User:Professor JR/archive/dustbin

January 2016

January 2016 (User:Diannaa)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I must say I was a bit baffled to find this notice from you when logging into Wikipedia. I have always tried to conscientiously adhere to high standards of attribution and reference citations with regard to sourcing in any editing that I do in Wikipedia. (And, if you will take a look at my "Contributions" list, I believe you will find that I have contributed meaningfully to improving numerous articles.)
I do admit to being somewhat overwhelmed, however, in my attempts to sort through and understand the wide variety of numerous and sometimes rather arcane, Wikipedia 'policies' housed on innumerable pages herein, even given my sincere attempts to familiarize myself with same in trying to avoid any Wiki pitfalls.
It would helpful to me to know with what particular edits, at which entries, you think I have persistently violated Wikipedia copyright policies when you say that I was "previously warned ... but have persisted" -- such that it led you to decide on taking what seems a rather harsh and precipitous action, without further warning, of total blocking. If you would be so considerate as to enumerate them, and perhaps to point out in each case how that particular edit violated policy, I would be most appreciative.
I do hope to rectify this situation, so as to be permitted to continue contributing to Wikipedia in the future, and your assistance in this regard, and suggestions on how I might proceed towards unblocking, would be most appreciated. --- Professor JR (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

On December 8, I posted information on your talk page regarding copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia after finding you had added copyright material from this article to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. In that instance there were 94 words copied from the news article into the Wikipedia article (the part that starts "Over the course of her career, from her 2000 run for the Senate"). On December 4, you added 80 words copied from this website to the article Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site. I discovered this addition on January 4 and that's when you were blocked. In both instances, extensive material was copied directly from the source with minimal paraphrasing, enough that it got picked up by a bot. Looking back through the older bot reports, the bot also reported copyright problems with your addition at Planned Parenthood on July 27, 2015, and at Hillary Clinton email controversy on September 26. So that's four instances in the last 6 months. Please read the material I posted on your talk page on December 8. Follow some of the links, such as Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources or Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, which give a quick overview of our requirements, and look over the policy page, Wikipedia:Copyrights. Once you demonstrate that you have read and understand our copyright policies and will abide by them in the future, I will be able to unblock your account. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you. I appreciate your prompt response. --- Professor JR (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016 (User:Diannaa)

Your addition to Malcolm Wallop has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This is your final warning. You will once again be indef-blocked if there's any further copyright violations, and it's highly unlikely you will be unblocked a second time. — Diannaa (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

December 2015

Edits relating to Hillary Clinton

November, 2015, final warning - (from Wikidemon)

Regarding these edits[1][2][3] (and others): as you have repeatedly been cautioned: (1) do not edit war, particularly to insert disputed POV material into political campaign articles, (2) do not make accusations of bad faith against other editors, and (3) use the talk page to discuss disputed content changes to articles. I left you two cautions about it earlier this month,[4] and your editing behavior is under discussion by other editors as well in various places. It's your choice whether to abide by Wikipedia's editing policies; your refusal appears to be deliberate and longstanding, hence this courtesy notice. I, or another, may or may not revert you here, but whether here or anywhere else, yet another edit like these and I may take this to the appropriate administrative forum without further advance notice. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Given these three edits[5][6][7] after the above warning, I have started a discussion about your editing behavior at WP:AN/I. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy inquiry from an Administrator (User:MaxSem)

• Professor, do you have any comments you want to add to the ANI discussion? Otherwise, I might close it tomorrow imposing a topic ban, if nobody gets to it before me. Max Semenik (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

My replies to Administrator

Hello, and thank you, Max. I have other unavoidable (non-Wikipedia related) commitments today and tonight, but will offer my response first thing in the morning tomorrow (December 3) if you will be kind enough to grant me until then to comment, before taking any action in this matter.
I appreciate your consideration. --- Professor JR (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@MaxSem: Have just posted my comments. Thanks again. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion: topic ban (User:Drmies)

Dear Professor JR, unfortunately the discussion in the recent ANI thread leads to a clear conclusion: a consensus among editors is that you be topic banned from Hilary Clinton-related articles. Please see these diffs for my closing statement. See WP:UNBAN for possible appeals. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Information on copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia

Hello Professor JR, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Melissa Newman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Town & Country (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) 12:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Please note an attempt to bar me from ALL U.S. political articles is underway

