User talk:Fnordware
Welcome!
Hello, Fnordware, 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
- How to write a great article
- 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! JoshuaZ (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Berggruen
[edit]You made an interesting point for Berggruen's life style, would you like and consider develloping a "private life " section and devellop around "homeless billionaire" "Party Boy" and "Inheritance" .. topics available in almost every article on Berggruen. --86.173.211.194 (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Let's continue to talk about it on Talk:Nicolas Berggruen. Fnordware (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
links to justify inheritance (berggruens father heinz was the worlds greatest art collector and left behing a fortune of about 2 Billion $)
http://www.forbes.com/2001/05/01/0502hot.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/arts/design/27berggruen.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article1454558.ece
link to justify socialite and jet setter or partygoer , st tropez etc..... http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eVd0KYm5QhIJ:www.welt.de/die-welt/wirtschaft/article7771547/Nicolas-Berggruen-Milliardaer-ohne-Zuhause.html+berggruen+jet+setter&cd=5&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com
link to justify that he is a Party Boy http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-LzpfJezZ7YJ:www.uncoverage.net/tag/nicolas-berggruen/+berggruen+party+goer&cd=7&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.211.194 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Why are you spamming me with these links on my personal talk page? I can see them just fine on Talk:Nicolas Berggruen. Fnordware (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- okay sorry just wanted to bring this to your attention re the disscussion,.... i dont have an account with wiipedia , and the page is blocked suggest that you ad a personal life section to the article and devellop around the themes we disscussed re your points and suggestions.... best.....--86.173.211.194 (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Revert at Gloria Allred
[edit]Hi Fnordware. You recently reverted the removal of some text on this article with this diff] (using Twinkle). I have explained to User:Truth2Be why their edit was wrong (especially in the light of the sources you subsequently added), but I'd also like to ask you to avoid labelling edits like this as vandalism - this was a good-faith edit attempting to remove an unsourced (at the time) and pretty contraversial statement. New users have enough on their plate trying to understand Wikipedia without being tarred with the vandalism brush! Cheers, Yunshui 雲水 14:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Yunshui, I have to disagree in your assessment that he was making good-faith edits. He was, in fact, creating an edit war. My revert was the third revert of that article in a 24 hour period. He was doing the same thing to the main article on Roger McDowell. It was especially clear with the McDowell article where the material he was deleting because it was "false" was well-cited (the Allred article was missing a citation, so I added one). The account seems to have been created expressly for the purpose of deleting information about this incident as he has made no other edits. When you see the whole picture, it's clear to me that this is vandalism. On the other hand, it is interesting that he is actually communicating with you! Fnordware (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Touré
[edit]Please do not remove relevant, sourced material from articles without providing a valid rationale in an edit summary, and/or discussing them on the article's talk page, as you did with this edit to Touré. Removing entire swaths of relevant, sourced material from both the Early life section and Career section is not a "reboot", and calling it this in an edit summary is deceptive. Controversial edits like yours should indeed be discussed on the talk page, yet you began no discussion about this edit on the talk page. Nightscream (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Nightscream, on the contrary, I posted that edit on the talk page in full two weeks ago. Did you not see it? Since there was no opposition to it after a couple weeks, I went ahead with it. I think your changes were WP:NPOV violations, but would be happy to discuss on the talk page. If there is consensus that they should be be in there, then we'll put them back. Fnordware (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to apologize to Fnordware for incorrectly stating that you did not start a discussion prior to removing the content in your recent edits. I looked on the talk page for something recent explaining the rationale for removing the content you removed, and didn't find it. I should've looked more closely at the top of the talk page. Regarding the rationale for your edits, I've addressed that on the talk page. Nightscream (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The article Below the Root (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Only plot summary and nothing else. No credible assertion signifying the notability of the article.
