DKqwerty

Welcome

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You know, I've been editing here since 2005. I don't understand why, after an admittedly long time without edits, I'm suddenly being welcomed to Wikipedia in 2009 like a child. DKqwerty (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC) DK, from [here] I can show you that you make one edit in 2006, 6 in 2007, and 11 in 2008. If you want to go around fucking, blowing and calling people idiots you will be blocked out forever. You seem quite articulate. I guarantee you that 50% of wiki-editing is to do with keeping casual editors from fucking, blowing, calling idiots, writing rubbish for fun, etc... Here is a list of links for you by User:Squeakbox:- ~ R.T.G 14:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Believe me, I know, I spend most of my time here reverting vandalism and very little time contributing. To clarify, I also made several edits under an IP account in 2005 which don't show up in my user manifest. I apologize for saying your post in the Voyager Talk page made you sound like an idiot, but it really was a very unintelligent post that was written in the style (or lack thereof) of blog posts or AIM conversations. I did not mean to offend but to only point out my interpretation. I will try to refrain from such inflammatory language in the future. Since you're clearly an experienced Wikipedian, I hope to also seek your guidance on a few things in the near future. DKqwerty (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I will try to answer anything you like or at least point you in the right direction. Why don't you just wipe out the stuff I said here and the bit where you give out about the welcome or you will see it every time you are on talk. GLuck ~ R.T.G 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Paroxetine has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did and why. Thank you. Regarding this reversion, please do not characterize good-faith editing as WP:Vandalism. Remember that one of Wikipedia's core guidelines is Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Dynaflow babble 11:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey DK. I appreciate your good faith discussion. I actually did add a source if you look at the history. There are of course lots more. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Your single reference made no mention of interrogation polices, Guantanamo Bay, or his spending plans and only pertains to his associations. Therefore, it does not support most of your addition. It does not matter how many more there are, and if there are "lots more", please find them and cite them before making such additions. DKqwerty (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC) In that case wouldn't it make more sense to remove mention of interrogation polices and Guantanamo Bay? I think it does include mention of his fiscal approach. Are you disputing that Republicans and Conservatives don't agree with his policies on Guantanamo Bay and interrogation? Cheney just made a lot of news with a speech about the issue and it was a point of difference throughout the 2008 campaign. Can we work together to include some balance and content that isn't laudatory? What do you think are the most notable criticisms or controversies? Let's include them so we abide by NPOV. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC) It doesn't matter if we agree (which of course I do in thei regard) per WP:NOR. Find some references and you're free to add it. Remember that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources unless "the contributing editor states the fact in a manner that does not present an interpretation of the fact (original research) which is not itself explicitly contained in the primary source" (i.e. Dick Cheney's interviews do not constitute reliable consensus criticism in-and-of themselves) per WP:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources. Keep in mind, I do not make very many additions to articles, especially one's as heated and debated as the one we are disscussing. I simply revert vandalism and additions which go against established Wikipedia policies. I will continue to do so with any edit you make that does not adhere to said policies. DKqwerty (talk) You were right about the spending bit, I had misread it because the word spending was included but in a different context. This story includes many of the same criticisms including a statement that "they also pounded Mr Obama over his tax and economic plans". I'm happy to compromise and work out appropriate wording and citations and whatever. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Technical errors

This is all relative.

see Atherosclerosis: 21:17, May 24, 2009 DKqwerty (talk | contribs) m (81,558 bytes) (Undid good faith edit by MAlvis: if it contains technical errors, of what value is it?; no need for such overt placement) (undo)

The reference is much better than most (because it is multimedia), and more accurate (actual natual history of the disease) than most, including the image on the wikipedia page about atherosclerosis.

Wikipedia itself has many technical errors, though it is fairly good on the whole (and widely accessible), else I would not be involved or waste my time on it.

As a practicing interventional cardiologist, very well informed on the issues from multiple aspects, including state-of-the-art basic science research findings, and long working to eliminate the use of/need for physical interventions to treat the symptoms of atherosclerosis and most cardiovascular diseases (well before people have any symptoms) with increasing success, I am fairly well informed and find very few references which are all that accurate and thus mislead.

While I know the multiple technical errors and correct them (in writing) with people I see a patients, the issues are well beyond what most physician editors on wikipedia are willing to accept and I am tired of fighting with some of these people, particularly one individual in England, who decline to accept research and clinical evidence as proof until several years to decades old, widely publicized and commonly accepted. Thus I have not bothered to offer the more advanced, integrated and more correct presentation of issues I provide patients via the wikipedia site. Such issues and human conflicts are not new; they are age old.

If you look me up under physician ratings, by patients (anonymous, I don’t know who they are), on the net, you may get an idea of where I am coming from.

Respectfully, M Alvis

So you are the Big Brother of atherosclerosis and macular degeneration (with an apology now included)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Care to explain those removals? You even claimed the MD link didn't mention MD - very ironic. I didn't see much wrong with those sections, not at least meriting a total removal. If you don't integrate some of the texts back into the article, I'll figure a way to make them legitimate, but like I said, total removal of those sections is very much uncalled for. Otvaltak (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC) You need a third party source. Simply propping up fringe theories with the theorists' website as source is not reliable sourcing. In addition, much of what you added to the atherosclerosis page is a direct, word-for-word copy-and-paste from the webpage; this is of course plagerism and a copyright violation. Your additions also gave undo weight to a first-party source without any reputable, third-party verification and sounded mostly like an advertisement for SENS. Without third-party verification, such information is at best speculation and adds nothing to the articles; in fact, it detracts from them. Your comments to me here are also very contentious; "I'll figure [out] a way to make them legitimate" exemplifies this. As long as the SENS page is your only source for such information, it will be reverted (if not by me, someone else). Calling me "big brother" will not deter me from reverting any changes made to articles which are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest looking at your talk page and familiarizing yourself information contained at the top. Your constructive participation in Wikipedia is always welcome. But if you continue to make edits which seem more like advertisements for SENS, I will submit you as having a conflict of interest. Thank you. DKqwerty (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry. I just feel frustrated that the whole sections were removed, but I'll wait until there's a third party source (ie. an article or scientific publication) so that the sections can be added without an apparent conflict of interest. I apologize. Otvaltak (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

French fries editing

Excuse us here at the UWEC, but in actual truths, we actually were not really testing-we were partly redesigning certain portions of French fries, and we'd never purposely vandalize any articles. Sorry of the mistake-please give us any insights or view you have on the article portion we edited. We represent University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire-in the reality, testings aren't what we are here doing. Please help us out so that the testing notes will not pop onto our college usertalk pages again. We're sorry for inconvenience caused by that editing we did with "French fries." What was the problem?

The UWEC at 173.19.119.172 (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

By Jonasan

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, I am a very awkward, I am very straight forward and random. And no, I do not see it as conflict of Interests. I love my neighbor and my enemy, but I do not follow their steps nor their beliefs. I DO NOT DISCRIMINATE, I am not a hypocrite. I am a Republican, and believe in Republican and Christian values. The band t.A.T.u. is my favorite band, i love their music not their actions. I have proof that Barack Obama is a Muslim, but I can not express myself. I believe my Freedom of Speech and Right are violated. I edited United States of America showing that it was formed under Christian founders, but they deleted my sentences and say I just committed vandalism. I believe Wikipedia is not being fair to me, i can not edit or show my point of view, only the others. JonasanRat7 (talk)JonasanRat7 —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC). Your freedom of speech is protected from censorship by the government, no one else. Wikipedia is not the government and reserves the right to maintain the quality of its content. Regarding the YouTube video you tried to add, if you had even bothered to read the video's description, you'd have realized, "It is as clear as day that he's putting sarcastic quotes around 'my Muslim faith' since the entire question is about his (actual) Christian faith." You are trying to give undo weight to your interpretation of Obama's words, nothing more. I guarantee that if you continue to post this video in the article, you will be blocked from editing by an admin. Please try to be reasonable in the future and think before you edit. DKqwerty (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC) You know, you are free to stop at any time. You're not making any sense. Do YOU know Obama's religion? If not, it's fair game to anyone who wants to try and guess...or prove... Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, Christianity. Source: Barack Obama. DKqwerty (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Does everyone tell the truth all the time? NO. and Muslims are allowed to lie to advance the cause of their religion. Of course he wouldn't want anyone to know if he was Muslim because he'd be in t-r-o-u-b-l-e. Hmm...Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC) It must be scary living in a paranoid, delusional world. (And please try to keep these discussions linear.) DKqwerty (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC) offending me, "DKqwerty" JonasanRat7 (talk)JonasanRat7 In what way have I offended you? DKqwerty (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I believe your a fake, i mean are you really an administrator? ur so mean, what did i do? are you atheist? u act like 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonasanRat7 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC) (EC-OD)To everyone involved, this conversation doesn't really appear to be going anywhere, and certainly doesn't appear to be geared towards helping to create an encyclopedia. I'll politely suggest that this conversation just stop before we get too deep into insults and personal attacks. I see Swimmerfreak has retracted one of his comments, good for him. Good luck in the future to everyone involved. Dayewalker (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC) June 2009 Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to User talk:DKqwerty. You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Wikipedia. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC) ANI notice Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is JonasanRat7. Thank you.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

