User talk:Fyddlestix/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

146.185.31.215

You don't know me but I saw the content you removed at Venus Palermo. Your reasons were completely valid so I reverted User:146.185.31.215 when they restored the content. Apparently, they are going to continue edit-warring and posting irrational edit summaries over it. There are multiple warnings on their talk page. Czoal (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Czoal:, thanks for helping with this! I saw your post at ANI as well. It looks like the IP was the same person as this user, who has claimed to be the article subject's mother in the past. No wonder they were so invested... Fyddlestix (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome. By the way, I asked on the help desk last night about adding a COI template to the Palermo article because 146's overall editing behavior seemed to indicate a very close connection to Palermo. I posted that before I found out at ANI today who the IP really is. It's amazing how all the pieces fell into place...with the article being protected, Maggie then immediately making the same edits as 146, then you finding the edit summary where Maggie said she was Palermo's mother. Anyway, no one has replied at the help desk about the COI template. I just asked at ANI since finding out all the new info from you and NeilN. Czoal (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

An admin has placed COI templates at the top of Venus Palermo and its talk page. Czoal (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete tag at Incels

Your speedy delete and my effort to improve the article. Instead of slapping a speedy delete tag on an article, please research it a little and see if it is a viable topic. Based on those articles I found with about 30 seconds of Google searching, it appears that this topic name is valid. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Unclear/newbie issues

Hi, I thought I was helping out an article "Women are wonderful" effect, but there is this continual resistance to improvement from one subject editors. This article began with only two links and every time I increase those links some one subject editor reverses it. I do think there is too much weight given to this article and should instead be used as an example in ambivalent sexism. I believe most of these one subject editors occur whenever the article gets linked to Reddit and don't bother to check the links for accuracy, they just show up with a bias which oddly comes across as against women. Any ideas for what I ought to be doing here would be appreciated here since I believe this article has been sorely neglected and poorly researched/sourced for years. Unless I just discovered the reasons why that happened! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@MurderByDeadcopy: Just looking at it now. Looks like a good candidate to be merged into Ambivalent sexism, it looks like both articles address more or less the same topic and use many of the same sources. Working on a merge proposal now but it may take me some time to put it together. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Am getting accused of all kinds of odd things by Flyer22 atm which I do not understand. Guess they just assume one makes an account wiki and just automatically understands everything! Not a total lost, I learned to "ping" today. (fyi - I've bungled attempting a merge so I just didn't save it!) MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 02:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, I added a bunch of links to Microaggression theory and since I noticed that your awesome at improving links (not creating big red errors like me!) thought that maybe you'd look it over when you have a chance. It's not high priority. Thanks! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 02:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

MurderByDeadcopy, you are not getting "accused all kinds of odd things by" me. I was simply clear that I do not believe that you are a complete WP:Newbie. I am entitled to that belief, and I will certainly be sticking to it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Mind your toes!

Hi Fyddlestix - apologies if I step on your toes over at Beta Uprising! I'm just trying to help stamp it out while your report on RPP is seen to. Cheers. samtar ^(msg) 18:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: Not at all! Actually I'm glad there's someone else watching to help keep on top of it, much appreciated! Fyddlestix (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I am indeed an idiot. I have fixed the closure. Unfortunately it's still not going to please anyone. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: Yeah, the dispute over that article is a total shit show. A "no consensus" result is unfortunate as it likely means that the dispute will drag on for even longer, but I'm glad that that particular RFC has been put out of its misery finally. Thanks for the correction and sorry if my complaint/explanation wasn't clear at first. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

HughD

I've largely been away from Wikipedia for the past few weeks. I appreciate your take a step back comment. If you notice, I did avoid any edits involving HughD for a full month even though Scoobydunk's ANI against me came to nothing. My edits to related pages since are ones related to the MJ article and the Chicago article. Note that the warning section in question was not started by me and I didn't add to the discussion. I added the warning to Hugh's talk page so he would have the chance to self revert. If you think I am wrong to feel he violated his topic ban that is fine. As I said, I don't think the link was overly strong but it was established by Hugh's own edits and comes right on the heals of a warning. Incidentally, since you mentioned stepping back, HughD has me quoted on his home page. The last quote of the Survey section is to an edit of mine. It seems a bit provocative but perhaps that's just my misreading. Springee (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: Actually I hadn't noticed that you'd taken a month off butting heads with HughD, apologies for that! I'm sorry if you feel my comment intruded - but it really does seem to me that both of you (and NB, I'm saying both of you) need to just avoid each other for a while. I can't imagine that the little dance you've been doing around each other is fun for either of you...

