User talk:David Hedlund/Archives/2017/May

Impact factor

"Adv Mind Body Med" has an impact factor of close to zero and therefore would not be considered a reliable source.[1] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Navbox on Body-focused repetitive behavior

Hey! Per your request on IRC, I've fixed the navbox on Body-focused repetitive behavior. The issue was that {{Emotional and behavioral disorders}} did not pass the {{{state}}} parameter through to {{Navbox}}. Let me if you have any more questions. TheDragonFire (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC) @TheDragonFire: Thanks a lot! --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 18:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits on morsicatio buccarum

Your edits on the above article are incompetent. Please only categorize medical conditions based on reliable sources, to just make up your own categorizations is original research and harmful to the encyclopedia. Why would cheek chewing be considered pica disorder? Please properly research before making such edits.

Also please do not add Wikipedia articles to the see also section when they are already linked in the text.

I am not going to go over your contributions but my guess would be that you are blanket categorizing articles in this harmful manner and other editors will have to correct it. Please stop. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Matthew Ferguson 57: I partially restored your revert and added a reference . Thank you for using my Talk page. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 19:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Matthew Ferguson 57: I added back Category:Habit and impulse disorders (see "habits" in the article). I don't know why you removed Category:Psychiatric diagnosis, why did you do that? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 20:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Autoformat tool for citations

People have been asking you for YEARS to stop adding bare URLs when you edit.

Maybe you aren't aware that the plain wikitext editor has an autoformat tool.

You will notice that when you are in an edit window, that up at the top there is a toolbar. On the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of the new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite journal", you can fill in the "doi" or the "PMID" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing will auto-fill. Then you click the "insert" button at the bottom, and it will insert a ref like this (I changed the ref tags so it shows):

(ref) Huhtaniemi, I (2014). "Late-onset hypogonadism: current concepts and controversies of pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment". Asian journal of andrology. 16 (2): 192–202. PMID 24407185. (/ref)

That takes about 10 seconds, if even that. As you can see there are templates for books, news, and websites, as well as journal articles, and each template has at least one field that you can use to autofill the rest. The autofill isn't perfect and I usually have to manually fix some things before I click "insert" but it generally works great and saves a bunch of time.

The PMID parameter is the one we care about the most on articles about health.

One thing the autofill doesn't do, is add the PMC field if it is there (PMC is a link to a free fulltext version of the article). you can add that after you insert the citation, or -- while you have the "cite journal" template open -- you can click the "show/hide extra fields" button at the bottom, and you will see the PMC field on the right, near the bottom. If you add the PMC number there that will be included, like this (again I have changed the ref tags):

(ref) Huhtaniemi, I (2014). "Late-onset hypogonadism: current concepts and controversies of pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment". Asian journal of andrology. 16 (2): 192–202. PMC 3955328. PMID 24407185. (/ref)

The autofill also doesn't add the URL if there is a free fulltext that is not in PMC. You can add that manually too, after you autofill with PMID

Please stop adding bare URLs to Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I'll add your explanation to my personal Wikipedia FAQ. I get dizzy of the rules. Thanks. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 04:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

that would be wonderful. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I added the references to ketamine. Thank you for helping me out! Bots clean up bare URLs so why is it important that I do it first (please provide Wikipedia reference links to support your claim)? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 05:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

September 2009

Hi Davidbengtenglund,

Thanks for your recent contributions. Please could you use edit summaries to make it easier for others to go through their watchlist and to check your edits. Also, please check your own watchlist (I suggest to check My preferences > Watchlist > Add pages I edit to my watchlist) - I have recently reverted your inclusion of ergine in Category:Entheogens and I gave the reason for it in the edit summary (see history). It is somewhat rude to undo that without giving any explanation :-)

Also, you have added numerous substances to Category:Entheogens that are clearly NOT "used in the strict sense of the word, meaning any substance which traditionally has been used in religious or shamanic contexts. For other substances which are called entheogens see Category:Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants" (as explicitly stated on top of Category:Entheogens). The reason for this is that otherwise both categories would be identical and the Category:Entheogens would be without any purpose.