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at it again; this time there is a much more aggressive posture aimed at entirely shutting down my edits. Please note the "Result" suggestion at the bottom of the discussion.Your comment regarding this banning attempt would be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nocturnalnow Ban Attempt Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Graham Greene page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Clara Bow

Hi. In the future, please do not italicize quotes, it makes them more difficult to read. I've undone your italics in the above article, but have retained your other changes. Best, BMK (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is Donald J. Mitchell. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. ——Мандичка^YO 😜 20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Just reminding you this conversation regarding your COI is still open. Please comment if you plan to edit this article in the future. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Huma Abedin (User:NorthBySouthBaranof)

The claims about Abedin represent a tiny minority fringe POV, which has been widely rejected, condemned and described as a conspiracy theory by sources ranging from The Washington Post to John McCain. As per WP:NPOV, we must give the clear and overwhelming majority viewpoint — that the claims are unfounded, politically motivated and fundamentally unfair — due prominence, and this is of particular import given that the article subject is a living person. Discussing them without clearly labeling them as a widely-discredited fringe theory advanced only by a small group of right-wing partisans gives the claims undue weight, which is not acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

HC (User:Anythingyouwant)

Hi there. I was thinking of trying to improve the Hillary Clinton article, and I am wondering if you have any advice about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:FRINGE (User:NorthBySouthBaranof)

The claims about Abedin are a fringe theory, and will be dealt with as such. They are widely repudiated and we will treat them exactly as mainstream sources have treated them — unfounded conspiracy theories that unfairly smear a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Re Nocturnalnow: I've been taken for disciplinary action regarding my Huma Abedin work

[8]

You may wish to make a statement here Nocturnalnow (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Did so, here --- Professor JR (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

3RR (User:Cwobeel)

You are making multiple edits that reverts previous material. I don't want to report this to avoid drama, but please be aware of the issue as if you continue, I will have no choice but report it. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Change of heart on Barron William Trump article? (User:Vesuvius Dogg)

ProfessorJR -- since we went round a bit on Melania Trump a few months back and, much to your credit, you helped change my mind a bit on WP:BLP issues related to candidates' spouses (and ex's), I was curious why you switched Barron Trump from its former redirect to Trump's "Personal Life" to its own independent article. To my mind, Barron is obviously not independently notable, but I'm wondering what new thoughts you may have. Hope all's well with you Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vesuvius Dogg: We have articles for three of Trump's children, but not the other two. None of them are particularly 'notable' by Wiki standards (except possibly Ivanka), other than by virtue of their father, and all are more notable now than they were prior to his rise to a 'front-runner' status in the 2016 Republican primary. Seems to me we should either have articles on all five, or on none of them (in the case of the latter, combining all five into the "Personal life" section of his article.) I would be agreeable to either option, just think we have a bit of an inconsistency now. And, whichever way, all five should be listed in Trump's InfoBox (which is how this whole issue came up.) What do you think? Good to hear from you again. --- Professor JR (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, you put me on the spot. I agree at least about Ivanka's independent notoriety. I think Don Jr. is interesting b/c he speaks fluent Czech. Other than that, the three of them basically work for Dad and are famous for appearing to willingly embrace his reflected spotlight (cf "The Apprentice"). As for the younger two, one of them a minor, I'm opposed. If you look closely into the edit history of Marla Maples and an exchange I had with a one-topic editor there (whom I strongly suspect is close to the subject, and who was removing unnecessarily unflattering information related to her long-ago marriage, as well as correcting things only someone close to her would probably know or care about) you might understand my own evolution and prejudice against, in particular, putting Tiffany Trump out there. She's really done nothing more than attend college and undertake an internship, and if I were mother, I'd be quite protective and wary of Wikipedia. Anyway, I do understand your thinking on consistency, and know you'll understand mine if I weigh in for AfD at least for the younger two. All best Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vesuvius Dogg: I agree with everything you say, and that's probably the way to go. I do think all five should, however, be listed in the InfoBox, and Tiffany & Barron not be taken out of there just because they don't have links independent of the main Trump article (cf. article history), which is what some editor kept doing. --- Professor JR (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to ask that you not recreate the article for Barron without going through WP:DRV. The problem here is that he is not independently notable outside of his parents at this point in time. There's also the concern about him being a minor and the rule of thumb is that minors should not have an article unless they are exceedingly notable or would pass one by way of their birth, such as the child being born to an extremely high/notable royal station. Whether or not some of Trump's other children have articles is irrelevant (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), as the existence of other articles could mean that they pass on other merits or that they do not merit an article and just haven't been deleted or redirected yet. If you want to contest those articles and bring them to AfD, you can do that. However the existence of other articles does not mean that all of Trump's children should have an article. If he wasn't a minor then there might be some wiggle room, but Wikipedia is pretty adamant about protecting the privacy of minors regardless of whether or not the parents restrict media coverage of the child. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Bullying"? (User:Ihardlythinkso)