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. King Of The Wise (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 20
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shooting of Jordan Davis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HLN (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) 08:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
you appear to have a COI
[edit]23:29, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+979) . . Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (→Chuck Philips: new section)
18:48, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+770) . . Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard (→Journalists)
22:42, 25 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+125) . . Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences (→Crime: Death of Alesia Thomas)
20:29, 25 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+832) . . Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard (→Journalists: new section)
20:17, 25 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,018) . . Talk:Chuck Philips (→Multiple issues: new section) (current)
20:07, 25 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+127) . . Chuck Philips (Flag the article for multiple issues. Discuss on the talk page.) (current)
19:54, 25 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+345) . . Talk:Benjamin Crump (→Alesia Thomas: new section) (current)
19:52, 25 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,404) . . Benjamin Crump (→Career: Career section clean-up) (current)
19:12, 25 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-871) . . Shooting of Trayvon Martin (→Martin family attorneys: Benjamin Crump link, deleted info about unrelated case) (curr
- What conflict do I have? Do you think I have an affiliation with any of those people? The articles you mention are all somewhat intertwined, which is how I stumbled onto them in turn. But the edits I made were all to improve the articles and get them to better adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Fnordware (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- I noticed that you, Neil, and Red, Al and Red are currently discussing me on another page, discussing a possibility for blocking me. Until you complete your discussion concerning that, might I ask that you refrain from editing the pages I've worked on. ThanksScholarlyarticles (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- The two issues are not related. Any talk of blocking you is for edit warring and other bad editor behavior. I'm just pointing things out to NeilN in case he feels the need to go that way, which he won't if you stop the bad behavior. Whatever I may think of the material you've added to articles, I don't think you should be blocked for it. Anyway, I'm not planning to do any more Chuck Philips edits for a little while. Fnordware (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Notability of politicians
[edit]You commented on Patrice Nisbett "Still not sure if the subject qualifies as notable". See WP:POLITICIAN: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." and WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable". PamD 08:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yep, I suppose you're right…notable! Fnordware (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Previse has been accepted
[edit]
The article has been assessed as Stub-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!
—CraigyDavi (T∙C∙@) 22:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)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) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 3
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shooting of Jordan Davis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First Coast News. 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) 10:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Notice
[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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.ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Fnordware. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Fnordware. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
GAB talk page
[edit]That was clearly just a rant and a pretty unpleasant one at that. There were no specific suggestions other than the implicit one to delete most of the article. It should not have been unhatted and I've hatted it again. It's still there for anyone to read. Even the section heading was against our talk page guidelines. You didn't make any specific suggestions yourself I notice.
While I'm here, I noticed your comments about 2 editors calling them activists. That was out of line, their actions and comments were appropriate, there's nothing wrong with notifying editors about off-wiki campaigns to change an article. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I stand by my statements. Some editors on that page are deciding to include/remove material not based of undue weight, unsourced, etc., but because they don't personally agree with the content. For example, "This is clearly full of delusional far-right rhetorics and I think we might be accidentally endorsing this if we include it in the article." I find it very unfortunate that this type of behavior has been normalized and NPOV has fallen by the wayside. Fnordware (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- When New Editors arrive and see established Editors ignoring #NOTAFORUM, they assume it's acceptable. Failing to enforce standards on experienced Editors who know better gives permission to New Editors and anonymous IPs to post in like manner. I'm a prime example of that, and you can read my "Talk" page to see where it went. It may or may not be "activist", but it's absolutely not "neutral".Tym Whittier (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles
[edit]This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 10:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Your Interpretation of WP:NOTAFORUM
[edit]Referring to this quote:
FYI, WP:NOTAFORUM applies to articles, not Talk pages. Refer to WP:TALKO. Fnordware (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been "taken behind the woodshed" by an Administrator for precisely this reason. Two "warnings", mention of "disruptive editing", the threat of a block, etc... I want to make certain your intent was limited to only the deletion of posts for being "off-topic", WP:NOTAFORUM, etc... My recent experience is that you can still get into trouble whether the text is "blocked-off" or deleted. Discussion pages are terribly confusing to me, as I see Editors expressing blatant bias, talking about irrelevant details like "what Marxism REALLY is", etc... It seems to me that some Editors make a regular practice of doing this, which then gives New Editors the impression that it's allowed. That's what I did, and I ended up in trouble. I believe that "Leadership is by Example", and before castigating New Editors (for doing what they naturally do), more experienced Editors should be policing themselves, instead of setting a bad example for others to emulate, and then get into trouble over. I'm not going to try to "enforce" Wikipedia policy on other Editors, but someone should.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Fnordware. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Courtesy notice - sanctions for US politics, biographies, climate change
[edit]
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
- Really, any US politics starting with the Clinton administration is considered contentious? LOL. Fnordware (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
You have recently made edits related to climate change. This is a standard message to inform you that climate change is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. --Hipal (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of The Cheap Seats (American TV series) for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cheap Seats (American TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.Let'srun (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Please note especially that Andy Ngo has active arbitration remedies:
- You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
- Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
See the notice at the talk page for further info. TarnishedPathtalk 04:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)