AN/I case

Thanks for weighing in on the Dr90s issue at AN/I. It's depressing going back through the history of this Dr90s character. I only became involved in the matter 6 months ago but his history as far as I can trace it goes back to at least May 2008. In looking back like this, I see a lot of trouble from this guy and in some cases it appears he has contributed to the retirement of valuable and productive editors like User:The Prince of Darkness. As this retired editor's "farewell message" says, "I developed stress and often became very angry or depressed by having edit wars and pointless discussions with other editors. I'm also very tired of having to revert vandalism done by IP addresses (if only registration was required...). So what I really need to do is leave, because I don't think Wikipedia is good for my health." Judging by earlier unsuccessful Dr90s reports like this, it appears clear that Dr90s' tendentious editing style has done serious damage to Wikipedia. I have lost the optimism I once had on the issue, and I honestly don't think we'll ever be free of this obsessed guy. My goal now is to build up tools that normal editors can use to rid us of his corrupting influence. The AN/I sanction is an important step since it makes Sockpuppet reports easier to file. I appreciate your support in the matter greatly. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making the newest report to Tan. I appreciate it. I was trying to assume good faith back at OoT despite the pretty obvious indications that it was Dr90s. I'm worried that the admins are getting sick of me so I thought I'd wait for someone else to do the reporting this time. I think it's about time for me to take a bit of vacation from Dr90s articles. The whole thing is such a waste of time and energy. Feel free to contact me with anything regarding this guy if you need any help. I'll be sure to respond if I'm around. Good luck, -Thibbs (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! / Rick Roll

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In this edit, [1] you added a See also reference to a non existing page. There's a Wikipedia note about doing so at WP:ALSO; it's recommended not to link to uncreated pages in See also sections. Thanks, and good editing! Newportm (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Dude, I didn't add anything to "See also" on that page, Yu-Gi-Oh is not my thing. All I did was revert a RickRoll someone had posted on a bunch of pages. DKqwerty (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I see what you say. Thanks for your help and for straightening me out on that. Newportm (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Space exploration

Please explain your edits in this artile and what do you consider 'unsourced'?--MathFacts (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction‎ - edit "warring"

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Replied from here Since July 1 you trying to stalk me down (although the truth is was on your side, since this revert), that it's saying about you something... haha just kidding :), but seriously - why 96% of your edits are just reverts of other wiki users with obvious reasons like "vandalism" although no vandalism has happened. Maybe are you just frustrated, or maybe you will be just some troller who likes and does his "job" for joy :), but remember my fella, be BOLD - this isn't some website for bullying, but for knowledge ;). To the point, your comment on your revert was: "Undid persistent edit by RockandDiscoFanCZ per WP:RS: other wikis are not reliable sources; contentious editing per "hahaha" in comment" (damn, on last line you're so robotic :D) O RLY? folowing site is "that other wiki"? http://www.comicvine.com/miyuki/29-46449/gallery/108-10205/74991-miyuki/105-168807/ .. haha, this joke was perfect! ;D and now source. That source saying: "Miyuki is a character from the manga/anime Yu Yu Hakusho. She is a transgender member of the demon triad, a group of demons warriors that work for the Toguro Brothers. Appearing to be an beautiful young woman, Yusuke discovers while fighting her that she is physically male." comicvine.com - it's seems to be a fine website, not blog, not TOW, but some notable (seems to be) website. So where is the catch or problem? ;) Maybe, problem is not on side of me, but on side of you, sorry it's nothing personal. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC) From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Comic Vine clearly does not meet this burden of verification. Please refrain from using it or any other open Wiki as a source. And for the record, I did assume good faith; had I not, I would have summarized your edits as "vandalism". DKqwerty (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC) w-waaait.. open? Maybe ([2])... but wiki? That site doesn't support MediaWiki device, so what? ;) By the way, have you recognize that, that "List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction" list doesn't have so many sources? Big Gay Al from South Park is gay? Unsourced - I can't trust to that list, maybe Big Gay Al character is heterosexual .. Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell from Prison Break was bisexual? Unsourced Where is some references about it, huh? ;) Irwin from The History Boys was gay? Unsourced What a nonsence, where are references about it? Hmm? So best solution is remove that list, because statements have no references. I get it! Yeah :D .. etc.. I know what will you say: YYH is some sh t, that nobody cares about (and that's main - nobody knows it).. so Notability wiki thing. and I will say: Say what? explanation: for example, see line Richard Cosway - Jefferson in Paris - Gay - Film, but where's on the Jefferson in Paris article you see something about this? Nowhere! So that note is Original research, vandalism ( your favourite word ) .. or I don't know now what.. :D so somebody can add that note about Miykavi is a -something-, because nobody gives a shit about that article. That's the RockandDiscoFanCZ-point-of-view ;) RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect for NCIS?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see the IP repeatedly entering Season 7. If you keep changing it back yourself, I fear you could inadvertantly violate 3RR, and you do too much good work to be blocked. I'll try to keep my eye open and help our where I can - but I hope you perhaps will call in an admin to help you with this person who doesn't quite understand the rules. Alternately, you could let him list "Season 7 in production" as CBS has announced they renewed the show. I apologise if I have stuck my big Irish nose in where it doesn't belong. Look at my contribs and you will see I hate van.... um, uncited changes as much as you. But do not want to see an edit war with this person and you - it looks like he's hopping IP's anyway, so he will be harder to nail. I will help you if I can, but only if you want it. Cheers, TristaBella (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC) First, thanks for the compliment! I would love to add a "season 7 in production" statement to the number of seasons, but since I cannot find any evidence that season 7 has actually begun production, this would be just as invalid as changing "6" to "7". I'll ask an admin about semi-protecting the article, but there really isn't any evidence that it's the same person making that edit; it's actually the kind of crap that one comes to expect from IP account...people see something they think is wrong and try to "fix" it, unaware of Wikipedia guidelines. At this point, the best thing to do is probably leave a template message on the talk pages of IPs who try to change it more than once. Otherwise, it's really a tiny problem in the scheme of things, especially in light of all the Michael Jackson IP vandalism going around right now. If the problem persists into, say, late July or August, I seek semi-protection; until then, we should probably just deal with it. But this only my opinion, feel free to request semi-protect yourself if you wish. DKqwerty (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Roger that on the MJ vandalism. I know the persistant vandalism on the CSI/NCIS pages is pretty minor compared to say, Northern Ireland or any organized religion. My initial urge to have it semi-protected seems a bit silly in retrospect - which is one of the reasons I always bounce it off somebody else first. I am trying to learn as fast as I can, but computer capabilities seem to have passed me a few years ago as I slept one night <wry grin>. I am not sure I will ever be that great at the vandalism reporting. But I will continue to try. Again, I just wanted to make sure you did not inadvertanly get sucked into an edit war with somebody who does not care about following the rules. It's just too bloody easy to create another username with a throwaway address and vandalise away until Wiki finally gets around to taking action (not admins' fault - I understand the huge backlog and the admin/a**hole ratio). I'll keep at it, but may I call on you occasionally for help on how to do something? I promise not to abuse the privilege. Cheers, TristaBella (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC) You're always welcome to ask me any questions. I find this kind of amusing though, as I'm still asking advice of other editors more established than I. One page you'll want to bookmark is WP:WARN. These templates are handy to quickly offer advice to other editors when they have failed to follow Wikipedia guidelines without having to write a new message every time. Also important is WP:AIV, which will let you quickly get accounts blocked when they go on a vandalism binge or are persistently vandalizing. Another is WP:ANI, which allows you to seek admin intervention for various, non-content disputes (i.e. legal threats, insults, etc.). And never feel ashamed to click the "help" link in the left-hand column. I do frequently. DKqwerty (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Consider yourself hugged by a small, silver haired brat! TristaBella (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. — Please comment R² 15:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism ?!?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello!! I was accused of vandalism...?!? Why?! Lightwarrior2 (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Ugh. I didn't "accuse" you of vandalism. I just said the edit itself may constitute vandalism, hence the "possible vandalism" summary. You added an inappropriate link (copyrighted material on YouTube) in an inappropriate place (external link to a video mid-page in an image cation). To me, that says vandalism. But since it wasn't overt, I said "possible" and reverted. In the future, do not add YouTube videos to articles except in very extreme cases (all of which escape me at the moment). If the video is of any substance, it's more than likely a copyright violation. Please keep this in mind in the future. DKqwerty (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the info and sorry for that...Because i saw only possible vandalism... It was a disagreement on my part...I found this video on Youtube and not seen any external link in this article, i put this link (in small) as a source near to the Motown 25... I don´t know yet, all rules in Wikipedia... But will try to find out by myself and by mistakes. Sorry. By the way, i need your help if could please... I want to upload, one image from the movie, Thriller, by Michael Jackson, (werewolf) to put in Thriller (music video) article... However, i know this picture will be as a Non-free music video screenshot license... But i need to know, please, what kind of Non-free media use rationale to use (or how many)... Thanks!! Lightwarrior2 (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC) You'll want to find someone more familiar with copyrights and fair use than I. While I can easily spot flagrant copyright violations, I'm still pretty shaky on what constitutes fair use. Another, more experienced editor can probably give you much better advice. DKqwerty (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks again!! I will explore more about it and i will make what you recommended to me. Thanks DKqwerty!! Lightwarrior2 (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) Impala2009 | Talk 00:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Thriller" (Michael Jackson)

Just curious as to why the notes I added re: the song "Thriller" were removed. The song was featured in the SoBe Life Water commercial and in the movie "Revenge of the Nerds." For verification, you can always look them up on You Tube, or rent the DVD (of the movie). I have no reason to make this up. 98.218.111.226 (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC) V1iciouslady

As I noted in my summary, as written it constituted a trivia section. "In popular culture" sections are generally frowned upon and, if such information is truly notable enough for inclusion, should be easy enough to add (as prose) within another, already existing section. In addition, your edit lacked any reliable sources which would verify this information. YouTube links to copyrighted material are not reliable sources, and citing the DVD amounts to original research; If no reliable, third-party source has written about it, it's probably not worth including anyway. DKqwerty (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK Computer

Hi there,

Thanks for your edits to the article, but please take note of the three revert rule. If you revert another user's edits more than 3 times in 24 hours, you can be blocked from editing. I strongly suggest talking things over at the article talk page and reaching a consensus about the article content. Let me know if I can help.Papa November (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I know I'm on my second of three reverts, but thanks for the heads up just the same. I have clearly taken issue with User:WesleyDodds' borderline ownership of the OK Computer article (among others) by reverting helpful, productive, and otherwise benign improvements, citing them as unnecessary. If you feel as I do that there is no legitimate reason to, for example, revert the addition of the {{tracklist}} template to the Collector's Edition in favor of a sloppy, bulleted, improperly-titled list of tracks, please chime in on either the user's or article's talk page. If I've done something wrong or against precedent, I'd be happy to leave this alone. But I can not see how most of what he reverted (which were not just edits I had made, but edits by others as well) was anything but improvements.