Re: the quote, have you tried asking Hugh to remove it? Fyddlestix (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, while I might not agree with all of your edits, you are respectful and clearly working in good faith. I didn't mean to suggest you intruded. It does seem like HughD is backing away from some of our earlier topics in common. I don't agree with the way his spins things but so be it. I have now formally asked him to remove the quote. He made a trivial edit to the quote above mine but did not remove the quote in question. Springee (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you offer an opinion

Fyddlestix, you and I have typically been on opposite sides of various content debates but I've always found it easy to respect your POV and arguments even when I didn't agree with them. To that end I wanted to ask your opinion on a discussion I've been engaged in regarding the relative weight that should be given two competing theories regarding the political realignment of the South. The question was posted to the NORN so here is the link to the discussion. [1] Thanks for any input you might have. Springee (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured you would offer a balanced opinion. Incidentally I received a nastygram for asking for your input but I'm not overly surprised [2] Springee (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Was just typing a note here to let you know I'd replied - sorry it took me a couple of days, I've been busy with other (much more important) stuff than wikipedia! Fyddlestix (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind if we discuss this article off the talk page? I normally would not do this but I find Scoobydunk's bludgeoning style to be very abrasive and would prefer to discuss this here with you since you seem to have a far better understanding of the literature than most.Springee (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate your input on the question I posted in the talk section. Your level headed disagreement has been refreshing and I think quite helpful. Springee (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not going to agree with all of your edits but thanks for taking on the Southern Strategy. I think the article is seriously lacking in many areas and one of the worst is probably general readability. I'm happy to see someone put an honest effort into cleanup rather than an effort into white/black washing or even trying to grasp at status quo. I have some of my own views on things that should be changed but I'm really interested to see what you do with it. Thanks again. Springee (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: Thanks, I made a start but it will take some time. I know we disagree somewhat on how much weight to give Lassiter (and how to frame his argument). I'm happy to discuss on the talk page, but the pace of my edits/replies will likely be slow. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I was generally very pleased with the recent edits. The post 1970 sections really struck me as pet article dumping grounds. No coherent narrative, a few examples of articles that are just accusations phrased to read more like proven facts in the voice of WP.

Speaking of the post 1970 evolution part. Really, that seems like it shouldn't be part of the Southern Strategy article at all. That isn't to say it shouldn't be in an article but the Southern Strategy was a distinct thing. Lassiter actually says it was only used 4 times and I assume he mean 4 times at the national level and _targeting Southern white voters. He also noted that it never worked. The post 1970 sections, if we accept the accusation as true, are an example of using appeals to racism to win votes. There is probably a good place for those but it doesn't really speak to this thing that historians called the Southern Strategy any more than the VW designed and built Bugatti Veyron is an example of the work of Ettore Bugatti's car company. In both cases a historic name was attached to a modern thing to create a mental association with something from the past (positive in one case, negative in the other). My point to this is I really think this would be a more encyclopedic article if the story was cut off at the end of the 1970s and the newer accusations were moved to a different and more appropriate article. Just floating that idea. I'm not sure I would be able to convince many of the people who seem to like the article as is and I think are grading it from edits they perceive as whitewashing (that is not saying they aren't acting in good faith).

BTW, I also think that much of the Lassiter and related scholarship stuff should be moved to the Solid South or Southern Realignment articles. Most of the scholarly work focuses on why voters changed their views (civil rights backlash, suburban strategy etc), not a subset of messages delivered by one party (Southern Strategy). They are related but not the same. This would better focus the content on the real examples of the application of the strategy rather than just a news reporter making a claim of coded racism (something that certainly was not limited to the South). Sorry to be long winded but I think you are going really good work. Springee (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

New Companies delsort category

Hi Fyddlestix: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 16 October 2015 for companies, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

New Disability delsort category

Hi: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 19 October 2015 for Disability-related articles, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disability. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

I deleted an obvious personal attack. Can you explain why you reverted my deletion. Are you seeing something in the policy that I am not seeing? "Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. " and this section "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." Have not reverted again will await your explanation.Charlotte135 (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Southern Strategy intro question

Fyddlestix, I wanted to ask you about this edit you made to the article into [3]. Specifically, you added the claim (supported by a source), "This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South". I agree this statement is a good paraphrasing of the source. However, that statement seems to be in conflict with other sources. Feldman for instance summarizes the bottom up view differently.