"Bullying reverts" [9]?! Your judgment is really in question. That's pretty off-base and even offensive. (There was a revert war, yes. I reverted LESS, and included sensible editsum rationales, as opposed to my "opponent". I also responded to nasty arguments on the article Talk, w/o responding in kind. I also opened an RfC, when that was reasonable & appropriate to do.) Perhaps you s/ bring to bear a bit more sensitivity in your evaluations!? You s/ also review WP:TPG, because you restored posts incompatible w/ article Talk page guideline specified there. (And if you knew it was contrary to guideline when you restorred it, then there's a valid complaint about your own behavior, disruption to prove a point.) Good luck on the Wikipedia. IHTS (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

3RR (User:Nomoskedasticity)

You're now at the limit of 3RR for Marco Rubio. Best to take a breather. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

untitled (You have a new message...)

Hello, Professor JR. You have new messages at 32.218.40.73's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

November, 2015` (User:Wikidemon)

Hey, I see you're edit warring over some material you're proposing to add to the Hillary Clinton email article.[10][11][12] I've rejected your proposed addition and given reasons for it. Collaborative editing practice is for you to leave rejected content out, and take matters like this to the talk page. I'll start the discussion on this soon, but in the future, please follow that convention. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Second warning here. Please self-revert your third revert here now[13] and consider this my final caution on the subject. We'll see if the other editors on this article can take care of this, but if you continue to try to edit war disputed content into this article with this sort of combative approach I'll ask for help from WP:EW or AN/I without further notice. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I've looked a little further into your recent editing history — and rolled back a bunch of edit warring you just did adding clearly inappropriate categories to articles claiming Hillary Clinton controversies. It looks like you've added a lot of contentious material to numerous articles, most of which is getting rejected. You're going to have to take a step back and be more encyclopedic and collaborative in your approach, you're letting this get the better of your editing. If you continue along this vein you're heading for a topic ban from political articles. Please take the opportunity to think through whether you want to be constructive in your editing here. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Use article talk (User:Scjessey)

Please use article talk pages to seek consensus for your edits after they have been reverted by other editors. Constantly re-adding material to articles without any effort to justify it on talk pages is extremely disruptive to the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere (User:Johnuniq)

Re your laundry list of smears here (diff): WP:BLP applies on all pages at Wikipedia. I suggest you self revert. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Bot notice

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Margaux Hemingway may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Hemingway's husband told ''People Magazine'' in 1996 that, "This [year] was the best I'd seen {Margaux] in years. She had gotten herself back together,"<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.people.com/people/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. --- Professor JR (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

TALK! (User:Scjessey)

What will it take to get you to TALK about your proposed additions to articles under discretionary sanctions before you add them? You must seek consensus from other editors. I've brought this problem up at multiple related talk pages, but most recently here if you want to weigh in. After I've endured today's turkeyfest, I will be seeking assistance at WP:ANI about your tendentious behavior. I will notify you here when I have posted there. In the meantime, enjoy Thanksgiving. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Downton Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Condescending (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) 10:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Lootergate

"Lootergate" redirect? (User/Administrator:BDD)

Hi Professor JR, I was about to speedily delete the Lootergate redirect. Since the term isn't mentioned at the Hillary Clinton article, I was all ready to call it a G10 and R3. Glancing at your user page and contributions, though—well, honestly, I expected a troll. I'm glad you're not, so I thought I'd check with you first. I'm one of the main admins active at WP:RFD, and I'm pretty sure this would be deleted there. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: It is OK to delete it, as the text to which it referred (having to do with the White House furnishings, china and silverware the Clinton's took with them to Chappaqua when they left the White House, and later had to return) has been previously blanked by another editor several weeks ago --- so the redirect is of no use now. Thanks. --- Professor JR (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Lootergate listed at Redirects for discussion (User:BDD|Scjessey?)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lootergate. Since you had some involvement with the Lootergate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

"Carly Fioria" article (User:TheMagicMarker)