Thanks for any support or information regarding this issue. DKqwerty (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I never asserted ownership of the page. I've made two edits or so in the past month there. I've helped people edit the page in the past, and I was mainly helping to clean it up to its previous state since I noticed they were inactive lately. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Firstly, I made a mistake when I reverted the track templates. I was looking at the page diff comparision, so I only saw the extra tracklist section. Misremembering how the main tracklist section was formatted in this page, I mistakenly thought that the main and extra tracklist sections used inconsistent formatting, so I tried to recitfy that. I apologize. Secondly, the "who?" template is incorrectly used. The subject is stated (music critics), which is all we need; as this is the lead section of the article, specifying which critics hold this opinion would make the section unnecessarily long. Per WP:LEAD, we kept it simple; specifics are discussed in the article body. If you have a better way to convey the same information, feel free to edit the lead, but the template is unnecessary. As for English in the album infoboxes, that's one of Koavf's editing ticks. He keeps insisting on putting a language in the infobox even though neither the album infobox page nor WikiProject albums instruct people to do so (regardless, that hasn't stopped him from trying to cite both as indicating the field should be included, even though I've pointed out to him before that that is false). It's not something I go out of my way to remove; if I see it in a page I'm editing I remove it, because it isn't particularly useful, it's not part of the template script, he's the only one who inserts it, and other editors have done the same. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama birth location

Please clarify how my edit to Barack Obama's wikipedia page in any way violated any wikipedia TOS. My entry changed "was born at" to "is thought to have been born at" and also added "No official documentation of his exact birth location has ever been released or confirmed." How can this possibly be defamatory? Is it factually untrue? If you consider it unsourced, that's quite the point - there is no official confirmation, just news articles which only in the past week changed the birth hospital from Queen's Hospital to Kapi'olani, shortly after WND broke the story of the Obama letter. Amazingly, the change to Kapi'olani as the birth place was coincident with that hospital removing the Obama letter stating he was born there. There is not only no official or primary source verification that Kapi'olani is the birth place, there is active controversy and evidence of a cover up. To state as fact his birth location at this point is grossly irresponsible. If you can produce any official documentation of the birth location, please do. Otherwise, accept that there is a controversy. Your Orwellian tactics simply add to my concerns that wikipedia is a fundamentally biased site. Jwbaumann (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Shut up. DKqwerty (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good answer. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Spoken like a true wikipedian. My point is made. Thank you. Jwbaumann (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In a case of life imitating art, I saw a story that some military officer is refusing to go back to Afghanistan on the grounds that Obama is not eligible to be President. He probably figures that's better than coming out and saying, "I don't wanna get shot!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

66.67.100.83

Hello DKquerty, IP editor 66.67.100.83 has made a comment about an athlete who was reverted as being non-notable. As the editor who made the reversion, I thought perhaps you'd like to comment or follow the discussion. If not that's cool too. Thanks, --JBC3 (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dan d dog20

That guy was given a short block, a year ago, apparently for sockpuppetry. So why is he still here, I wonder? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your Great Admirer

Looks like you've acquired an impersonator at DKqwenty (talk · contribs). Any idea who it might be? Dayewalker (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm fairly sure it's whomever is behind Seismic Micro - Technology because the edit they made is identical to one I reverted by the user. I've reported the username to WP:UAA. DKqwerty (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And the username has now been blocked, so all is well. Thanks again. DKqwerty (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Users' talk pages

It appears you have been in a conflict with 92.239.38.135 (talk · contribs) about them removing comments from their talk page. I'm writing to make you aware that users (including anonymous IP editors) are allowed to remove warnings and comments from their talk pages. Doing so is considered acknowledgment of having read them. Restoring warnings and comments to other users' talk pages after they have removed them is considered disruption. There are important exceptions to this:

• Editors are not allowed to remove declined {{unblock}} requests before the block expires
• Editors are not allowed to remove information about shared IP addresses, such as {{sharedIPEDU}}
• Editors are not allowed to removed confirmed {{sockpuppet}} or confirmed {{sockpuppeteer}} tags from their talk pages.

I hope this clears things up. Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Date edits again

See user:Calcentnavania2,100 --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also 64.107.1.103 --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

You tried to do a cut and past move of Those Damned Blue Collar Tweekers -> Those Damned Blue-Collar Tweekers, but moving pages this way doesn't move the page history. You should move pages using the "move" tab atop the article, or if it blocks you, put it onRequested moves for an administrator to do it. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I did it hastily while revising the Sailing the Seas of Cheese article without thinking. Won't happen again. DKqwerty (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario 64

OK, it just looked suspicious for someone to remove a category, but if it's not for DS, then it never really should have been there I suppose. Darktower 12345 (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mad Hatter

Johnny Depp has been confirmed to play the Mad Hatter in Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland film. How can that cause vandalism? We're allowed to include random references to the character but we can't include an actor who's own page lists "Mad Hatter" as who he's playing in an upcoming film?--67.34.181.210 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

RE: Sumer Camp

I know I shouldnt of put it on, I knew that before you removed it, I belive I did remove it, But I must of thought I did, then againg, sory.

RE: Repeated Template Reversions

Your note:

Please do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Template:Obama Executive Office. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. Specifically: title case should always be used, not all caps; the form "since XXXX" should be used rather than "XXXX—" per WP:OTHERDATE; an en-dash ("–") or em-dash ("—") should always be used rather than a double hyphen ("--"); Please take a moment to read over the manual of style and use it as a guide for future editing. Thank you. DKqwerty (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Response:

WP:OTHERDATE does NOT disallow dates with hyphens in tables. It discusses how to best use them. Please carefully read the provisions before calling out others for not following them.

WP:MOS applies to text; it says nothing about all caps captions in tables. That said, it does not matter to me either way, so I will use title case in my next edit of the templates.

You are correct about the double hyphen, and I will use the em-dash instead. Thank you.

I see that you have had that same issue with another person who was trying to edit the templates last month. To avoid a misunderstanding, perhaps I should explain why I am making the edits: it is to make the tables more readable. When the word "since" is removed, the spacing is much improved, the tables are half the length, and they can be viewed without excessive use of page downs. This is especially important in the Obama administration set of templates which have been stacked in multiple layers. Often the length of the templates exceeds the length of the biographical article on the Obama administration official.

Furthermore, as indicated in the MOS, "Printers and screen-readers will both output only the content that is immediately visible on the page". Therefore the tables with the "since" removed are more accessible and printable as well.

I trust that you will not revert these changes unless you can justify the unnecessary length, readablity and printability issues that your changes produce. --Regards W E Hill (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I noticed the work you have been doing on the Jaco Pastorius article- the photos of him young I posted.. I don't have as much time as I'd like but this is a very noteworthy musician, I feel, and deserving of time and care. Thanks so much! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. If you continue to assume bad faith, you will be blocked from editing. 70.245.239.63 (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not idea to what you're referring. I make a couple edits a month now, none of which recently made any assumptions of faith. And given that the only edit the above account has made is to my talk page, I'm assuming you're either mistaken or just an asshole hiding behind a random proxy, posting messages on the talk pages of people you hold a grudge against. So, unless you show me a specific edit in which I did not assume good faith, please kindly leave me alone. DKqwerty (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you lose your vision? On this revision, you characterized good-faith with vandalism. This is what idiots do. You also revert edits on Mario Kart Wii and this is edit warring. Please stop edit-warring and inappropriately marking GFE as Vandalism, or else you will be blocked from contributing to this site. AND QUIT CALLING ME AN ASS!!! Sheesh. 70.249.221.214 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I was right: you're just an asshole hiding behind a random proxy, posting messages on the talk pages of people you hold a grudge against. And there's no assumption of good faith when it comes to you persistently trying to make edits which have been unanimously rejected by the majority of other editors, as with your idea that Paroxetine is safe for pregnant women based on a single, small contradictory study. Get a life and stop harassing people on the Internet with your annoying stupid games. Or if you just can't help yourself, go bother Conservapedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica instead. They could use another idiot. DKqwerty (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, DK. This statement above of going to those encyclopedias and they could serve another idiot is not acceptable. DKqwerty, this is also a violation of WP:NPA. Assume good faith in your comments, although some IP is bothering you. Chevy Impala 2009 (Sign me!) 01:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

IP, actually YOU are assuming bad faith. Stop vandalizing my unprotected talk page. Also, screaming in ALL CAPS is an assumption of bad faith. Chevy Impala 2009 (Sign me!) 18:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

DKqwerty he is assuming bad faith, however you did just violate WP:NPA, might I suggest WP:Wikiquette alerts?--SKATER ^Speak. 14:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Quit saying shut up! Shut up yourself!!! :( 70.245.227.244 (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning

I warned the IP to the vandalism to your page, I'd suggest WP:SPI.--SKATER ^Speak.

