AnswerManDan

Welcome!

Hello, AnswerManDan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Reflow syndrome, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reflow syndrome

The article Reflow syndrome has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No ghits on ""Reflow syndrome" -wikipedia". Possible hoax.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind this, I made a mistake, sorry. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Fomes fomentarius

Hi there- do you have a source for that name? I've seen other species referred to as a "false tinder fungus", but not Fomes fomentarius. J Milburn (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Spontaneous combustion has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Spontaneous combustion was changed by AnswerManDan (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.855448 on 2015-06-05T17:40:37+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - AP2 and BLP

WP:BLP applies everywhere and applies to the recently dead. You may not state that people committed violent crimes without WP:RS (which wisconsinrightnow is not). If you wish to discuss these issues, use good sources and use the correct terminology as not to label people incorrectly.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Everything I stated in that talk page is accurate, and the source I used wad a newspaper article. I don't see what the issue is 2603:7000:8003:3E00:60D4:9DF1:E4B:B928 (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

How's this :

https://kenoshareporter.com/stories/552689330-rosenbaum-raped-five-boys-sentencing-records-reveal AnswerManDan (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No. Metric Media, which runs that website, is not a reliable source as you can see per the wikipedia article's description. Moreover, the byline is just "staff" which, given the sus nature of the source, makes it inappropriate for Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow I guess you really don't want these facts to come out. Funny how I just posted the first sources I found, both local newspapers, but none of them are up to your standards.. I'm guessing you're a Democrat.. AnswerManDan (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

They're not local papers and no i'm not. Did you read why i said they're not ok sources? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Contentious topics reminder

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

Just a reminder, since it's been over a year since you were informed. –dlthewave ☎ 02:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)