The "highly opinionated" quote reflected the balance of coverage as well as the tone of the source. That particular quote is no longer included but the section is now much better in tune with the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagicMarker (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Huma Abedin article (User:Gamaliel)

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

Gamaliel (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

3RR Waring (User:Cwobeel)

I am sure you know the drill. Just to advise you on the WP:3RR rule. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Modern Magic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Magicians

Motion to vacate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Presiding officer

Universidad Nacional de Asunción (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Caaguazú

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton email scandal listed at Redirects for discussion (User:Scjessey)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hillary Clinton email scandal. Since you had some involvement with the Hillary Clinton email scandal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks For Your Comment On my talk page (User:Nocturnalnow)

I encourage you to continue editing the Abedin Blp because a new Admin. may get involved which may lead to the editing becoming more cooperative and comprehensive. If you resume editing there, I will likely join back in myself.Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: Thanks. I will do so. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

"Hillary Clinton email controversy" article (User:Zigzig20s / User:Muboshgu)

Hi. You thanked me for my attempt to tone down the POV in the lead of Hillary Clinton email controversy, but my edit was subsequently reverted twice by another editor. Care to step in?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Recruiting another user to engage in an edit war isn't the way to go about this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Looks like several of the HRC minions with little regard for POV policies have already stepped in -- and, believe me, they far outnumber you and me. It's probably a wasted effort to attempt to inculcate a more neutral POV into any article relating to Hillary Clinton, without inviting an endless barrage of edit-warring from her folks. (As you can see from the above comment from someone calling themselves "Muboshgu", they're even monitoring and trolling my TalkPage. I'm not sure what they're afraid of, but guess I should feel flattered, and I thank you again for your previous attempt at some neutral-POV edits.)
--- Professor JR (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem like a waste of time, with the added bonus of borderline harassment and idle threats. Their behavior will make any independent NOT want to vote for her as they make her look insecure and potentially repressive. I hope they don't have a close connection. Maybe someone at HQ will have to look into that as the election gets closer. I will give it a rest for now as the truth is, Clinton couldn't be more boring!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Boring, yes -- yet rather fascinating as a case study in "the four Ds". Probably doesn't matter much, though, what anybody does or doesn't do regarding any humble attempts at non-POV edits, or much of anything else -- as Clinton and her minions seem bent upon self-destructing, with newly self-inflicted wounds almost daily -- and, try as they might, all the king's (queen's) men (or women) may not be able to put her back together again.
Might be advisable, however, if the news media started putting parental "trigger warnings" on any video clips they show of her -- as those visuals are beginning to scare small children and dogs (clips of her on TV certainly put our dogs on full alert, and they've taken to howling whenever they see her grimacing, or throwing her hands in the air in an orange, no less, prison-jump-suit-esque pantsuit.) And, what's with the flashing the whites of her eyes reaction, and the "uh's" she utters every few words when she deigns to answer reporters' questions? Ever checked those "tells", uh, out, uh, in the FBI handbook, uh, on how to, uh, determine when a perp is, uh, lying?[14] Cheers, and happy editing. --- Professor JR (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America" article (User:Zigzig20s)

Whatever. I think it might be more productive to add referenced content from reviews, etc., to Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America and similar articles. (Note how I did not censor the negative review that's quoted btw...) On another topic, since you are from Wyoming, would you be interested in helping me create articles about prominent members of the Kemmerer family of the Kemmerer Coal Company? I found out about them by accident as one of Norman B. Ream's daughters married one of them.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Afraid I know almost nothing about Kemmerer, or the family, but would be willing to help if I can, and I am definitely interested in any articles having to do with Wyoming. And, as you apparently noticed (thank you for the thank you's) I have already started working to expand the article on the Cheneys' new book (although I inadvertently neglected to log-on for my first several edits, which consequently show as being from my IP address, rather than with my signature. Is there any way to correct that, that you're aware of?) Also parenthetically: (BTW - Cheney was a classmate of mine at the Univ. of Wyoming many years ago in the 1960's - back then, he sported a flat-top haircut and drove hot-rod cars, at least until Lynne got ahold of him and began straightening him out. None of us could have foreseen in those days, though, to what heights he would aspire later.)
--- Professor JR (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