70.245.239.197 just got blocked for 48 hours.--SKATER ^Speak. 14:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's great, but the actual human being behind the IP will simply tick over to a new one. Gotta love the anonymity of the Internet… DKqwerty (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I personally love The anonymity of the internet, but that's besides the point. If you would make me a list of the IP's I'll happily report it to SPI.--SKATER ^Speak. 14:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

70.245.226.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.245.227.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.249.221.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.245.239.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.245.226.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.242.143.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.245.239.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This is the list as it stands now. Thanks for offering to report them. DKqwerty (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And you believe the puppet master is Mwalla?--SKATER ^Speak. 14:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell. He seems to be most upset about me classifying as vandalism edits made by Ddave2425, which is a confirmed Mwalla sockpuppet. He's also clearly familiar with Wikipedia administrative pages, knowledge no genuine newbie would have. DKqwerty (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Will Report ASAP, as soon as I get in a class where I can use my laptop. Gotta love geometry.--SKATER ^Speak. 14:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. DKqwerty (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

::Hmm...Should I request Checkuser for this one? I'm still debating it.--SKATER ^Speak. 19:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Strike that, I'm going to request it.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Was anything ever submitted? I really would do it myself, but I don't know how to properly setup the report, nor the methodology for reporting an anon. user on a rotating IP. DKqwerty (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem i'm running into, that and wheter to create a new report or merge them under the previous for Mwalla....I'm starting to think maybe ANI might be better then this, especially since were going on circumstantial evidence.--SKATER ^Speak. 17:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Division

[3] I'm not bad at math or anything, what I meant was that I was basically halfing the size of the image, having it as 200px size (which I tried in preview) made it too small. • GunMetal Angel 00:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, I was just teasing. No offense intended. DKqwerty (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009 - Stalwart111

Glad we could sort that out - would have been just as happy to discuss with you directly. Re: 'national park'; I actually got there looking for something different myself and decided the disambiguation wasn't clear enough (it wasn't one of my random edits). Understand if people disagree but but non-pluralised 'national park' is used extensively in an international context and most of my additions were in 'see also' anyway. The list is actually the direct result of the search of wikipedia for 'national park' so suggesting they are not what someone would go searching for is mistaken. Anyway, I won't bother amending it if there is a massive movement against national park disambiguation change but I thought I'd at least explain it. Happy hunting. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again....

blah blah blah...the song remains the same
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is the second time a significant piece of information I have added to an article has deleted by some tyrant who apparently enforces som sort de facto ownership of it. I have no intention of ruining anything, I act on Wikipedia written request to improve Wikipedia. Wikipedia will have a bad future if your action is standard procedure in handling good faithed contributions. "Campus" has become what the article (now again) says, but is since America is only 200 years old, the term traditionally means what I have wrote. The article's very American definition contradicts the real meaning of the term, since university areas is far from open spaces and America is not equivalent with the world. I am sorry, but tradition did not start with the establishment of American universities. Tradition has traditionally a long tradition. The temp "campus" (and especially since the term "traditionally") is NOT equivilent with university araes and what do you care, apparantly you are a dane like me. You have no idea how provocative your destructive and arbitrary action is after the time efford one has invested in improving an article, and the sentence "good-faith edit by ...... this is an article on the subject, not a dictionary entry or study of etymology" does not justify your action. Actually it makes it worse since good faith has to be respected and in Wikipedia my opinion about terms origin should be stated is as good as yours. Many articles starts with a short explaination of a term's origin. If you respect good faith, not to mention solid facts, please undo your badly chosen action, and add something (instead of delete, (you do not own this article)), I do not want go into an "undo" war again and afterwards being blamed for mockering, which I have experienced once before - and lecture is that contribution is not worth the efford. Actually I don't know why I still bother. So PLEASE - I invite you to change the article so my additions is included in a way, that satisfy you. But since you are so wise, please instruct me how to wage an editorial war in which you so obviously have have drawn first blood so we both end up being banned - my previous experience is that in a Wikipedia sence, on can wage a war alone. have a nice day 80.160.207.18 (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Dual Analog and the Rumbly things that go along with it

Hi! Noticed your edit. Had to correct it. Check the [Dual_Analog_Controller] article and you'll find that the first versions of the controller, released in Japan, had rumble. Sony took it out before the US release because they didn't think it was important enough to keep in. It's sourced and referenced as well. Cheers! 208.115.94.237 (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the claims that the Japanese model contained fore-feedback aren't sourced at all, and the initial mention of it even has a template which has existed since March 2007! Nor is the article for the DAC referenced for more than two of its claims: the release date and the justification for removing it from American versions; I'm not sure what article you were looking at, because nothing else is "sourced or referenced".

At best, the Japanese Dual Analog Controller was released to JP at the same time as the Rumble Pak, April 1997. If you'd like to rewrite the section to reflect this, be my guest. However, I will continue to argue that, because the rumble-capable DAC wasn't released to all markets (in fact, only to one) whereas the Rumble Pak was released to all major markets by Oct. '97, Sony clearly wasn't interested in supporting force-feedback until the DSC was released, which was in 1998. Basically, the fist console with full support for force-feedback in all of its markets was the Nintendo 64, which is by my definition the single most important criteria for who came first: which offered full support to all regions, not just experimented with the concept then abandoned it for a full year in most markets.

In addition, your edit also removed perfectly valid information regarding the analog stick and four controller ports. In the future, if you disagree with the content of an article, please do not remove perfectly valid content as well simply because it happens to reside in the same paragraph. Also, for the record, I didn't not add that wordage to the article, so this isn't an ownership issue; I simply object to your characterization of which came first. DKqwerty (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Context of genetic recombination

Hi there. I think adding "during meiosis" is appropriately brief context for the lay reader when mentioning a relatively poorly understood subject like 'genetic recombination' in the Evolution article's lead section. I've left a note regarding this in an ongoing thread at Talk:Evolution#Reliance_on_wikilinking, and would like to know your thoughts. Cheers, Emw (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead photo for Navel

What kind of photos did you have in mind for navel? Have you found any examples on the internet, even if it's not free copyright, just so I can get the idea of what you are searching for? Nocturnal Wanderer 22:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandy diffs

Thank you for removing those edits from the Sandbox, clearly the person doesn't care much for privacy. Either way I've requested Suppression of the diffs. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Lost your hat?

You put the hat fold on a section of discussion on the Barack Obama article that really doesn't make a whit of sense. There is a thread about whether to include a specific clause in the article (one that moreover has been in there), about how "early in the initiative that won the Novel prize" this one was. As these things do, I confess some editors veered slightly into ranting territory. But the basic point of including or not including a clause in the article is rather centrally related to article quality. It's wholly inappropriate to hide away a topic that is directly related to a current editing issue about which good faith editors reasonably differ in opinion! LotLE×talk 19:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I may have lost my hat, but there's no need to get your panties in a bunch. I made a mistake: I glazed over the top and bottom of the thread and forgot that something in the middle had substance. If you look at my history of editing on that talk page and its article, I've never "hidden away" a topic out of spite, bias, or otherwise. Plus, I participated in the thread, I knew what it was about, I just had a momentary lapse in judgment and logic. Please accept my apologies and understand I meant no offense or malice. DKqwerty (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry, there have been times when I have myself gone out and about town, and inadvertently mislaid my hat in the process. Losing my panties during these adventures is, fortunately, far less common to my experience. Best wishes. LotLE×talk 19:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rochester

Im telling you this because i think its gone on to long. You have failed to realize that Rochester's population is not 199,000 but 206,000 as you reverted an editor who fixed my vandalism. You also have failed to notice the census tables false information which includes a 2011 estimate! 67.240.191.249 (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down. It is not the data that I object to. If you look at the edit summaries, I reverted the edits only because the information is unsourced. If you notice, the current data is sourced from several locations. In order to update the information, you must cite your reference for the new information, otherwise it cannot be corroborated and must be removed. Also, when updating information to make it more current, you should remove the references for the old information as well.

You certainly may re-add the data yourself as long as you provide the source for the updated information. If you're uncomfortable using {{cite templates, I'd be more than happy to do it for you. Please understand, I want the information updated just as much as you, but I also want it to be sourced properly. Thank you for understanding. DKqwerty (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

External Link Concerns /Questions

Sometime in late August or early September AHAF's Macular Degeneration Research link was added along with the MD Support link on the macular degeneration wiki article. I had nothing to do with those additions. Yesterday, you personally removed the link. I noticed that you removed it, so I added it back. Yes, I am employed with this Foundation as the Website Content Specialist/Production Assistant and I haven't tried to hide or deny that fact. Also, I'm brand new to Wikipedia and quite busy with many other responsibilities. Therefore, I did not notice that a WP:COI regulation existed.

The American Health Assistance Foundation (AHAF) is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that meets BBB charity standards http://charityreports.bbb.org/public/seal.aspx?ID=3305112007 and meets the standards of HONcode https://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html?HONConduct619602.

I have found many examples where non-profits similar to AHAF are included in the external link section of the diseases they provide information about. This leads me to believe that a link to AHAF's Macular Degeneration Research would be encouraged.