Lassiter, and others since, have argued strongly against what they term the "white backlash" narrative of the South becoming Republican in reaction to national Democratic identification with civil rights and racial liberalism. The "suburban school," as it may now be called, stressed a "suburban strategy" versus what it deems a "southern strategy" - and insists that post-World Ward II white southern suburbanites were relatively "color-blind" in their approach to politics. The argument goes on to reject the notion of a distinctive South as well as to downplay - and even at times dismiss - the role of race in motivating white southerners to leave the Democratic Party for hte GOP. Race was just not something they cared a whole lot about - this better-educated, upwardly mobile, suburban elite.

The above seems to conflict with the notion that Lassiter argues that racial backlash was central. I know that Lassiter argues that many of the suburbanites were insensitive to the issues and by simply walking away they were trying to wash their hands of the issue. We can also certainly argue that issues related to race were often behind the reasons for movign to and later defending the suburbs. In any case, I think that particular quote, as presented, tends to narrow the difference between the two narratives a bit too much. I guess it depends on what you consider "backlash". Does moving to the suburbs to avoid school busing count as "backlash" or simply looking out for self interest?

Anyway, that summary has bothered since it was added but I would rather talk with you about it vs just edit. I'm here because I don't like the hostile talk page environment. I find if VERY frustrating when I try to discuss a concern and my requests for dialog are stonewalled. The last edits I made could have occurred with no fuss if the other editor had simply suggested what might make him happy rather than fight every change until even he couldn't justify objecting because I all but quoted the source. Sorry, that's off subject but I wish the that article talk page was actual discussion vs a battle ground. Springee (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Springee, sorry for the delay getting back to you on this, I've been super busy with work/real life and just haven't had time to think about it. I haven't forgotten about this and do intend to wade back into the Southern Strategy article shortly - I'll post some thoughts on the article talk page in the coming days. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI regarding Mr. Magoo and McBarker

I could handle this as long as it was confined to one article, but recently I feel that Mr. Magoo has started WP:HOUNDing me across my history. Therefore, since you've been involved in the dispute at Political correctness for a while:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Aquillion (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Intimate partner violence

user:Fyddlestix

Contrary to your belief but http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00180.x/abstract is an outdated study (from 1994) that is a primary source and have never been replicated ever since. They also do not fit current literature on domestic violence. Therefore I will be deleting them.

The article was published on the site in 2005 but if you read closely you will see it was published in the journal in 1994. So its very old

Doe1994 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)user:doe1994Doe1994 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you help with the Southern Strategy 1970-1990 section?

Fyddlestix, I would really welcome your editing input on the Southern Strategy article. The overall article is still in poor shape. I would try to make more extensive edits as you did previously but sadly I think, even if I had made the exact same edits as you mind would have been reversed. Anyway, currently the section reads without a theme and thus it's hard to present anything that resembles a balanced view. Consider the three accusations against Reagan. I can try to find sources that actually say "no that wasn't coded" but that really isn't the bigger picture. The bigger picture should be do other scholars feel that Reagan tried to be race neutral. Several scholars say deliberate appeals to racism. Others say no and offer several reasons. Either way, we shouldn't have a section that basically reads as a laundry list of accusations. Anyway, even when I don't agree with you I appreciate your level headed input. Springee (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I realize I asked you not to do something...

...without actually suggesting what to do instead. Sorry.