E-mail this user if you want.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A detail, but why don't you like "diatribe"?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: It's a minor point, but the term "diatribe" usually carries with it a degree of negative connotation relative to the speaker -- suggestive of an angry or long-winded, even perhaps irrational, rant or tirade. (synonyms = tirade, harangue, onslaught, attack, polemic, denunciation)
I just found something such as "harsh criticism" or "vehement criticism" more appropriate here -- as the Cheneys' critique of Obama's foreign policy is hardly a harangue or irrational rant; but is instead a very well-thought-out and reasoned assessment, although some might disagree with it, of where they believe the Obama administration has gone wrong with their foreign & military policies (or lack thereof) -- thereby deviating sharply from some 70 years of well-established, bipartisan U.S. foreign and defense policy that the United States has generally adhered to since WW II.
--- Professor JR (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Great job btw. Maybe you'll want to take a look at a few other articles about conservative books that I created: Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution, The 4% Solution: Unleashing the Economic Growth America Needs, possibly even Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Denali (User:Ashill)

FYI, I undid your edit on the footnote for the historical name of Denali. You put a reasonable and up to date sentence as a quotation from the Senate report, which is incorrect. If some version of your footnote text belongs in the lede (a separate discussion), it shouldn't be incorrectly portrayed as a quotation from that 2013 Senate report. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong facts (User:Binksternet / User:Anythingyouwant)

Please don't restore wrong facts as you did here. The layoffs were well underway in 2001, so they could not have been a result of the large market share enjoyed by HP in 2002 after its merger with Compaq. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The merger created redundancies, which led to layoffs. According to Politifact, "It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq...."[15]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with market share. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that she increased market share is noteworthy in itself, and it preceded the 30,000 layoffs, so I think it's harmless to say so. Anyway, it was her quest for increased market share (by merging with Compaq) that led to 30,000 layoffs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

User:Neutrality - Note

Re John Kasich - See Wikipedia:Assume good faith (and Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars). As for my edits, I find your comments puzzling. I removed a lot of unsourced content, and stand by my edits. (You don't seem to have a problem with 90% of them, as you left them almost entirely intact).

Also, several of your edits reinserted unsourced material. See WP:BURDEN ("The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material").

If you have particular concerns about particular material, I'll gladly engage with you on the article talk page. Neutrality^talk 22:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Hillary Clinton email system" article (User:Zigzig20s)

Hello. I see you edited Hillary Clinton email system. In this interview, she says "people can read them." Are they available online? I am not sure where to look; or if they can only be read in hard copy in a library, which would beat the purpose of "releasing" them IMO. I thought you might know.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: You can access the batch of her e-mails released on June 29 & 30 by the State Dept. at: Hillary Clinton e-Mails released by State Dept. 6/29 & 6/30, 2015. Hope this helps. Professor JR (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of "Fiddlesticks! (interjection)" for deletion (User:Savonneux)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fiddlesticks! (interjection) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiddlesticks! (interjection) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Savonneux (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Savonneux I appreciate and share your concerns for the integrity of Wikipedia, but the reason I believed that "Fiddlesticks!" warrants inclusion as a Wikipedia entry is the fact of that interjection's roots in, and connection with American Louisiana Cajun culture among enslaved peoples in the early history of the United States, which I do think is interesting; and it is my intention that myself and other editors will expand that aspect of this subject further as the article is further developed and improved upon from stub status.

That story goes considerably beyond the mere etymology of a word as it would be set out in Wiktionary, and is significant in its acknowledgement of African-American cultural traditions and contributions (often overlooked or given only short shrift) to the broader American folklore and culture of the United States.

When white plantation owners, as they often did, suppressed the use of African musical instruments by slaves, they deprived those people of their traditional means of cultural rhythmic expression. Their continuing need to enjoy musical traditions and express rhythm found new outlets in a number of different forms, one of which was straw beating on violins, or using "fiddlesticks", and the resultant concomitant expletive expression often muttered under ones breath back at their "Masters" and owners, that is the intended subject of this Wikipedia article. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been in use, as an interjection, since the 16th century at least. Shakespeare's Henry IV Part 1 Act 2 Scene 4 "Heigh, heigh! the Devil rides upon a fiddlestick: what's the matter?" (i.e. "Dammit what's going on") [16]--Savonneux (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Savonneux: As used by Shakespeare in Henry IV, Part 1, "fiddlestick" (singular) is neither employed as an interjection, nor does it carry the same meaning as the American usage of "fiddlesticks" (plural) when the latter is used as either just a noun to refer to the straws or sticks used to tap on a violin, or as the interjection "fiddlesticks!", both of which originated in 18th Century Cajun culture in the United States. Shakespeare was referring merely to a violin bow, with which one plays a violin (cf. Merriam Webster - definition of "fiddlestick" (singular)) and was using the term to suggest metaphorically that the Devil is riding on a trifle, or is spouting trivial nonsense, and it is not used as an interjection in the context where you found it in Act 2, Scene 4 of the play. Check out just about any annotated or footnoted edition of Shakespeare's works, of which several are available at most public libraries. --- Professor JR (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading about the Cajun use of sticks on violin string made me thing of the great 1938 Bob Haggart and Ray Bauduc composition Big Noise From Winnetka, in which Bauduc plays the string bass while Haggart fingers the strings with his left hand. There's a great Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfFBdViZHzk

Regards, Edison (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

User:Flyer22 / Your Wikipedia experience

You edited Wikipedia before using the Professor JR account, correct? Flyer22 (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I see that you state so on your user page. I didn't see that before asking you the above question. Anyway, were you editing as an IP before getting a registered account? Were you editing as one or more registered accounts? And, if the latter case, why are you now using a new account? Flyer22 (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Have only ever used one single account, never more than one -- an unregistered IP until recently, then registered it as ProfessorJR. Why do you ask? -- Professor JR (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Professor JR, it took you a long time to reply. I state that because you clearly could have responded earlier. Anyway, I obviously asked about your Wikipedia experience because you don't edit like a WP:Newbie. Looking at your first contributions as Professor JR and a glance at your current contributions under that account told me that there is no way that you are a WP:Newbie. And since I am in the habit of identifying people using WP:Clean start inappropriately or WP:Socking, as noted on my user page, I decided to ask you about your Wikipedia experience. It's smart that you noted your Wikipedia experience on your user page, since that helps explain how such a new account edits like you do. Flyer22 (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton focus (User:Wikimandia)

It seems like you are particularly focused on Hillary Clinton. Outside of the hugely problematic "controversies" article, (which the editor who approved has admitted should not have been approved) you added peacock tags on different articles when none were necessary such as this one [17] and this one [18] (anything positive was sourced and there is a neutral tone, discussing any criticisms). This kind of editing is seen as a bit disruptive and has led you to be labeled a WP:SPA (single-purpose account). It looks like you have made some very valuable contributions in many other areas but you have some personal bias regarding Hillary Clinton. I would kindly suggestion you should consider voluntarily not editing that topic. Also FYI, it is good if you list your previous account name - have you done this? It is confusing to see you claim you have been around since 2006 yet this account only has activity from May 2015 on. Happy editing. Thank you. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hillary 2016's interest in wikipedia

It seems users like User:Calidum, User:Scjessey, User:Muboshgu, and User:Tarc are patroling Hillary related articles with the coordination of coworkers sitting next to each other in a campaign office. I wonder how long until Administration catches on. Chrononem ☎ 20:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Chrononem: Yes! I've thought much the same thing for some time --- there certainly appears to be a very concerted trolling effort by a number of pro-HRC biased editors with little or no regard for Wikipedia POV policies and practices. Thing is, try as we good-faith editors such as you & I may to incorporate source-based counterpoints into the multitude of HRC puff pieces and peacock wording in various Wikipedia articles, the HRC minions have us badly out-numbered, and are presumable much better funded than we, and with much more free time on their hands apparently, than some of us.

I've decided to just surrender, as HRC and company are doing pretty well on their own (without any objective critiques from persons such as you & I) at self-destructing, what with their knee-jerk reactions and overly zealous failings, and their blind, unbridled ambition for the WH, I guess --- especially the principal, herself. They may have it right --- their by now huge plethora of seemingly sneaky stuff and shenanigans may not not be what it looks like, as she and they constantly claim --- but there sure is always a pretty stinky, lingering odor in their wake.

Anyway --- for my part, I'm pretty well done here (i.e. - with any more HRC stuff, or trying any edits on the maybe several dozen articles herein promoting her.) Not my circus, not my monkeys, as they say --- but someone sure left the idiot bag open at HRC headquarters.

Thanks for your shared concern. --- Professor JR (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, how did you guess. Truth be told, I'm Robby Mook, Calidum is Leon Panetta, SCjessey is Huma Abedin, and Tarc is the Big Dog himself. :rolls eyes:

As far as I can tell, you're POV warriors with a beef against Hillary, and the four of us, and others, are trying to maintain neutral point of view for everything Hillary-related and not. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I am so done here. (Somebody's ripped open another idiot bag over there, and idiots have spilled out and are scattered all over my TalkPage.)