I strongly feel that the (Macular Degeneration Research) external link is informative, up to date and provides services which other macular degeneration related websites do not. AHAF's website is clearly not spam. If you take the time to look beyond our program landing page and into the heart of our website, you will find detailed information regarding the research that we are currently funding and have funded in the past, you will also find information such as risk factors, screening and diagnosis, treatment options, adjusting to the home for those with low vision, an updated questions and answers section etc...

Here I will cite the reason per Wikipedia that our link should be included as an external link for this article.

WP:ELYES Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

So, let's have an honest, open discussion. If I'm misinterpreting Wikipedia’s stance regarding external links, I'd appreciate if you would take the time to explain to me in a respectful manner how and why? Also, I'd appreciate if you would not cite WP:COI because I only recently became involved in this situation and you have removed this link in the past prior to my involvement.

Sdisandro (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration

Please visit the discussion page for the Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration article or my talk page to discuss your reasons why you reverted Venomviper edits to the article. Edward Lalone | (Talk)

I really appreciated your comments on my talk page and have added my take on it. Please let me know what you think of the changes I have made. Unfortunately, I am busy a lot of the time so I don't have a lot of time right now to make a lot of the necessary changes to tie this in with the rest of the article but I think it should stay. Thanks. Edward Lalone | (Talk)

Proposed major reforms to decade articles

Hi - I noticed you have contributed recently to one or more of the decade articles (1990s, 1960s etc). I am proposing some major changes to these articles, as I have outlined in Talk:1990s/Archives/2012#Suggested_reform_of_decade_articles, and I would be interested in hearing your views in the first instance. Thanks. Kransky (talk) 08:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Foxx

This went nowhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The admin Horologium has picked up on your absurd edit to the Virginia Foxx article and determined it was POV. Hopefully someday you'll actually follow WP:NPOV for once. Have a good day. John Asfukzenski (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up. DKqwerty (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Virginia Foxx (Nov.) I have reverted you (again) on this article. Please seek dispute resolution, as it appears likely that neither of us is willing to back down over the inclusion or exclusion of a single word. Horologium (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia Article

Resolved for now
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is your problem???????????? Please discuss on the dyslexia discussion page aqnd stop deleting parts of the article which are well researched. dolfrog (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC) None of your citations even address dyslexia as an educational disability. There is no medical consensus regarding dyslexia and education with each state, county, town, and school system having various ways of addressing it and defining it as such. Please do not continue to add unreferenced claims and/or novel synthesis. DKqwerty (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC) What are you talking about you are not making sense, you are talking drivel dolfrog (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Please quote any passage from your citations which even addresses dyslexia as an "educational disability". Notwithstanding that even if any of them did, a single journal publication does not constitute medical consensus, so your definitive statement that it "is an educational disability" is purely novel synthesis of the sources content. Again, there is no medical consensus regarding dyslexia as an educational disability, nor is their any standard by which to address it. To quote the article: "There are many different national legal statutes and different national special education support structures with regard to special education provision which relate to the management of dyslexia." To state it as a definitive learning disability is unsupported by your citations, unsupported by medical or educational consensus, and contradicts the article itself. Please do not re-add this information to the article without a definitive or non-novel citation. DKqwerty (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Every dyslexic research paper refers to dyslexia as a learning disability and and that it has many medical or cognitive causes, so waht is your problem. please calm down and explain yourself. Why are you so up tight about this dolfrog (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC) nothing i have put into the artilce contracts the content i pspent 3 months editing it so i should know dolfrog (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC) First of all, please thread your comments with colons (":", "::", ":::", etc). Second, dyslexia is not always regarded as an educational disability, sometimes it is regarded as a reading disability, and rarely but sometimes as a speaking disability; these are important distinctions. There is no medical or educational consensus regarding dyslexia as an educational disability. There are also various was of addressing it in various jurisdictions. As such, it's inappropriate to definitively state it as an educational disability because others disagree and address it differently. And it does contradict the article, whether you see it or not. Everything else that's wrong (WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc.) I've already detailed and I don't know what you don't understand about it. You say "every dyslexic research paper refers to dyslexia as a learning disability". (A) You say "educational disability" not "learning disability", and there is a difference. (B) To say "every", which is extremely hyperbolic and patently false as some refer to it as a "reading disability". (C) You have not addressed the problem that single research papers do not constitute medical consensus. (D) It does not matter what your own experience is, only what can be verified. (E) None of your citations define or address dyslexia as an "educational disability". I'm not going to edit-war or violate the WP:3RR rule. Instead, you can retract your undo until you have definitive citations for this claim or I will be forced to seek arbitration to settle this content dispute. You are clearly very passionate about dyslexia, however I think your very direct experiences with it have in some ways clouded your judgment and/or your understanding and adherence to the five pillars (almost to the point of a single-purpose account) . Please take a deep breath, step back, and try to see what I am saying. I'm not attacking the concept, I don't have a pejorative "problem", and I think there is some middle ground to be found here. However, I cannot spend the whole afternoon debating this as I have to get things done in real life. DKqwerty (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Whaht do know about dyslexia very little from your current behavior it would appear, and from your discussion page you seen to like to disrupt the work of other editors, you are at it again dolfrog (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Come on, dude. There's no reason to insult me. I've been calm, level-headed and said nothing insulting. Yes, some people dislike being asked to follow the rules and post unhappy things on my talk page; If I wanted to keep that a secret, I'd remove their comments. I'm simply trying to enforce the rules that govern the content of this encyclopedia. DKqwerty (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC) You are not trying to enforce anything. Dyslexia is a learning disability. Dyslexia is not a medical disability. Dyslexia has many cognitive deficits or disorder as underlying causes or Cognitive Subtypes of dyslexia. So Dyslexia is an educational Disability, it is measured and diagnosed using educational diagnostic tests. You may like to read my PubMed Dyslexia Research paper collections some 300 plus research papers, and please tell me which support your claims dolfrog (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Again, please thread your comments. Hopefully this last edit will be to your liking: it addresses the definition while also acknowledging others. DKqwerty (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC) should do for now the boffins are debating two international acceptable definitions at the moment and trying to get an agreed definition based on existing scientific kmowledge and understanding these definitions can be found at MedlinePlus (MedlinePlus brings together authoritative information from NLM,the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other government agencies and health-related organizations.) and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke one day they will make their minds up. The first is the best basic definition, and the second covers both developmental dyslexia and Alexia (or acquired dyslexia). Eventually it will all just be dyslexia but that is some time away. dolfrog (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

FYI edit Jeepday (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wire (band)

Please see Wikipedia:HATNOTE#Disambiguating_article_names_that_are_not_ambiguous - dismabiguation hatnotes are almost certainly not required here since we only have one article about a band called Wire. If you arrived at Wire (band) when looking for a different usage of 'Wire', it's probably because a link needs fixing somewhere. Where was the link that took you to Wire (band) that you expected to take you elsewhere?--Michig (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Western Concert Flute

Hello, you edited out my contribution to Western Concert Flute. Is the issue the content or how I presented it? Because if it is about content, well the content is correct, but if it is about style then I can fix that. Can you please let me know70.24.218.91 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There are several issues:

• WP:WEIGHT — As I mentioned in my edit summary, Harmonium only has a single instance of the word "flute" in their article. As such, it's unlikely they're well-known for their use of flute and gives undo weight to the fact. Otherwise, it falls under WP:TRIVIA.
• WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOTE — I could find no information online about Harmonium's use of the flute. Granted, I didn't try very hard, but the fact remains that if their use of the instrument was noteworthy enough to be included in the instrument's article, something would have come up fairly easily. If I'm mistaken on this point, please point me in the direction of a reliable source which helps verify it. Note: I understand that Ian Anderson does not have a citation. This transgression will be amended by me soon now that it has become an issue. However, I didn't write the article or add that information, and that oversight does not allow this information.
• WP:BLP — Information on Ian Anderson's collaborations are best suited (if at all) for his biography rather than an article about the instrument itself.
• WP:UNLINKDATES — This is not a reason for the objection itself, but it should be noted that dates are not linked unless there is a compelling and germane reason to do so.

However, I appreciate you taking the time to ask what the problem was rather than banging your head against the wall like many editors. As I mentioned, if you can find some reliable source which alleviates these issues with regard to Harmonium, please let me know. And please don't hesitate to ask further question of me related or unrelated to this. Also, if you wish to continue at Wikipedia, you will probably prefer getting a username to edit; this way your IP isn't exposed and your edits will carry a bit more weight. DKqwerty (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hair

If you navigate the website you can find this page. http://s613.photobucket.com/albums/tt218/JUPITAH/?action=view&current=statement.png&newest=1 Happy now? It's not like you can't look at tons of images of her and not notice how orange her hair is without the confirmation anyway. http://www.mariowiki.com/Princess_Daisy/Gallery FD09 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to be contentious about it. I admit my error, as per the summary of my most recent edit to the page. DKqwerty (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflicts?