Problems with suspected outing are best dealt with by emailing the Oversighter mailing list. This is easily done using Special:EmailUser/Oversight if you have email set up. They'll know whether or not to oversight, revdel, or do nothing. In my experience, they're pretty fast, and several orders of magnitude less visible than ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam, next time I'll know - i can see that broadcasting someone's alleged identity (however briefly) was a bad idea. Hopefully no harm was done in this case! Fyddlestix (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement

Fyddlestix, I hope you know that I really respect your views as an editor. I asked you to the Southern Strategy page precisely because I felt you would be very reasonable yet no one could claim I was vote stacking. I'm writing off the ARE because I think your recent comments are unfair. When you present only the article pages of interaction and without a date context it presents a picture that suggests that Hugh and I are constantly at war. However, as I said before there is really only one editorial issue that is currently at play, that is the way Hugh was inserting and later editing the MJ reference. In November and recently HughD went and changed the way the material was inserted into a number of articles all at once. When I and others clean up these multiple edits of a common reference it looks like chasing to lots of pages unless you look at what is actually being edited. In this case the recent edits all stem from the MJ reference which predates the rather vindictive ANI Scoobydunk filed against me on Hugh's behalf. Anyway, I think it is unfair to say I'm chasing Hugh around when Hugh is actually revisiting previous topics and, at least in some cases, directly reverting my edits. In others reversing edits that I supported as part of the group consensus. I would simply ask that you look at the actual edits in question before trying to place a claim of hounding at my feet. I apologize if this message comes across as attacking you in any way. Again, I really do respect your views and inputs even when don't agree with my own.Springee (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert Lewy

Good morning

I've tried Revdel and the OTROS routes without any answer. Here is what I sent| Gentlepersons This article has several errors which are hard to disprove externally with third party sources but should be corrected. 1. I did never assist in suing breast implant manufacturers as stated in first line . On the contrary, I was a court appointed expert for a class action to which manufacturers were a party.Article should IMHO mention existence of class action and my role. This excludes any participation in private opt-out direct suits. Further down, I did not give expert testimony whatsoever in assisting lawyers to get "vast awards." I only physically examined patients sent to me by the court and issued reports. 2, use of term "alleged" in mid article implies I had some ulterior or legal goal. I only did peer reviewe research . The editors overall may have editorialized on top of the NYT article without sources, adopting it's unbalanced tone toward the court experts and again failing to mention the importance of the class action under Judge Poynter of Atlanta. Mssrs Kolatea and Meier do this a few times a year for to NYT usually some medical expose.3. Most of my cited work is about heart disease and aspirin. Please check Researchgate and mention this and reference it. Otherwise the article is misleading about my scientific work by omission.i am also a Google Scholar.

I hope you can address some of these points with the goal of fairness and accuracy. I have an article covering the whole history of establishment of the class. Should I copy it here. Its rather long. Thank you very much Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kingseason: I'm sorry, I don't have the time to deal with this article further right now. I suggest you raise your concerns at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, that is the best place to take concerns like this. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this is important new scientific data F. I dont see how you just blow off a recent scientific study which contradicts the thrust of the article. I hope you don't have your mind too made up even tho you are not the person to cite the new articles.i really just envisioned a footnote and the conclusion of the article inserted. Can you restore it please and let Leadsongdog or others render an opinion. I don't think I need to escalate this; it's not I've been mistreated, but new science quoting my work has come to light.

Ps if you are truly censoring this reference from the Annals of. Internal Medicine please remind me how to talk to LeadDogSong as he has more time and is a scientist. Thank you.

Hi - i think you've misunderstood my edit. I did not "blow off" or censor anything, I simply moved what you wrote from the article itself to the article talk page. Your post seemed to be addressing other editors, which isn't appropriate in the article itself. We do that on the talk page. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, where can I find the data I added provisionally.quite a bit of work went to it. Leadsongdog would be best being engineer and physicist. IMHO all,that needs changed are addition of two references cites available today and one line after career in article quoting the conclusion of.both that silicone breast implants are yet proven uniquivIcallly save and more study needed footing to the references. sorry i get lost in wiki. Roberto

Shall I just provide to you? Paper from Brown by Balk arriving today from 2016 does challenge the Kolata NYT article regarding unanimity but people will figure that' out by dates sequence. Thanks

A few lines in the existing article should fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk • contribs) 10:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kingseason: The talk page of your article is here, and I moved your post here. I will ping the editors you were addressing for you, to make sure they're aware of it. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 14:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)

Neat! Thanks Gilliam! Fyddlestix (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Merging reasons

