actions was virtually unanimous, save for the defense of her actions by her husband, herself and AG Holder. That trio minimized what may been the terrifying prospects for Swartz. I would speculate that he could have even gotten some information about the circumstances of incarceration since Stinebrickner's mother (see the Amazon cite, i.e.) is a former correctional officer." Go with your instinct to rely on the articles you've read. But, and I know I'm repeating myself, a lot of this stuff belongs in Aaron Swartz and United States v. Aaron Swartz.

"The quotes from "law and order" types such as Cornyn and Issa in the stories I read may have been generated somewhat by partisan motivation but I think they were legitimate characterizations. Lastly, this wasn't the first case in which Ortiz was thought by observers to have gone overboard." I think such things, if well-sourced, belong in the Heymann and Ortiz BLP's, not in one about Stinebrickner-Kauffman

Finally, a word of caution. The best thing you can do to flesh out this article is to find and insert facts unrelated to Swartz. The more this reads like a BLP of a person notable in her own right, and the less it looks like a WP:POVFORK or WP:COATRACK, the better. WP:BLP1E might be construed as a real problem with this article right now. Stuff about SumOfUs and about Stinebrickner-Kauffman's other notable accomplishments, cited to reliable sources would insulate the article from charges that the Swartz stuff constitutes a violation of WP:UNDUE, even if everything in it about Swartz is sourced.

As I said in my intro, I'm not going back to re-edit my edits, but I'll take no offense if, after reading all of this, you re-edit again. Please re-edit rather than revert. I wouldn't take reversion as the start of an edit war, but some might. Play it safe.

I will take another look. Again, I didn't come to that article with any intent to edit, and only did so when the facts led me to the conclusions voiced by major media like the Globe and WaPost. I edited the Swarts article as well, before making they edits you're reviewed. Like you, I'm a volunteer her and my plate is immensely overfull, so I'm not going to spend a great deal of time on it. Activist (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for all the policy-linking gobbledegook. It's shorthand, keeping this from becoming WP:TLDR and it might serve as a tutorial, to the extent some of these policies and guidelines are unfamiliar to you. If they all are already familiar to you, I apologize for an attitude you might find condescending. David in DC (talk)

I don't find it condescending and your thoughts are certainly useful with reference to this article, per se, and to the editing process in general. I look forward toward reading your responses. Activist (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and reedited, per your suggestion. I do feel the Ortiz material belongs there, to provide a broader context. I will look at the Swartz page and her own to see if any additions would be helpful there. I found the words "overzealous" and "overcharge" in the comments of many critics of the prosecution, including both used by John Dean in his Justia Verdict opinion piece title. I also found numerous cites about the subject's degree from Duke, but not what could be considered reliable sources (i.e. found in blogs and Linked In), so eliminated the triple major, reducing it to math only, providing a RS cite. My speculation about her familiarity with the criminal justice system seems to have been well founded as a prison issue was the subject of her dissertation and she has spoken and published extensively on prison and disenfranchisement issues. You didn't get back to me regarding my characterization of her father as a Georgetown basketball "star," so I've left your edit, but the word seems appropriate in that the degree of his athleticism for such an academic seems rather unusual. I'm not suggesting he was a Bill Bradley, but certainly he would have been considered for a D-league tryout or its equivalent in his era. You might find this interesting: ^[1] Activist (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Without a ref list, that cite didn't show - https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?0::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:49151

• I revisited your comments and mine and have revised Stinebrickner's description to basketball "standout." I note that he won the school's prestigious Robert A. Duffey Scholar-Athlete Award in 1968. Georgetown is rated as the 20th best university in the country by US News. Though Georgetown has had a long history of basketball success, only six basketball players of either sex have been awarded that honor since it was inaugurated in 1955. It appears that Stinebrickner still has the second highest shooting percentage ever, on the team. There were two other stars that shared the limelight on the team in '68. One was drafted into the NBA the next year and the second a year after that. Referring to him merely as a "player" would be a substantial understatement. Activist (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Checkpoint (pinball), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MPH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hollywood-Monster may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• starred [[Jason Lively]], [[Jill Whitlow]], [[Paul Gleason]] and [[Tim McDaniel]].<ref name=NYT>[http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/19631/Ghost-Chase/details Ghost Chase entry in [[New York Times film database]. Retrieved 28 August 2014</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hollywood-Monster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haunted. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to apologise for my behaviour over at Zoey Quinn for reasons outside of Wikilife I've been struggling to form sentences and getting frustrated because of which I seem to have been making a few snap edits without due consideration. I'm going to take a break for at least tonight and hopefully I'll be better behaved when I return. SPACKlick (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, here I'm working up a full head of steam and you go and defeat it with graciousness. Apology accepted, a thousand times over. I'm worked up too. We all are. We're trying to do what's right. Clear your head and come back stronger. I'm going to discover sources, deposit them on the talk page and let others decide what to do with them.