Please could you go through your recent edits and remove the Category:Entheogens tag from the articles of substances that are not used traditionally as entheogens.

It is also not a good idea to add your own web site to articles, please read our requirements for reliable sources and references.

Thanks in advance, Cacycle (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the categories from non-classical entheogens. I left them on the pure active compounds from entheogens for now, but this will be somewhat controversial. Cacycle (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not reintroduce your website as a reference, it is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Please explain all your edits in the edit summary field under the edit field. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Davidbengtenglund, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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? 02:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Wheaton_NextGen_V-vial_graduated.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Wheaton_NextGen_V-vial_graduated.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Common_portable_milligram_scale.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Common_portable_milligram_scale.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of the "minor" flag

Hi there and thanks for your contributions to Poppers. Please remember only to use the minor edit tag when the edit you are making is actually minor. --John (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't a minor edit either. Could you please uncheck that box when making future edits? Thanks, --John (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Melatonin. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SudoGhost 06:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Relationship activism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Relationship activism 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/Relationship activism 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Moogwrench (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Review articles

We typically use review articles for medical content per WP:MEDRS thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Also we have an outline for ordering of sections here at WP:MEDMOS Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Marijuana strain articles

I asked some of the plant editors about your marijuana strain articles. The sources appear to be blogs, or the articles are based on information from one source. Anyway, join the discussion here. Pseudofusulina (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Difference between Indica and Sativa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Difference between Indica and Sativa 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/Difference between Indica and Sativa 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Bulwersator (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, File:Difference between Cannabis Indica and Sativa

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, File:Difference between Cannabis Indica and Sativa. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Difference between Indica and Sativa. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Difference between Indica and Sativa - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.  -- WikHead (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Comparison of web search engines

The article Comparison of web search engines has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A not so subtle spam article that attempts to promote DuckDuckGo without reliable source cites, reasonable weights applied to comparison criteria, and also it's factually incorrect (Google can't be accessed with encryption, really?), fails WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPAM.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zad68 (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Comparison of web search engines. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. hydrox (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Qmmp

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

Non-notable software

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Qmmp for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Qmmp 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/Qmmp 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 template from the top of the article. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Wheaton NextGen V-vial graduated.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Wheaton NextGen V-vial graduated.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Please use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS such as review articles. Note that these are not the same as peer reviewed articles. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This [2] is a primary research paper and is not a suitable reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

You are presently engaged in an edit war at Omega-3 fatty acid against multiple other editors. Please do not attempt to impose your preferred version of the article by continually editing the same content into the article. I see you have made no attempt to discuss your edits on the talk page. There is clear guidance at WP:MEDRS which explains that we do not use primary sources to modify the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, and a small 12-person study carries no weight whatsoever against the conclusions of a Cochrane review. This has been explained to you, and your failure to accept the consensus that MEDRS enjoys is tantamount to disruptive editing. This may lead to a withdrawal of your editing privileges if you continue to edit against community norms. Please accept this warning in good faith: I would much prefer for you to channel your energies into editing collaboratively than to lose you from the project. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Soapbox editing

I am not very happy with your editing habits on Comparison of web search engines. First you created the page, but many editors agreed that you had chosen the comparison parameters unfairly to highlight a single product. There was a lengthy dicussion to bring the page in line with WP:NPOV. Now you seem to have done it again, this time adding comparison parameters so that they highlight another product and ignoring all other products. I find this kind of editing rather one-sided. See Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. --hydrox (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Orion product.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Orion product.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Alcoholic beverage, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --McGeddon (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth thinking about edit summaries, which make it easier for other editors to see what's been changed and why. Thanks for your contributions to the article, anyway, it's certainly looking a lot better now. --McGeddon (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Tert-Amyl alcohol