You seem to have accidentally removed other people's comments a couple times now on ANI. Would you mind restoring them? Mr.Z-man 02:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for pointing that out. I'm having a bad night, and all the theading... anyway, did I get them all? DKqwerty (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it. Mr.Z-man 02:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Let it be cropped.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Let it be cropped.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that non-free images are only permitted in articles - not in user pages or userboxes. --dave pape (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Grrr... I was afraid of that. Oh well, just delete it. DKqwerty (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

linking

Hi, I noted your entry at Ckatz's talk page concerning her/his reversion of all the work I've done today in improving the formatting of TV articles. It is very frustrating, since Ckatz has been running a one-person campaign against WP:OVERLINK for about two years now. I believe this editor is trying to bring the matter to a head by stalking me. A great pity. I am restoring the work, article by article (what a waste of time), and retaining the TV network links, which is fair enough (once, first occurrence). Thanks. Tony (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Phrenology

I checked the liner notes, and there is nothing about that Beatles song being sampled. The notes say "Contains elements of 'Apache' by The Sugar Hill Gang ... Also contains elements of 'Jam on the Groove' by Ralph McDonald ... Lastly, contains elements of 'Human Beat Box' by The Fat Boys" Dan56 (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Blastoise's Father

I do not own Blastoise's Father, but since it has gotten over 600 hits in like three days, and I find it to be a funny site, I find it deserves mention. -scwinsett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scwinsett (talk • contribs) 01:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Optical fiber

I've proposed a new lead sentence at Talk:Optical_fiber#New_lead_sentence. (X! · talk)  · @632  ·  14:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you check the manual of style before your edit of Number?

I am aware of the general editorial rule, having worked as an editor, but I see "Show precise mathematical quantities, measurements, stock prices, etc., as figures" at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Number_signs, so I think the article was correct as you encountered it. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're referring to the number article. While "0" should be used in mathematical quantities, the context places it with other mathematical concepts such as irrational numbers; zero is the mathematical concept surrounding the digit "0". If the context where "0, √(-1), and a+bi", I would agree, but since it's concepts not quantities, I think the word zero is far more appropriate. If you're referring to the Marilyn Manson (band) article, you're right, I probably should have let those be. But oh well. DKqwerty (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Red Hot Chili Peppers album

Sure I'm happy to help; if you need any assistance with anything in the future, let me know. Thanks for your note. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Trudeau

Don't lecture me about wikipedia policy on opinions, the article in question is loaded with opinions, in addition my edit that points out that it was reported that Mr. Trudeau was voted most likely to succeed FACTUALLY does appear to contradict his recent assertion that he almost flunked out of high school. Secondly, the wording regarding "most in the scientific" community is WEASEL wording; can you prove that MOST scientists believe that the so-called 'Law of Attraction' is pseudoscience? Where are the numbers to back up that assertion? Did someone take a poll? Perhaps most scientists believe that the so-called "Law of Attraction" isn't even pseudoscience let alone science or perhaps only a minority believe it is pseudoscience, the reference cited doesn't back up the assertion made. Be a bit more professional and thorough in future.24.200.55.244 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

86 (term)

You and User:Jjozoko are (slowly) edit warring over this article, as you know, with considerable changes to it back and forth, over and over. I wish you would both discuss your issues on the talk page there instead of doing it only in your edit summaries. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

True. DKqwerty (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would also invite you to discuss your edits on Talk:86 (term). Your edits, though drastic, seemed to raise some interesting points. I've left a third opinion there, so if you could respond and we could get some dialogue going, that'd be great. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My Edits

Check the Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) article again. I've added (and still adding) the requisite references to bolster my "original research". It's difficult to dig up, dust off and pour through articles literally a decade old and referencing or correcting what I wrote so please give me a little leeway. Thanks. -Red marquis (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you're just adding bulk to an article about a fairly non-notable album. The article already contains most pertinent information, you've either just adding redundancies or run-on sentences without any benefit to the article (in fact, only to its detriment). Remember, for an album like this that stirred a very minor controversy, there is very little information which is required beyond the essentials of the controversy and a brief description of the the album; conciseness, succinctness, and discretion in the content are essential to these minor albums. You've also reverted my reverts: per WP:BRD, your bold actions were reverted, so they must now be discussed rather than re-reverted and elaborated upon. And in reverting my revert, you've removed my elimination of redundant references and are continuing to make redundant references. Please, remember: Wikipedia is not about searching for references to support your fact, it's about finding facts through sources. You're clearly editing in way where you've added content, it was then reverted, you then reverted it again and are now adding refs to suit that content; this is not how things work. You're also changing wording to, for all external appearances, simply change the wording without any tangible benefit to the article. Frankly, I'm confused by your editing, why you think the article needs drastic expansion when it clearly was just fine as it was. DKqwerty (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to Primus Entry Referencing New Album

I'm not sure why you think you did anyone a favor by removing what I posted about Primus producing a new album following their current tour, but I'm not sure about many things. The one thing I am sure of, is that I watched the live webcast of Primus at Red Rocks on the night of August 12th. I also know that there was an interview with Les Claypool broadcast in between the showing of Gogol Bordello and Primus, during which Les specifically stated what I had indicated in my post. I thought I had cited enough details, trying to show that what I had indicated was not bull. Anyone who might actually be a Primus fan (which you claim to be) would have probably seen the same show and interview, and would know that what I had written was in fact all true. Additionally, if I could have provided a link, or otherwise substantial proof, I would have. Unfortunately, the show and interview are not currently available. If you go to the webcast host iClips, it is indicated that the show may be available soon to premium members of iClips, so hopefully the interview will be a part of that. Please know this also, I take everything about Primus very seriously, and would not have posted the information if it was untrue. Ch2375 (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:RS. DKqwerty (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Bucklands Beach edits.

Re your recent removal of material.You also removed the 2 references for all the new information that I added.If you didnt like the style please feel free to improve rather than just delete information which is counter productive.Thankyou Claudia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.156.187 (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You have no "style" to speak of and your edits are predicated on "The history of Howick and Pakuranga. A. La Roche." There is no publishing information, your references aren't inline, and you type without any regard of punctuation, grammar, or sentence structure. There's really nothing for me to improve upon unless I see your references, so please place a quote within your citation.

Please see WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:MOS for more information. Thanks for your attention. DKqwerty (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Re your answer .Are you arrogant by nature or just when you are behind a key board?Reading through your talk page comments it appears you have issues.One of the over riding policies of Wikipedia is to assume good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary.It seems in some cases you arent really interested in helping you would rather put people down.Claudia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.186.157 (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. DKqwerty (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

How to block 205.232.191.16?

User:205.232.191.16 just vandalized another page (for Das Lied von der Erde). I noticed that you added a ban warning at the bottom of their talk page giving them a final warning. What needs to be done? --Sstrader (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Give one more level-four warning (because the user is anonymous, on a shared IP address, and being a new calendar month, to assume good faith, we must allow every opportunity for a user to salvage the situation). If the user vandalizes again within the same calender month (or within ~48 hours) of a level-four warning, report the user to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Frankly, given the user's recent amount of vandalism within the past fifteen days, I'd just report without a warning, but you may not get an admin to block without a recent warning. If you like, I can take the lead, or you're welcome to warn and report yourself. Hope this helps. DKqwerty (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just back now. Thanks for the information and for adding the warning in my absence. Reading up now on warning etiquette so that I can act more quickly next time. --Sstrader (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And now they vandalized the Cloward–Piven strategy page (diffs)! I'll report the user to Wikipedia:Administrator as you suggested... --Sstrader (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Drat. I reported them here, but it was immediately deleted by a bot because it's a shared IP. What did I do wrong? (Again, thanks for your help.) --Sstrader (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#MOS:JP – Romanization for words of English origin 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, Prime Blue (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Video games developed in Japan

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Video games developed in Japan was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 22:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

E-mailing users

Hello, DKqwerty. I see you around often, and thought I would ask you this question since you are so active around Wikipedia and know it pretty well. I feel like an idiot for asking, being an experienced editor here and all as well, but how do you e-mail users? I've already looked at Wikipedia:E-mailing users, but I don't see an option coming up...not even at my own user page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to answer this query. As I understand it, a user has to place his or her email address on their user page. Otherwise, user emails are not accessable. However, I don't use email and have never looked for someone's, so you may want to seek someone else's advice (if you haven't done so already). And don't ever feel like an idiot for asking a question, at least not of me. DKqwerty (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking "Delorean" in BTTF

It is overlinking since the word is already linked in the lead paragraph -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Shit, you're right. I browsed the lead but I missed that link (purple looks like black early in the morning). My apologies. DKqwerty (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Video games developed in Japan, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 21:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Captcha Ref

The ref I added 1 may have a bad color scheme. But if you read the paper linked on the page. http://n3on.org/projects/reCAPTCHA/docs/reCAPTCHA.docx You will see that it is an academic paper from the person who discovered the crack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A. I'm not clicking some random .docx on the Internet to see if it contains information validating a fact from an article. It's not worth the risk, especially when the author has supposedly cracked a much more well-secured system than mine. B. Why did you not link directly to the paper rather than the website? C. As a self-published document, no matter how detailed or academic, the reference still cannot be considered a reliable source; the reference must come from a third-party source. D. I still don't quite believe that you're not Mr. Houck, though that's certainly not the primary reason for my revert. DKqwerty (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that a paper from the author of a crack explaining how he did it in detail would be useful to our readers. If not as a ref, but as an external link. However, I have added a 3rd party source describing the crack instead.