But now, because of your darned 'ol common decency, I need to go roll back some of my a-game polemics.

Thank you for reminding me we're all human and all deserve the WP:AGF. David in DC (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this article that might interest you. This is what happens when I get bored. 1989 DC Prostitute Expulsion.

I remember when that happened. God, I'm old. David in DC (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar ☥ 03:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This notice relates to Gamergate controversy, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and related articles, talk pages and edits, but note this this alert applies to all edits related to the area identified above. Dreadstar ☥ 03:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So as to not confuse this with my above message on discretionary sanctions. Dreadstar ☥ 03:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A case (Longevity) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're baaaaack! [9] EEng (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm honored that BNL used one of my descriptions as a summary of the past. I'm not getting involved in this shit any more. Between longevity and Sheldrake, I've become convinced that long-term engagement with well-meaning dolts is bad for my mental health. The worst combination in the world may well be: Absolutely certain and absolutely wrong.

It's good to "see" you but I'm not prompted to wade into this swamp again. Not prompted doesn't really describe the intensity of my feelings here. This may: I'd rather shave my head with a rusty cheese grater while chewing tinfoil. David in DC (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[10] EEng (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_(longevity_claims_researcher)_(2nd_nomination) EEng (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best edit summary of the day! —BarrelProof (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eric Adams. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edgar Fay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...to watchlist WP:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People/Article_alerts. EEng (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just been checking the WOP project page. Thanks. I'd backed off of this for a while but noticed the AfD's on some pages I still had watchlisted. I also noticed AfD notices showing up on a mutual friend's talk page.

Not sure how much more I'll participate for a couple of days. I'm not dying to wind up the target of off-wiki enmity, which may have already started. It'd aggravate me to look, so I haven't.

Thanks for your wise counsel about hugging old people. :)

Are you sure that being a patient of Katherine Hepburn's father many decades ago isn't inherently notable? :) David in DC (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your copy-editing help at White House Astronomy Night‎. I'm quite glad you're able to make the wording more concise, while not having to remove any of the cited sources in the process. :) — Cirt (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. David in DC (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more from other different sources discussing different individuals in that sect White_House_Astronomy_Night#2015_White_House_Astronomy_Night. Let me know what you think or feel free to copy-edit (just would appreciate the sources themselves being retained, but the content itself can be copy-edited of course). — Cirt (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it looks just fine with that amount of new content, for added balance. Would like to hear what you think on that. I added a free-use photo of the MythBusters. :) — Cirt (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks very much for your helpful copy-edits to the new article I've created, at White House Astronomy Night. Much appreciated ! — Cirt (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, shucks. David in DC (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Users_EEng_and_Ricky81682 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EEng (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is pending deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Butler (3rd nomination), filed 28 November 2015, which seeks to change the result of that AfD. Because you commented in the underlying AfD for the Annie Butler article, you are being notified of the DRV discussion @ Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 28, so that you may comment in the pending DRV if you so desire. For an explanation of the DRV process, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Also, please be aware that there is also a related Request for Comment regarding the validity of "delete and redirect" for AfD !votes and outcomes, filed 30 November 2015. Because you commented in the underlying AfD which prompted the RfC, you are being notified of the RfC discussion @ Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect. For an explanation of the RfC process, please see Wikipedia:Request for comment.

Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Thanks for your good humour. Have a lovely day. Deryck C. 01:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David in DC would obviously be familial with the Spoils system. EEng (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And stop calling me Victor. David in DC (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Shirley will. EEng (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

.

I really fail to see your problem.

He stated he's of Russian ethnicity. I referenced it. What's the issue?

First off, please put four tildes at the end of your posts, so that others can see who posted and when. Four tildes look like this: ~~~~

Secondly, you've been blocked for repeatedly inserting this material, instead of following WP:BRD after your edit was first reverted. The rules say that you don't keep reinserting it. You go to the talk page and attempt to establish a consensus. David in DC (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article talk page for reasoning behind redirect and comment/discuss there. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the reasoning. We disagree. My view can be found at the AfD page for the article. My guess is that it will all be worked out, one way or the other, by the closing of the AfD. David in DC (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is no talk page for matt Gunther,,it is true that he died,,i see you keep harassing people who put in the correct info but you don't believe it you say these sites are reliable and not! if they are relaiable why take is false?? drew270 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, please check your review on the above page, the IP edit has added unreferenced content (which may be correct but needs a proper reference and text in the body) and the IP's previous edits seems to be aiming to make it appear that there was no sexual motivation for his crimes. If a judge issues a sexual offense order and another removes it years later that does not change history.