Just so you're aware, it isn't appropriate to rename an article by cuttting and pasting text from one title to another. The article must be "moved" using the procedure described at Wikipedia:Moving a page. I have now moved the article to the title tert-Amyl alcohol (with capitalization after the prefix per naming conventions at WP:MOSCHEM). Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits

Please provide an edit summary to avoid unnecessary revisions. Cheers! Sandcherry (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Django-oscar

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Django-oscar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the page be "userfied" or emailed to you. Tckma (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lightning Fast Shop

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Lightning Fast Shop, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the page be "userfied" or emailed to you. Tckma (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Alcoholic beverages

Great work on cleaning up Alcoholic beverages! It is on the way to GA quality. Sandcherry (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Short and long-term effects of alcohol for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Short and long-term effects of alcohol 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/Short and long-term effects of alcohol 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 template from the top of the article.

February 2013

Many of your edits have involved copying material from one article to another, without attribution. This is problematic and must stop immediately. Wikipedia is copyrighted and licensed, and attribution to the original contributors is a requisite part of the process. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more details explaining the problem.Novangelis (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Novangelis (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Alcohol

The articles Short-term effects of alcohol and Long-term effects of alcohol have apparently been restored so the article Short and long-term effects of alcohol that I created by merging to two can now be deleted. The unidentified material were from the article Alcoholic beverage now moved to Alcohol and health and structured into Template:Psychoactive substance use. Thank you.David Hedlund 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not single articles, but an overarching pattern of moving the work of others between articles. For example, did this edit and this edit come from Long-term effects of alcohol#Heart attack and stroke. The copy-pastes are a mess on the grand scale. How many are there? Are you capable of clearing up or attributing all of them?

 They were in fact just a few and I did remove their content to Long-term effects of alcohol peer your request. Problem solved =)

As an aside, new sections go at the bottom of talk pages and there is no need to make the same post in three places.Novangelis (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations are serious, so putting proverbial band-aids on a select few gaping wounds is not "problem solved". The method of patching is inadequate, and the application is incomplete. Please hold off all editing of articles into which you have added copied material until you understand what its required. There is no reason to make your mess worse. Please restrict all future discussion to the adminitrator's noticeboard.Novangelis (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems I am in error. Some of my searches were finding cached versions, but I am going to be very angry if I do find any of your copy-pastes once the search engines have caught up.Novangelis (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! MrADHD | T@1k? 20:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Your addition,[3] to the long-term effects of alcohol article 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 text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article 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. You have previously been warned about doing this. Please stop! Summarise content of sources in YOUR OWN words! Don't copy and paste please! It breaks copyright laws and rules! MrADHD | T@1k? 20:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Templates

Usually we keep the templates at the bottom collapsed. Wondering why you are expanding a bunch? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you doing?

With all these edits [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_alcohol redirects to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_alcohol#Intoxicants so there is obvious reason that it might appear weird that it is placed there.

Have reverted the edits in question. 1) What does "alcohol family content" mean even 2) the "about" template is not needed as there is no question what these articles are about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!Canterbury Tail talk 03:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nihamanci

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nihamanci, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20564.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Your addition to Toluene toxicity 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 text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article 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. Coffeepusher (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your addition to Anxiolytic 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 text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article 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. Coffeepusher (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

copyright protects the creative form of ideas. You copied and pasted large chunks of text, and even with a citation this is considered a violation because you copied both the form and the ideas. Please review wikipedia's copyright standards as well as the policies on quoting and block quotes.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Alcohols in alcoholic beverages for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alcohols in alcoholic beverages 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/Alcohols in alcoholic beverages 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 template from the top of the article.

Comparison of SAR title discussion

Happy New Year! It looks like you've been around for quite a while and nobody has properly welcomed you to the project. I hate when that happens and apologize on behalf of the community.