Courtesy Copy: @Chrononem: --- Professor JR (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you guys threw a tantrum about a very non POV citation needed tag. Tell me, how did four editors independently decide that every passage in WP:LEAD referring to challenged statements was invalid? I noticed similar behavior with every other editor (Professor JR being the most recent, sorry I got you involved) and thought I'd bring your obvious collusion to one of their attentions. I feel like you have an pre-authorized copy of the page and are working together to make sure it doesn't devivate in the least. Chrononem ☎ 22:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not "collusion" if we're all following the same rule book, the WP:MOS. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Haha, no. I pointed out your MOS violations, what hints at collusion is that you all ~independently~ decided to violate the same rule and to keep at it once it was pointed out to you. Take your puppet show and hit the road. Chrononem ☎ 12:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Chrononem: It did look rather eerily co-ordinated, in a curious sort of way by the four, didn't it. But perhaps, as the HRC camp is always quick to say: "This is not what it looks like." May depend on what your definition of "It's not" is, in Muboshgu's contention that, "It's not 'collusion'." --- But it sure quacks & looks like a duck. . . .

Did you see this one, that one of them posted, while rolling their eyes apparently ~ "Truth be told, I'm Robby Mook, Calidum is Leon Panetta, SCjessey is Huma Abedin, and Tarc is the Big Dog himself. :rolls eyes: As far as I can tell, you're POV warriors with a beef against Hillary, and the four of us, and others, are trying to maintain neutral point of view for everything Hillary-related and not. (– User:Muboshgu - 30 July 2015).

There are sure some serious LP problems with that one, with links, no less; and I happen to know that Secr. Panetta, for one, is not amused by the implied accusation against him therein. --- Professor JR (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Surely, it seems that the meat puppet sideshow went back in my edit history in order to violate another wikipedia rule on Hillaryland. Sticking a ventilator down a dead article's throat and saving it from deletion. Again, with remarkable coordination. Take notes on who helps them. Chrononem ☎ 18:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Alleged Clinton Controversies" article

Your Articles for creation: Clinton controversies (June 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Orduin was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Clinton controversies and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- Orduin ^Discuss 18:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Split "Clinton Controversies" Suggestion

You ought to split your "Clinton controversies" draft into separate drafts for Bill and Hillary to avoid guilt by association. Also, the word "controversies" is no good in a title, per WP:Criticism, so you should change to something like "Hillary Clinton incidents" and "Bill Clinton incidents", or something similar (though I cannot guarantee that that would solve the problem unless you include some incidents that were not controversial).Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:A good, and very welcomed suggestion on the title. Thanks. Relative to splitting the article into two, however, I'm not sure that's even possible, as the Clintons are spouses (with common property rights, joint tax returns, etc., etc. - e.g. any money Bill makes also belongs to Hillary, etc.) -- and they have also been inseparably linked, by their own choosing, in their shared public lives since the Arkansas days, during the White House years (where Hillary even insisted on an office in the West Wing, as she discusses in her autobiography), and by their family foundation -- which they chose to call the "Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation". There is also a long tradition in journalism, in terms of ethics and sound journalism practices, that the spouse of a candidate for the presidency is, as they say: "fair game" -- for they are slated to become First Lady (or in the case at hand, First Gentleman) if the candidacy is successful -- a role now well established by historical and legal precedent as that of a government public official in its own right, which comes with (although no salary, per se) an array of public responsibilities, and corresponding emoluments, staff, office space, transportation, Secret Service protection, etc. Beyond that, almost all, or at least the majority of the "incidents" or "controversies" at issue here included one degree or another of involvement by both Clintons, with the possible exception of the Bengazi matter (although its not a real stretch to imagine they may have discussed it at the time, or shared insights through their shared, private e-Mail server, established officially by former Pres. Cilnton for his post-presidential home office use, and utilized by Secr. Clinton, in lieu of a gov't. server, while Secretary of State.) I do feel rather strongly that a split of the draft article into two separate articles would be very difficult, and if done, the result would result in considerable, extensive duplication and redundancy and de facto cross-referencing between the two. Can't really see how it could be reasonably even accomplished. What do you think?Professor JR (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If you split it into three (Bill, Hillary, Both) then you overcome that problem. You could submit only one as an article, and then based on the outcome submit the others or not. I don't know what my position would be, but you will have a better chance if you follow this advice, I suspect.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:OK, suggestion appreciated & well taken -- but I'm a bit hard pressed to figure out precisely what would not be included in the "Both" article. Perhaps the "Gennifer Flowers", "Troopergate", & "Paula Jones" sections arguably don't belong in article on Secr. Clinton; and maybe the section on Huma Abedin shouldn't be included in the former President's (although he did officiate and perform the marriage ceremony when Adedin married Anthony Weiner, and remains friendly and in contact with both.) Fact is, throughout their long careers of public service, both Clintons have jointly participated in almost everything, as is true of most married people, and perhaps even more so in their case as relates to their public lives. Do you have suggestions for which of the draft sections belong in each of the suggested three (Bill, Hillary, Both) articles?Professor JR (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be easy enough for you to say in the Introduction something like "Inclusion here does not mean the spouse was not involved in any way, only that the spouse was not the primary person involved."Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Your Articles for creation:"Alleged Clinton Controversies" - accepted