Appreciated. Mountain^cirque 15:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mountaincirque I accepted it and then added a source. I'll go back now and reduce the sentence's prominence. My first priority was to source the statement. Thanks for your vigilance.David in DC (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Akinwale Arobieke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Mirror. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own the article, so edit all you like. If the article gets challenged, it won't be a big deal to me. I always figure if there is a New York Times Obituary or a New York Times article about someone it is typically notable. BlackAmerican (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David in DC. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

	The Original Barnstar
	Happy New Year and a Prosperous 2017. Quis separabit? 19:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

How would you like to do a GA review for me? My usual apparatchiks are busy. EEng 02:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EEng: Thank you, but I'm going to pass. Sorry about that but I'm kinda of buried at work right now and don't want to take on amy more responsibilities. Thanks for asking, 'tho. I really appreciate your trust. David in DC (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^[FBDB]I'm unfriending you. EEng 03:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...your edit makes it NPOV, but actually then it is only a recurring event, locally important essentially for the United States. I am somewhat tempted to lock the page and start a discusiion on the talk-page. Thoughts on that? Lectonar (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lectonar - I think that's a good idea. It looks like the conversation has been had on the talk page before, but I don't really see a consensus. David in DC (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Enjoy. I will lean back and watch. Lectonar (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits at Geoffrey Chaucer. The offending text additions are all copyright violations. I am sorely tempted to report the editor at WP:AIV  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello David in DC. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	Message added on 16:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

It's gratifying to see that you admit you don't know everything in your help desk question, especially after being raised in your household for 18 years. Love ya dad -- BNI Rejewskifan (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only thing I did not know. Now I know everything. ILY2. David in DC (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow reviewer! Yesterday you reverted an IP twice on Chino Hills, 163.150.226.242, who is currently blocked. However, today, 163.150.226.241 did an edit suspiciously like the prior two, changing the names w/o sources. As the 2 IP addresses are right next to each other, do you think these are socks? I was, until I saw that the unblocked IP's contribs go back to 2009. If it is a sock, then it appears to belong to some LTA sock master. And if so, do you feel that SPI is better than AIV? Thanks. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You already know more about it than I do. I'm not sure I've ever requested a checkuser. I have no objection if you want to make that request. I'm kinda swamped IRL, and won't be doing it. David in DC (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, clicked the wrong line too quickly. Denisarona (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Denisarona. Thanks for letting me know. David in DC (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia comics project has decided that using the terms superhero, supervillain, or anti-hero is not good as it is too vague and variable to be used in the lead sections of fictional characters. Also, saying "fictional superhero" doesn't make much sense, there are no non-fictional ones so it's redundant.★Trekker (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David in DC, isn't your username some sort of COI? EEng 02:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Marvel comic, silly, not the other guys. David in DC (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can have a COI in either direction. I'm filing an Arbcom case for sure. You just wait. EEng 12:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of your wiki-hounding. If you continue in this vein, I will have no choice but to deploy the comfy chair. David in DC (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! Cheers, ansh666 19:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David in DC,

Hope you're doing well.

I came across your page through researching the edits of a few music-related Wikipedia pages and wanted to get in touch as I'm currently working on a blog to discuss best practices / tips for Wikipedia and thought I'd reach out to see if this is something you'd want to be involved in.

Let me know your thoughts. I would email you but I already emailed a few people today and that action is currently throttled for me. Please email me back (on my user page) if you’re interested. Thanks!