I am here to let you know that I have proposed a discussion on the talk page of the smartphone SAR list you've been working on, regarding the future of the article and specifically the article's proper title. I'd like to invite you to participate in that discussion as I think your input will be very valuable. To join in, please have a look at the discussion here. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I second the motion. It would be great to get your opinions and thoughts at either Talk:Specific absorption rate#Improvements_and_deletions_to_the_Mobile_phone_SAR_list_section and/or at Talk:Comparison of specific absorption rate for devices#Article_title. --papageno (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of specific absorption rate for devices for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of specific absorption rate for devices 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/Comparison of specific absorption rate for devices 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. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Koan (musical duo)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Koan (musical duo) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 12:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Korn

Just write "Korn." Italics would probably just confuse the reader, and for consistency we might have to italicize words like "akvavit" and "armagnac." Wahrmund (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Venenux GNU/Linux

The article Venenux GNU/Linux has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable Linux distribution, no references. Since the distro has been discontinued few new refs are likely to be written.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Old threads on talk pages

Hello there! Regarding your edits on the Talk:Comparison of Linux distributions talk page, please note that old threads aren't supposed to be deleted but archived instead; see WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE for more details. I've already reverted those two edits, and in a few minutes I'll configure automated archiving for that talk page. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

New comments go to the bottom, not top

Hi.

New comments on talk pages must be added the very bottom, not top. Otherwise, you will risk it being missed.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

• Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
• Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
• To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} ~~~~
• To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}} ~~~~
• You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu^Talk 12:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Nomination of Mail2tor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mail2tor 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/Mail2tor 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. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Mailtor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mailtor 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/Mailtor 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. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Tor, articles, deletion, etc.

Hi David Hedlund,

Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Tor-related subjects. I'm afraid, however, that you may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines that establish which topics should be the subject of encyclopedia articles. The short version of those rules: multiple reliable third party sources must have written specifically about the subject (not just about Tor, about Tor email, and not just a passing mention). These articles (Mailtor and Mail2tor don't seem to fit those criteria (speaking as someone who likes to work on Tor-related articles myself, I did what I feel is a pretty thorough search for sources without luck). If you know of sources that for whatever reason I wasn't able to find, please add them to the article and/or to the deletion discussions linked above, and let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pornhub NETWORK

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Pornhub NETWORK requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of YouPorn Gay

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on YouPorn Gay requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. SFK2 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mofos

Hello David Hedlund,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mofos for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Jayakumar RG (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Beeg

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Beeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. SFK2 (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of GayTube

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on GayTube requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. SFK2 (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm Ahunt. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page gNewSense, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Trisquel. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to BLAG Linux and GNU. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ahunt: These are not spam links but license references. Is it Wikipedia policy to ignore a problem on the grounds that the FSF reports it? --David Hedlund (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

FSF does not set policy for Wikipedia. Your continued insertion of FSF and GNU.org links is disruptive and after many warnings not to do this, is now vandalism. See see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Spam_external_linking. - Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ahunt:No, its hard work ruined by you. Congratulations, I hope you are satisfied. It would be so much better if you assume good faith instead of pointing out how bad my edits are. -David Hedlund (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Curious - when you say the FSF reports it, what are you referring to? Would it help to use the talk page of the articles to resolve these issues, and refrain from making mass changes until there's WP:CONSENSUS. Ahunt has a point about disruption (and edit summaries) [5], and maybe worth reading WP:BRD, hope that helps with the understandable frustration of reverted work. Widefox; talk 11:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Widefox: There is a problem with the term "source model; it's described in http://gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#SourceModel. The term "Market" are also mentioned there. Despite name-calling like "spam" and "vandalism", the problem calls for attention. If I haven't used the right method to signal the problem, what method should I use? Is there a way to raise the issue that follows rules but isn't a hopeless dead end? --David Hedlund (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Security-Enhanced Linux

I reverted the controversy section - see the talk page, and WP:CSECTION. Thanks, Widefox; talk 15:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, David Hedlund, 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. Forgive me for asking, but per [6] the two accounts User:Alphaslucas User:David Hedlund look coordinated, although I'm assuming you're different editors. Widefox; talk 12:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Coordinating