I've added some ideas for merging here. I'm sure you'll give more articulate ideas about the merge, however, its a beginning. (FYI - Forgot to ping you & anyways I lack faith that 'pings' works for me!) --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding reason for discussion. The thread is WP:TAGTEAM, WP:YESPOV and breach of WP:CONSENSUS at Political Correctness. Thank you. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christina Hoff Sommers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commentary. 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) 10:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind offering a suggestion

Fyddlestix, I was hoping to ask you for a suggestion. Is there an editing guideline suggesting a reasonable upper limit on the number of edits one might make to an article per day? On March 2nd HughD decided to follow me to the Ford Pinto article. I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to but it does make his claims that I followed him and ring hollow. Regardless, in 5 days he has edited the article page over 200 (!) times. This seems like a totally unreasonable number of edits and is exactly why we have sandboxes to work in. Do you know if there is a relevant editing guide line here. So long as he actually engages in talk page discussions I'm happy to work with him. I would be lying if I said he hasn't made a number of article improvements but he needs to engage with other editors on the talk page and slow down his furious edit pace. Sorry to ask you but I thought you might have a suggestion, or even be someone he would listen to. Springee (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Springee: I'm not aware of a specific guideline for number of edits, but my knowledge of wiki rules is hardly encyclopedic - maybe ask an admin? On mobile now but I'll take a look at the page history when I get home. Depending on the actual edits and intent I suppose spamming edits could be a firm of disruptive editing. It's very unfortunate that you two are still at loggerheads (at yet another article) - I had hoped that you would have both moved on and just tried to avoid each other by now. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I was actually happy to not work with HughD on any more articles. If you look at the Pinto Talk history I was involved last year (a few IP talk page comments) then again joined the discussions in January and February. HughD first edited in March. I think this would be a clear case of that editor following me. I would be happy if he would leave the page since we are seeing the same "ignore the others" behavior that got him in trouble on other pages. However, the auto pages just don't have as many eyes as some of the political pages. I don't think people are quite as willing to fight (that's not a bad thing). Springee (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you know the history, I thought I would point this out, [4]. Note the reference to the GM Street Car conspiracy. Why is HughD mentioning that? It is an article to which I've contributed, like the Pinto article. Yet, HughD is complaining that he is being hounded. [5] Again, it's not that HughD doesn't have every right to edit those articles but to complain that he is a victim while searching through my edit history... doesn't seem like someone who is trying to be left alone. Springee (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this will be considered canvasing or not. I hope not since this is an existing discussion. I'm sorry that you are supporting an interaction block between HughD and myself (sanctions). Please note that I in no way followed HughD to these articles. I've been involved in Ford Pinto topic since last year, Chrysler since July of last year [6]. I certainly didn't follow HughD to these articles. I previously told you that I was going to avoid joining new topics that HughD was involved with and I believe I have stuck to that statement. If you look at the comments of involved editors they aren't concerned with my behavior with respect to those articles. In fact I was thanked by several for my Chrysler edits. I'm happy to officially agree to not join new topics with Hugh but I don't want my account sanctioned because HughD decided to join topics because I was already there. I would ask you to reconsider. Thanks Springee (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, I replied to your comments on the ANI. For the most part I strongly disagree with your assessment. Regardless, I want to emphasize despite this disagreement I still hold you in high regard. Springee (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

well i did. no responce

if citing an opinion by some MRA's on a topic by citing a MRA website please show it please because that is what i was accused of. i cited the journal where i quoted her and cited a website for a men's rights organization for them and cited a feminist for her view. tell me exactly where i broke the rules and cite.Danielstretton (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I replied on the article talk page. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Mary P Koss

Dear Fyddlestix,

I'm wondering what the issue is with the edit Danielstretton added to the Mary P Koss page? It was removed under neutrality reasoning but with what Daniel added, I don't see how there is an issue when it's stating what MRAs and male rape victims are saying?

Regards,

patmac251188 Patmac251188 (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Check the source, it doesn't actually support the content as written. Dude left his text the same but subbed in a new source, apparently without actually reading it (or caring what it said). Fyddlestix (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Compliance with voluntary two-way interaction ban

Hello.