CMCreator900 (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm a bit frustrated by the situation on this article. Could you please let me know what you think about my latest proposal ? Thanks and have a nice day Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Jacques Georges: I'm withdrawing from participation on this article. I've said all I plan to say. I've taken it off of my watch list. Good luck. David in DC (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's too bad, since I was hoping for some comment on my trimmed down version of the draft, but I understand. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you recently accepted an edit on this page I wasn't quite sure about. My question is concerning the grammar in the sentence "Was used to issue a false report announcing that Twitter had received a USD $31 billion takeover offer, the false report resulting in a brief 8% stock price spike of Twitter." with 'resulting' being the changed word. I think if we want to make that change, we should remove the subject "the false report" before so it reads "Was used to issue a false report announcing that Twitter had received a USD $31 billion takeover offer, resulting in a brief 8% stock price spike of Twitter." The current one just doesn't sound right to me, but I am not a native speaker, so if you could provide some insight which one sounds better to you, I would appreciate it. Thanks and sorry to bother you. Felida97 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felida97, I think you're right. I've gone ahead and implemented your suggestion. I also changed edited the final sentence. David in DC (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Felida97 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you have been involved in deletion discussion for the above mentioned article as well as in editing it. As you might seen, what I did is pretty much used the references you and some other editor provided in that discussion and tried to expand the article and include those sources. Also, as you might have seen, user Duffbeerforme keeps reverting all edits that are going in direction of improving the article, although he was proven wrong my the fellow editors. I am asking you, as obviously more experienced editor, should I take this matter to admins, because I do not want to get into edit war here. Thank you for your support -Plaxie (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)

@Plaxie: I am an admin. I advise you to read WP:BRD. Your next step, after being reverted, would be to engage the user who reverted you, preferably on the article's talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Thank you. Please see this discussion. Thanks for the advice. --Plaxie (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David in DC. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Couldn't disagree with you more re: leaving in the content about the online "jokes". Highly offensive, inappropriate from a BLP standpoint (in my opinion), and completely unencyclopedic in nature - offers no encyclopedic value nor does it help the reader to better understand the article subject. I'm starting a discussion at the article talk page. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. I'll start a thread on the article's talk page. David in DC (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kratom. 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.

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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You have made more than three reversions, including of 12 constructive edits, without explaining yourself. Please participate in the ongoing talk discussion if you disagree.Ptb011985 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kratom 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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.Ptb011985 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither edit-warring nor anywhere near violating the 3RR rule. You, on the other hand, are making precisely the sort of edits that pending changes is here to revie: POV, fringe editing which waters down references to fact-based science. Please knock it off, User:Ptb011985. David in DC (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your multiple reversions are protecting the official FDA viewpoint - which is not representative of the consensus-lacking overall literature - not science. The edits have made the article look more like an encyclopedia, with airtime given to all prominent sides of the issue, and less like an agency PSA or warning label.Ptb011985 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

Ptb011985 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest dogs article asked for specific page cites from Guinness editions. I went through my collection and found the one edition that mentioned that dog and gave the cite. Why did you revert it out? 12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12.144.5.2: I see your point. If you make the edit again, I'll leave it alone and entrust it to the wisdom of some other Pending Changes reviewer. If you think it might be controversial, you could start a thread on the talk page about it. I've read a bit of the talk page now and see that the topic of reliable cites is a live one here. David in DC (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I put it back,and it was taken out by someone whose talk page is not open for editing.What's the problem with giving the page cite?12.144.5.2 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. At this point, if I were you, I'd start a thread on the talk page. Longevity and what constitutes a reliable source for longevity claims tends to be a controversial topic. I'm going to stay out of it. Good luck. David in DC (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see that you are an experienced editor, so I'm surprised to see you adding unsourced content to an article, as you did at Bobby Lockwood. I'm even more surprised because what you added was a birth-date, and so a violation of his WP:BLPPRIVACY. I've removed it for that reason. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i think I would be at 3RR if I fixed this.104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means, don't. David in DC (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David in DC. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David in DC. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you recently accepted a pending change to January 26 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. All new additions without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I just wanted to reinforce my agreement with you drawing attention to the shaming language used in the comments. I cited you for my keep !vote and then changed my mind - hopefully that doesn't discount your opinion of me! FWIW, I think your side note is the most worthy comment there. Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David in DC, I have just stumbled upon the edit to Irwin Corey you made on 28 January 2013 at 04:59.

I wish to inform you that I think this edit is a work of sheer genius. Beamjockey (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I rarely edit any more but I remember how pleased I was when I was able to find a wiki-kosher reliable source for this. David in DC (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in Wikipedia's longevity project pages. You may be interested to learn that lkm512 yogurt has two different publications that describe it increasing mouse lifespan 95% and about 85% respectively. Yogurt starter is available at Amazon Japan. Also. I read that only 1/3 of over 49 biological health sciences studies at a sample could be replicated. That suggests the C60 95% longevity increase study merits more efforts at replication. That's particularly meaningful as C60 buckminsterfullerene has several other studies noting beneficial effects on fungi and algae. Treonsverdery (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]