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

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

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy: Thank you very much. I decided to post a re-submit request for this one, rather than create it myself, since it had been declined previously, prior to recent major revisions, clean-up, edits in line with POV concerns, etc. Again, thank you. I greatly appreciate the benefit of your independent review prior to acceptance. --- Professor JR (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion (User:Tarc)

31 July 2015 - User:Tarc - "You aren't keeping a userfied copy of a deleted article, esp one so blatantly WP:BLP-violating. If this is restored, the matter will be escalated.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies

"Planned Parenthood" article

Just to make it clear, if you didn't know, that like all articles related to Abortion, this article is under a 1RR restriction. You have made two full or partial reverts of content today. Please make sure you stick to the limits in the future. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Professor JR, I just wanted to say hello and thank you for fixing some of the major POV problems this page was having, several of which I had also tried to implement before myself. I think you did a very good job of adding perspective to this page. Appreciate you. Juicebox 90 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015 (User:Binksternet)

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAB (User:EdJohnston)

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Planned Parenthood (User:BullRangifer)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't add unsourced information to the Planned Parenthood article (User:Somedifferentstuff)

This edit by you [19] added unsourced information to the Planned Parenthood article. Here is the source that is currently being used for that section of the sentence [20]; no where in the source does it mention the House of Representatives, which makes your edit a violation of WP:VERIFY. In the future, be sure to use a source that supports your changes. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please follow proper procedure (User:BullRangifer)

You have attempted to add content to this section, contrary to the hidden instructions for editors in that section: Planned Parenthood#The Center for Medical Progress (CMP) undercover videos. Please don't do that. Follow the instructions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Mattnad

Please avoid using uncivil edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. Your summary here may be considered uncivil. Let's keep it respectful even while we can disagree.Mattnad (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

One big edit vs. many small edits (User:Neutrality)

Re one big edit vs. many small edits - it is often helpful to separate out edits when doing a series. For example, if one change is to reorganize the order of paragraphs, another is for word choice, and yet another is to remove a sentence, it is oftentimes easier to do the edits in a series, rather than omnibus, for ease of editing and for ease of review. This is doubly true on controversial issues, where some changes may be unanimously agreed upon, and others highly contentious.

In any case, there is no need to be snarky about it. Neutrality^talk 14:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton email controversy

Assume Good Faith (User:Scjessey)

With respect to this edit summary, please assume good faith. I'm tired of your personal attacks, quite frankly. I've been editing on Wikipedia for years, with 20,000 edits on more than 6,000 unique pages. I've been intimately involved in the creation of many of Wikipedia's policies, and I understand those policies and guidelines very well indeed. I have always edited with fairness and unrelenting neutrality. Your accusations are unwarranted and startling examples of hypocrisy. If you are unhappy that I've removed something you have been working on (which is permissible under WP:BRD), say something on the talk page instead of reverting with a jackass comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring warning / Carly Fiorina (User:Somedifferentstuff)

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Carly Fiorina. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Callinus / Multiple accounts (User:Callinus)

Hello, Professor JR, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. -- Callinus (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Callinus: Sorry, that was simply an oversight on my part -- I inadvertently failed to log-in when making that particular edit, resulting in my IP address showing as having made the edit, rather than my account user-name. Professor JR (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

All good. -- Callinus (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Chrononem / Sorry about that revert

I must have accidentally clicked undo on your edit instead of the ip below you.Chrononem ☎ 15:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

---