(The preferred method is to archive your talk page, rather than delete). I was looking for a reply to my question [7], care to? Widefox; talk 19:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Widefox: Thank you for letting me know that the talk page should be archived. I answered the question below where you asked for it a second time. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 08:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Linux. Can you explain why you're adding WP:CSECTIONs (and NSA controversy generally) to articles? [8] (although reworded here [9]) Would it be possible for you to not give me the impression WP:IDHT. I ask you again to use edit summaries. This is no place for WP:ADVOCACY. These edits are fail WP:NPOV and I've reverted several of them. Stop now and engage in dialogue about this - WP policies and guidelines, or you will be blocked. Widefox; talk 20:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ahunt: pls can you double check the Linux article changes (and any others) for neutrality, as I'd rather get a second opinion than revert all myself. Thanks Widefox; talk 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Widefox: Because they all contain the same text so I didn't want to confuse the readers by letting them having different titles. --David Hedlund (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, read WP:COPYPASTE, then have another attempt at justifying all this disruption I've asked you above. I'm sure Ahunt is with me here, it really would be cool to have more Linux editors around here. Widefox; talk 20:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Widefox: Noted. Thank you for your feedback. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 08:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: Your question Can you explain why you're adding WP:CSECTIONs (and NSA controversy generally) to articles? I added Richard Stallmans email signature to his article: "To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example." I agree with him, and he liked that I added this. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 08:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: This section has been removed. However, you complained that I didn't provide edit summaries. I added edit summary Added section "Critisism to NSA" for this revision, is it not enough? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 09:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2014

Your recent editing history at Lucid dream shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Actually I provided a reliable source if you did read the beginning of the edit summary. Is that a violation? --David Hedlund (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

My new edit-summary explains that a non-peer reviewed work such as a book is not a reliable source for these claims. The book by LaBerge is not peer-reviewed and therefore it is not a reliable source. In any case, this discussion should take place at the article talkpage so that we can have other editors participate and comment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: The quoted text from http://www.lucidity.com/SleepAndCognition.html referred to LaBerge, S., Greenleaf, W., & Kedzierski, B. (1983). Physiological responses to dreamed sexual activity during lucid REM sleep. Psychophysiology, 20, 454-455. that you can review. If its valid I suggest you revert the edit back and add it as a reliable source. Thanks. --David Hedlund (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I moved the discussion at the article talk and also replied there. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome

This page WP:MEDHOW can help with your editing. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: Thank you! How did you get the idea to inform me? --David Hedlund (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Saw your edits to methanol. The other thing that we recommend very highly is the use of secondary sources such as review articles. Often primary sources get removed on English Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

May 2017

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Alcoholic drink. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. The comments about "intoxicating", "possibly intoxicating" etc are not in the source but are your own additions, meaning that you're getting dangerously close to the kind of POV/OR editing that resulted in your indefinite block a couple of years ago. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I see. I just started working with charts. Could that table be added to alcohol by volume then (without any mention of intoxication levels)? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 10:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Can this revision stay on alcoholic drink? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 10:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• To be safe you should stay away from all articles relating to alcohol, euphoriants etc, since it was your edits on that kind of articles that got you blocked. What I object to in your edits on Alcoholic drink is that your classification of alcoholic drinks as "intoxicating" etc is extremely simplified, since all you did was look at the alcohol content, but whether someone gets intoxicated or not, and the level of intoxication, also depends on a long list of other factors that you totally ignored, such as quantity, age, gender, bodyweight, medication and individual predisposition. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I agree with you that I should take it very easy with certain articles, but I want to be able to edit any articles in Wikipedia and that should be possible if I use the Talk pages. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 10:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You have not kept to the undertakings you made which led to the lifting of your last two blocks.