I would also appreciate it if you would remove the vandalism template from my talk page: edits you do not agree with, but that were made in good faith are not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As explained in WP:RS, it doesn't matter how expert the opinion, it must not be self-published. However, the reference you've subsequently provided does indeed (in my opinion) meet reliability standards. Thank you for your attention to the matter. Please understand that this conversation was initiated to not only ensure policy is followed, but to also educate you in this regard rather than admonish. As for the level two warning I've added to your page, it does not imply good or bad faith on your part, nor was it intended to; it was intended only to inform. While I will not remove the warning myself since I feel it was justified, there is nothing preventing you from removing it yourself. It is your talk page and you're free to remove any content from it that you wish unless explicitly stated otherwise; in fact, removing such a warning simply affirms the fact that you've read it. Anyway, I just want to reaffirm that I never intended to imply bad-faith. DKqwerty (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A reply to your remark to me re "Judicial Activism" talk comments

Regarding your note on my talk page regarding my using the talk page of the “Judicial Activism” article for general discussion, I didn’t see you leave a similar admonition on the talk page of the poster I was answering who had started the relevant section. In that section, he matter-of-factly notes that Bush vs. Gore should be used as an example of judicial activism in a manner that amounted to a political editorial disguised as a question. It is impossible to address that naked assertion without discussing the relevant facts involved and noting why one either agrees or disagrees with the suggestion that such be included in the article. Such is inherent within the subject and cannot be avoided in discussion.

As it is said, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I’ve never noted geese having political biases...before.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Just stick to improving the articles. You don't need to be so verbose and wonkish when most of your five- to ten-paragraph comments could easily be summarized in one or two. If you think the Bush v. Gore section needs drastic improvements, start a sandbox or draft serious content proposals. I've perused your editing history, and you clearly have some issues with allowing your comments to grow out of proportion to their actual content, something pointed out to you by other editors as well. I really don't want or need an argument with another editor, just please consider being more succinct in the future. DKqwerty (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

--Agreed and thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lynda Mason Green

Hello DKqwerty, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lynda Mason Green, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Courcelles 12:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DKqwerty. You have new messages at Smartse's talk page.
Message added 22:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Story/Plot

You may or may not remember but you left a message based on my 'edits' regardng changing plot to story. I completely understand that you have set guidelines and you will adhere to them as necesary. Personally I believe that these guidelines regarding what is story and plot, such as considering a lengthy article with detail 'plot', to be wrong. However I will keep that as my own opinion and do promise not to make anymore changes unless I become I full member, to which I will then discuss my opinions rather than edit on a whim. I also see, now, that my changes were made in vain as people will revert it due to it being their 'job'. Just so we're clear I'm not trying to be sarcastic or smart or "attack" you (as a person), just wanted to say my piece. Thanks.

Quotes

We should take exceptional care to modify quotes only where needed. Having his first name and the link is overkill, and we should only have one. My personal preference is to keep the link because that provides sufficient context without actually modifying the quote. But if you prefer the first name instead I'd be happy to cede to that. However; both? Not really a good idea. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can cite a policy to that effect, I'll be happy to acquiesce. If not, I don't see a problem with linking a modified section of a quote. I admit that it may have been confusing with the title, but I don't think "[Robert] Gates" should be at all confusing to readers. DKqwerty (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSQUOTE (my speciality policy :)). Aim for minimal change. The [Robert] IMO provides zero context because it is still not apparent who he is and why the name is important. [US Secretary of Defence] is better, but seems a bit pointed to draw attention to that w/o need. I think having a link solves all concerns. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that minimal changes should take place for quotes (i.e. adding his title was excessive). However, I still don't see anything in the given policy indicating that minimally altered quotes cannot also be linked, or that linking something provides sufficient context as to no longer require alteration to the quote. DKqwerty (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Consider the spirit of the policy; minimal modification. Linking and adding a qualifier seems to break it to me. Not every rule is written down in detail remember --Errant ^(chat!) 15:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position, however I disagree with it, even regarding the spirit. Mostly because I don't see linking something as modification of the quote, therefore it's a moot point, even when coupled with bracketed additions. Perhaps we should seek comments from additional editors? DKqwerty (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Go for it :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to sound like a noob, but how does one go about doing that? Do I ask for comment here, on the policy's talk page, or elsewhere? DKqwerty (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean asking generally (I thought you meant in this specific instance)? I'd raise it as a question on the MOS talk page for starters and see who responds. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent semi edit war we've had

You know, it's actually nice to edit with someone who knows the WPedit policy so well. I hope the latest update works for you, and I appreciate the edit summaries you put in, they do help me understand better.--68.81.89.233 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I forgot to log in. User:SexyKick--68.81.89.233 (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

sources not neutral

"Crikey is hardly an neutral source; fails to mention which courts granted him permission; improper tense"

What is required is verifiable sources, not your opinion as to its neutrality. And it's "a neutral" source. Why not just come out and be honest and say you want the article to misleading imply that Assange fled Swedish justice when fully sited sources show him to have been given permission by the courts. Unless you can provide anything verifiable to the opposite. And I also see a reference to "a lawyer", since when is that "an neutral" source?

Guy Rundle is European editor of Arena Magazine, an independent Australian publication of political, social and cultural

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/guyrundle

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Julian_Assange Viralmeme (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not willing to engage in an ad hominem argument with you if you're going to be this contentious. I will say, however, that I find Crikey to be non-neutral because of their own self-description: "Crikey reveals how the powerful operate behind the scenes, and it tackles the stories insiders are talking about but other media can’t or won’t cover." This hardly seem like a non-neutral stance on which stories they offer on their site. It also doesn't matter how many credentials Mr. Rundle has if the publisher of his stories appears non-neutral. I could be wrong here, and I'd be willing to listen to calm and cogent arguments to the contrary. Or perhaps if you could point to other prominent articles (particularly biographies) which use Crikey as a source, or to a prior debate over the site's legitimacy that resulted in it being deemed non-neutral. However, I will not engage you in bickering or the like. DKqwerty (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding File:Gold classic controller pro.JPG

Hello, I noticed you tried to shrink the size of this image. Another editor undid your change before I could. I would just like to remind you, Wikimedia's policy on image size, per their upload form, is to "Upload the highest resolution file that is possible" regardless what is being photographed.

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Response left at Talk:GoldenEye 007 (2010 video game)

Per your request, I've left a response to your WP:BRD request. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediation of Video games developed in Japan

The dispute about romanizations for katakana words of non-Japanese origin has now entered mediation and is currently being talked about in this discussion page section. If you still wish to participate, please join the discussion. Thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Who Needs the Peace Corps?

Greetings, DKqwerty. An anonymous editor has started a discussion about your recent reversion of his edits, at Talk:Owsley Stanley#Mention of Stanley's name in a Frank Zappa song. Feel free to reply there. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:1/2

Template:1/2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, I not agree to your personal definition of overlinking it's not backed by our policies, please step back from reverting again. In contrast, our link policies Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking encouraging a strong interconnection of pages with non-trivial subjects, "Remake" (in context video games) is a non-trivial concept not well known in broader audience. Shaddim (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The policy states, "everyday words understood by most readers in context"..."are not usually linked." Anyone who speaks English understands what it means to remake something, regardless of the context of the media. In addition, you also added this link to every article you could find the unlinked term in, which gives no true explanatory meaning to most, if not all the articles in which you linked it. And unless I've broken WP:3RR, I'll "step back" when someone other than yourself stands up to support the link. Otherwise, I'm happy to keep reverting. DKqwerty (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, you need to start proofreading your edits before (or even after) submitting them. I looked at your editing history for the day, and the first four diffs I looked at (diff, diff, diff, diff) all had English-language errors, not to mention the errors in your above post. If you're not good with English as a primary language, you can always submit edits to the talk pages first, allowing those who speak English fluently to reedit them before adding to the article. DKqwerty (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, sorrrrry, was "reedit" not understood because it wasn't Wiki-linked in this context? My bad.

Thx for nitpicking and trying to obfuscate the discussion with a completly unrelated topic. Point is, you completely mis-used the overlinking policy which says only "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly" which is not fitting to your revert explanation "yes, traversing dozens of pages and adding the same irrelevant link to all of them is overlinking". In general again good interconnection of subjects is encouraged: "Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand. When writing or editing an article, it is important to consider not only what to put in the article, but what links to include to help the reader find related information, as well as which other pages should carry links to the article." And about the overlinking, Remake is not fitting (neither literally nor by meaning) to the examples for subjects which should be not linked (dates, units etc). Also, as the general Remake article is about movie remakes only, Video game remake is a uncommon, derived concept, worth to be linked on. Shaddim (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I stopped reading at "Thx". I'll also note that you didn't link it, yet I still knew you were abbreviating "Thanks" and not referring to THX. Sometimes, you just have to assume the reader has common sense. DKqwerty (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

;) it's good to see a wikipedia author with common sense. But in contrast, WP in general is not about giving material for assumptions, it's about giving facts and (especially) clarity to the readers. So, in case of doubt, better be verbose than sorry. Shaddim (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nintendo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HD (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) 10:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

3RR?