You have returned to controversial editing about alcohol, which has been a major cause of your being blocked from editing in the past, continuing to do so even after you had said "I agree with you that I should take it very easy with certain articles". I also see that you have made a significant effort to make your editing on the subject superficially appear to be neutral. However, there have been various aspects of your editing which, while taken individually might seem innocuous, taken together, and in the context of your editing history, make it clear that you are determined to continue to use Wikipedia to promote your point of view concerning alcohol, and that you have no intention of sticking to your undertakings. There are also several aspects of your recent editing which give the impression that you may be trying to disguise the nature of what you are doing, and while I am willing to assume good faith as far as is reasonably possible, the combined effect of seeing what you have recently been doing and knowledge of the problematic editing which led to your past blocks make it difficult to do so. I have twice in the past unblocked you, to give you another chance. The last time I unblocked you, I made it explicit that I was doing so despite feeling that you had not given clear enough assurances that you would not continue in the same way as before, and that I had "decided to give you the benefit of the doubt". Unfortunately, you have now removed that doubt, and there is none left to give you the benefit of. I have therefore restored the indefinite block. In view of your persistent returns to the same kind of unacceptable editing over the course of three years, your repeated assurances that you won't do it again, and your waiting a while after being unblocked and then returning to the same kind of editing, I very much doubt that unblocking you ever again will be beneficial to the project.

Just in case at some time in the future you ever decide to make another unblock request, for the convenience of any administrator who reviews that request I shall mention just a few of the relevant aspects of your recent editing.

You have returned to editing to promote your personal view that the harmful effects of alcohol should be given more prominence in Wikipedia, which was largely what led to previous blocks. In order to do so, you have added your own original content, not supported by the references to which you attached it. You have buried such editing in the midst of large numbers of seemingly innocent edits, largely concerned with formatting and similar matters: while it is impossible to be certain as to what if any motive you had in doing so, in the light of your editing history it looked exactly like an attempt to hide what you were doing. After you were warned about such editing to the article, you have edited the article's talk page to promote your point of view. As well as adding new talk page content to that effect, you have edited old sections of the talk page from years ago to give greater prominence to matters related to the point of view which you have been trying to promote, including changing the wording of a heading created by another editor to make it more supportive of your point of view. In the course of one talk page edit in which you gratuitously added a list of mentions of harmful effects of alcohol to a stale post from years ago, you pinged an editor who had posted a talk page message expressing a view similar to yours years ago, which looked very much like an attempt to attract an editor who might be likely to support your recently renewed point-of-view pushing on the talk page now that you have been warned off doing it directly in the article. And so on... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I'm not against alcohol. I made the chart that could be useful for people to know if they were intoxicated or not so they could decide if they could drive without loosing their driving license. Also, I just started List of wines, and I added added Template:Wine by country to alcoholic drink. You misunderstand my intentions. I did _not_ edit alcoholic drink after I said "I agree with you that I should take it very easy with certain articles". Your revert on drink ("I think we should add " (Drug) " in the tittle of the article, we are a objective source of knowledge.") was a response that it has been made -- by a lot contributors, not just me. Is is less responsible by you to block before Talk? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 13:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Your first indefinite block was for long term very persistent POV-pushing. You then promised to reform, and stop pushing your POV, and were given a second chance as a result of that, but quickly returned to your old ways, and were indeffed again. You then resorted to socking, editing as an IP for months, until your IP was given a one year block. After waiting two years you then requested yet another chance, once again promising to reform, only to show today that you're simply not able to change your ways. Resulting in the current block, your third indefinite block for the same kind of editing. People don't get more chances than that... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Correction of timeline and number of indefinite blocks Seems like I a overlooked one indefinite block, because according to your block log this latest block is your fourth indefinite block, with three chances given in between because of you promising to change your ways, promises that you have broken each and every time by continuing your crusade here. So don't expect another chance... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Please stop nagging me. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 16:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself, I'm not nagging you, I'm providing information that might be of value to reviewing admins in case you make an unblock request. Which is normal procedure, and not aimed specifically at you. So stop pinging me. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Flatter yourself then: You are the top editor of my Talk page according to the article revision statistic (I and DPL bot excluded) of my Talk, despite that you are not an admin. I have the right to ping you to make sure you read my messages back as you enforces me to read yours. Please set ping|JamesBWatson (for example) before each message or use their Talk page so we don't have to discuss any more. I added a policy about this to my rules. Thank you.

@Thomas.W: I understand why you reverted the chart edit. In my opinion its cruel to block for just a single thing like that without talking first. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 13:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Since you obviously haven't read what JamesBWatson wrote in the block notice above, I strongly suggest you do, instead of wasting other people's time as you're doing now. EOD. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I don't like you either, I never did. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 14:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please be careful when using that type of humor (if you are being humorous) in written form. Sarcasm is often taken as seriousness when it is written instead of spoken. If you are being serious, please do not start a fight with another editor. You are liable to get your talk page access revoked in addition to your block. — Gestrid (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request

@JamesBWatson: @Nick: I want to be unblocked. I have no interest in editing Wikipedia in my POV's, I work on other wikis when I want to do this. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 01:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• After two and a half years it is entirely possible that you really have changed your approach, and I am willing to consider giving you another chance. However, I would want more of an indication that you understand what it was about your editing that led to the block and will not do the same again than that brief statement, so can you give a bit more? As I said above, your history indicated that you either didn't understand what you were doing or else did understand and had no intention of cooperating. In either of those cases you would really need to show that you now do understand, and are both able and willing to avoid doing the same kinds of things again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I'm going to be honest with you, its closer to 2 years if we count my edits from 213.21.93.252, after I stopped editing from that user then I gave up to avoid cooperating. There's many rules to remember if you want to actively author on Wikipedia, I found it hard to have all of them in my head so I made lots of mistakes simply because I didn't remember everything from the top off my head. I realized that I have plenty of things to learn from this massive project if I'm going to be more useful than counter productive. I wanted to write scientific material but I've realized that consensus play a more important role for Wikipedia than that. My final ban came when I changed "alcohol and drugs" to "alcohol and other drugs" in multiple articles for example. I've been very active in other wikis, I'm still an administrator for the Free Software Directory (btw search for "Wikipedia" on that page) for example, and one of the most active contributors for the wiki. I never had any serious battles with anyone there. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 01:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've no explicit interest in the block, I was happy for JamesBWatson to deal with the issue way back when, I'm not going to get in the way of resolving this positively now. Nick (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: So what do you say? Do you want to give me another chance? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 04:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

David, sorry I didn't deal with this earlier. I read your last message, thought I would think about it and make a decision, and let it slip out of my mind. I still don't really think you have given a clear indication that you now understand the reason for the block, which is what I asked for, but I have decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I shall unblock your account. Welcome back, and I hope that from now on you can edit without similar problems. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thanks. Look at this new menu that I just made: Wikipedia:User_page_design_center/Menus_and_subpages/Menu18. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 05:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pillow size

Hello, David Hedlund. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Pillow size, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Meatsgains (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

|}

Talk page use

David, I've had three pings this morning from you. As you're blocked, what's the purpose? It's only trying my patience with three year old discussions, where, to be honest I can't easily follow the old threads as you've selectively deleted things, so I just give up. Not answering my questions, but instead namedropping Stallman doesn't convince me that you're willing to abide by the norms we all have to here. Admins are likely to remove your talk page access if you continue to disrupt. I'm fine to discuss any issue with you here, just don't ping me. Widefox; talk 10:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

How do you know if there are any messages here for you if I don't ping you? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 10:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you know the difference between one ping and three?

How do you know when my patience runs out is the window of attention you have open right now, use it carefully! Widefox; talk 10:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

There's so many details to keep in my head, my Talk page is 52 pages. Is there any specific edits I shouldn't have been removed (can you please give me those revision links)? I likely never answered the question as I never read the link you provided in #Coordinating, I'm sorry about that. I don't like the NSA, do I need to have a political discussion with you about it? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 10:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I repeat, you're allowed to remove things from your talk page, archiving is preferred. As this is going nowhere, times up. Don't ping me again. Widefox; talk 11:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

David Hedlund/Archives/2017 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18278 was submitted on May 13, 2017 13:43:03. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)