I stopped on WOIO and desisted on that one after two attempts; the rest of my reverts have been dealing with TRCG under other IP's. Nate • (chatter) 03:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Bud Clydes

There is no evidence, only unsourced opinion, that the links to the Budweiser Clydesdale commercials on YouTube are copyright violations. For one thing, the earliest link dates to 1967 and might even be in the public domain by now. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Does YouTube or the uploaders own the copyrights to those videos? Since NONE of the accounts are an official Budweiser account, there is NO reason to think this is not a clear violation of copyright. It's the same as linking directly to a music video or television episode if it isn't from the copyright holder's official page or isn't self-hosting the video for free. I'll also point out that WP:3RR gives clear authority to continue reverting this material. (One of the videos is dead, too.) DKqwerty (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect, and tag-team reverting is also a policy violation. Cite your evidence that these videos are under a protected copyright? Given that the 1967 one, in particular, probably exists nowhere else but on YouTube and has some historical significance in advertising, I must respectfully disagree with your analysis. Montanabw^(talk) 16:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No evidence is needed as full copyright protection is provided to the creator of the work immediately and unambiguously upon its publication. According to US law, the commercials are owned by Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC and cannot be republished without their explicit consent, which YouTube and the uploaders cannot be assumed to have. Once again, YouTube's violation of copyright in no way substantiates our linking to that violation, be the commercial from 1967 or 2007. To say it doesn't exists anywhere else is meaningless because legally such situations have zero effect on copyright. We're just trying to follow the law here. DKqwerty (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Not pleased to discover this. Courtesy notification that this was at ANI, at least on the article talk page, would be proper wikiquette. Your sledgehammer approach made you look like a troll, and your all caps ranting added to the effect. A failure to assume good faith and to cite to specific points of where WP:EL (which is what I was following) collided with WP:COPYLINK caused a lot of grief. Wiki is getting more and more hostile to editors who add content. Montanabw^(talk) 03:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate length of headings and your reverting headings for CT

Is there some WP authority for the proper length of headings? I agree that the headings prior user:Theonesean's revision were too long. Absent specific WP rule or advisory guidance, it seems some middle ground is appropriate. Several words for a heading is common on WP. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Help me

I'm curious why a redirect page I created here doesn't actually redirect, it just shows the redirect page itself. Any help is appreciated, thanks! DKqwerty (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:Redirect#Purposes of redirects: "Note that redirects to other Wikimedia projects, other websites, or special pages do not work." Unfortunately you cannot redirect to your contributions, but you can link directly. Huon (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Crap, I wanted to truncate the link to make room in a custom signature I'm thinking of adding. Oh well, thanks anyway! DKqwerty (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contribs is a shortcut for this one. Gryllida 02:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! But I manged to whittle down the HTML using the actual Unicode non-breaking space character rather than " ". Turned out nicely if I may say so.    DKqwerty    03:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Atheist characters

Well, none of those characters expressed a belief in God and seem to be indifferent to God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.66.148 (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• If that alone merited inclusion, almost all fictional characters in all media would be included in the article—from Krazy Kat to Chandler Bing—as most fictional media doesn't directly address the issue of God. Unless you have a very reliable source, do not continue making such revisions.    DKqwerty    18:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It is just that the Pokemon characters are cultural icons that it would be inspiration for atheists to know that they are atheists. It would be so cool if Ash Ketchum and Misty are atheists! 75.140.66.148 (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
    • That's great, but your feelings on this issue are not even remotely relevant. And cultural icons to whom? Anyone from anything can be a cultural icon somewhere. Please note that many entries in the article List of fictional atheists and agnostics have a reference (looks like "[X]" where "X" is a number) or source a particular quote or episode which explicitly confirms them as atheist or agnostic. To that end, and per Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:RS, unless you have very reliable sources, do not continue to make such changes to articles, be it in article space or with categories. This applies to all fictional characters, Pokémon or otherwise. Just in case: please also see WP:BLP is you wish to contribute to articles on non-fictional people.    DKqwerty    22:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Images

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree with you there. In good faith I have removed images that I felt did not belong on Wikipedia, or at least on the pages they were on. The uploader will receive a notification that the image has been orphaned, and the uploader can protest the removal at which point discussion can take place as to whether the image should be kept or removed. We cannot allow progress in improving Wikipedia to be halted by constant bureaucracy or democracy. Why bring an image to deletion when the outcome will be the same regardless of whether it's deleted by being orphaned or deleted by being voted on? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Because if these images are indeed "excessive fair use" as you claim, they should qualify for speedy deletion, no?    DKqwerty    18:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your reversion of my Tetris DX image removal:

1. "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question." - As it does not in any way fulfill the fair use rationale given, the use of the image is at worst dishonest. The image has no stated purpose in the article, and I can assure you that it has no purpose in the article. :#Please watch your tone. Wikipedia is already uncivil enough without people losing their cool over very small things. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• The subject that the image visually identifies isn't addressed at the top of the article, it's addressed later because it doesn't require it's own article. However, the image does appear at the top of the subject's article space. I'll agree that the American box art would be more appropriate, but in lieu, Japanese box art is fine as is. (And I was hardly being uncivil, just exasperated.)    DKqwerty    18:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid civility isn't determined by the person who's being accused of lacking it. That being said, the article is not dedicated to Pokemon Green. How often do you see multiple cover arts used in articles? Why is Pokemon Green special? For it to be used, the image must be notable solely for the image itself, rather than the merits of being the original version of the game. Take Ico - it features a second cover art because it's regarded by fans, critics, and even the publisher as being responsible in part for Ico's failure in the US. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

First, my response was regarding Tetris DX not Green (for the latter, I read "infobox video game" and fair use standards again, and you're correct that there's no need for it). But as for Tetris DX, I'm afraid it needs to stay as it addresses a new, separate version of the game with it's own section in the article and within that subject's infobox. I see no reason to remove it.    DKqwerty    19:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If Tetris had eight new versions, would every version receive an image? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If they all mandated their own sub-sections and infoboxes within the article (as per Teris DX), then yes, I think I'd include them. Now, with eight versions, we might take a different tact in displaying the box art so as to not crowd the page with feet of infoboxes (such as creating an image gallery), but yeah, I'd include them.    DKqwerty    19:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Then you would be going against Wikipedia image guidelines. Cover images are featured in articles solely to illustrate the primary subject of the article. Any further cover images must be justified solely for the images themselves and not the subjects within the primary subject that they represent. If you want to change the fair use guideline, you're free to; however, as it stands, "showing the cover for Tetris DX" is not a good reason to show the cover for Tetris DX. If the image was important to show, the game would be important enough to have its own article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I know that no policy is a permanent rule set, but could you please cite a policy for this? I'm working in good-faith here, trying to understand your position, but it seems to be that just because it's box art that doesn't appear at the very top of the article it doesn't belong. Regarding the malleability of policy, I think "at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question" can also be interpreted as "at the top of the image subject's article space in a subsection dedicated to the work in question." Do you see what I'm saying here? If needed, we can certainly take this to a more appropriate talk page for comments from other editors (seems ridiculous for two of us to hammer this out alone if others have opinions).    DKqwerty    19:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FUR - the Tetris DX image doesn't fulfill any of that. It's specifically designed to ensure that multiple images that simply represent a subject in one article do not remain. Specifically, it asks if the box art there to visualize the main article. Alternately, it asks if the image is used for commentary in the article. In WP:IUP, it says that galleries can never have fair use images within them. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary at Mario Kart

So, I saw this. I agree, his edits aren't accomplishing much, and its a little irritating to see them on my watchlist all the time, but you can't really tell him to stop editing the article over it. He's not really breaking any policy, and the article is both in relatively poor shape, and inactive. It needs clean up, he's making the changes in good-faith, and its not like he's causing edit conflicts right and left or something... Anyways, just thought I'd throw that out there... Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. However, I edit alongside the user on a lot of articles, and no matter how many times I ask him, he NEVER provides edits summaries (which isn't a bannible offense, but certainly doesn't seem like he wants to help other users in the slightest). User also never responds to talk page inquiries, just keeps on editing, and occasionally does make technical errors (like replacing all instances of "game" with "installment" on MK). First of all, he must re-read the article space he edits daily, which, while not a policy violation, seems really lame. He then makes the most infinitesimal changes. If the user would just response to even ONE of my concerns with his editing, I wouldn't get so... perturbed by him. Oh well.    DKqwerty    19:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I completely understand all of your points as well. I can try to say something to him as well sometime. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

R.:Pipes in templates.

Hi DKqwerty, thanks a lot for your advice and teaching. Happy editing to you too. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mario Kart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Invisibility cloak (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) 11:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(Trolling)

It makes no sense what you say. The series is part of Nick's current programming. No particular purpose. --Connie (A.K) (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it makes perfect sense. And to be quite frank, you might want to brush up on your English and read WP:NPOV before continuing to edit.    DKqwerty    04:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to bother. I'm not editing anything wrong. I add the series because IP had erased. If you want, check past editions. --Connie (A.K) (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, a basic understanding of English grammar and syntax is needed to be constructive on Wikipedia.    DKqwerty    05:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

same nominator started same merge discussion again

You previously participated in the merge discussion for this at Talk:List_of_variations_of_the_Mega_Drive#Proposed_merge_with_Sega_Genesis. The nominator has restarted it again at Talk:Sega_Genesis#Merge.2FRedirect_Proposal:_List_of_variations_of_the_Mega_Drive. I think it only fair that those who participated previously be told. Dream Focus 23:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Central Park and Battery Park IPC sections

Give me a little time to work on them. I may not have the sources instantly, so I will put {{ref improve section}}. Even so, I think that the titles and lyrics of some entries are enough attribution, but if you disagree, I'll be happy to find some sources. Please don't remove them outright and then make 3RR accusations. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because these are the only sources I have now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amarcord, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Letterboxing. 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) 10:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your reversion to Speech recognition software for Linux

Hi, please review the diff of your reversion of my edits to the mentioned article. Your edit summary doesn't match what you have actually done, I think you may have made an error: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Speech_recognition_software_for_Linux&type=revision&diff=801673337&oldid=799936826 -- I think you may have intended to revert Bert Niehaus's edits, not mine. Thanks. --BurritoBazooka If you reply here, please add {{ping|BurritoBazooka}} to your message 15:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DKqwerty. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DKqwerty. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DKqwerty. 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)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"WBFS" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect WBFS. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#WBFS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – voidxor 23:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)