Thank you again for your ongoing counsel and your attention to this vexing long-term editor behavior issue. I respect your judgment and have been thinking hard about your recent recommendation regarding giving up some articles.

Please see 15 April 2016 at Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to reply here but HughD, please stop your battleground behavior. You are revisiting our previous disagreements, ignoring previous consensus in order to bait me so that you can play the victim card. Despite group consensus to remove your favorite MJ article, you restored it[7],[8]. Two of your Exxon climate change edits I was involved with have already been reverted [9], ([10] restored [11]). This is material I was involved with [12]. Please cut out the BS and battleground behavior, respect the community's consensus and move on. Fyddlestix, sorry for posting this here. Don't worry, I'm not taking HughD's bait this time and I won't post here again unless it's in reply to you. Springee (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)–

Sorry to both you. Would you PLEASE ask HughD to cut out his disruptive automotive topic editing?{https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Automobile_safety&action=history] The POV pushing, refusal to engage in talk page discussions and generally TEND behavior is getting over the top. I believe his intent is to be obnoxious enough to force an ANI and then get the 2 way interaction ban he has been wishing for. Thank you. Springee (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Antifeminism

Fyddlestix removed an edit of a problematic page which contained an anti-egalitarian point of view for no valid reason. I'm going to assume this user is a troll or a bigot, or a combination of both? Why would you revert a page to its anti-equality position? Genuine answer required. This user needs to explain themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calum Henderson (talk • contribs) 12:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Calum Henderson: I reverted your edit because the text you removed is well referenced to a reliable source - that you personally disagree with the statements is not a valid reason for removing them. Please raise it on the article talk page if you really think the content should be removed - but you're going to need a better reason than just your unsourced claim that it's "anti-egalitarian." Fyddlestix (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix, no no no, lets be clear, you removed the edit due to your personal bias. That edit was perfectly valid, and the source was not "valid" as you put it. You're going to need a better reason than your own personal bigotry. That doesn't fly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calum Henderson (talk • contribs) 12:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. Like I said, the article talk page is the proper place for discussions about article contents. Might want to read WP:NPA before you dive into any talk page discussions though. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Black Supremacy

I created a new talk section in regards to a AfD...don't know if you have any interest along these lines (but since it appears you beat me to articulating some of the problems I name...)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Ankit Love for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ankit Love 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/Ankit Love (2nd nomination) 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. N4 (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Richard Dean Starr

Please explain why recent contributions to the page have been omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoSnowylives (talk • contribs) 00:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The financial histories of semi-public figures are not generally encyclopedic unless covered in multiple reliable sources. "BankruptReport.com" is not a reliable source - it is little more than a skimming from public records. TeleRead.com is, at best, a marginal source. Lots of people put together GoFundMe campaigns for various reasons; that Starr has launched one is not particularly notable given the lack of coverage from independent reliable sources. Now, were the GoFundMe campaign to be discussed in an article from a major news outlet such as The Washington Post, it would probably be included. But that's not where we are today. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Undid revision, as article lacks neutrality and seems to be authorship for self promotion. Refer to guidelines on credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoSnowylives (talk • contribs) 04:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The content is not reliably sourced - if you keep adding it either myself or somebody else will continue to remove it, please either find a better source or stop trying to re-insert it. Edit warring will just get you blocked. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

While this may be the case, the solution would be to improve the article with reliable sources and better writing, not to include irrelevant, poorly-sourced material which violates multiple policies. At any rate, you need to have this discussion on the article talk page at Talk:Richard Dean Starr, and you need to stop edit-warring contentious negative material into a biography, or you will find yourself on a quick road to sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Reason for undoing edit on Zanta page

Hi ... I was just wondering why you undid the following edit I made on Zanta's page:

When encountering Zancai on the street, it is unclear whether he is performing or is actually displaying symptoms of mental illness. His shouting can be aggressive and derogatory. And when directed specifically at one person his shouting can be intimidating.

This was my first wikipedia edit and I am wondering if I didn't follow a specific rule or convention or if it was just your opinion it should be removed.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.206.179 (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I meant to leave an edit summary explaining the removal but got distracted. My reason for removing it is that content about living persons on Wikipedia needs to be reliably sourced, see WP:BLP - also it seemed to be giving the reader specific advice, which isn't really appropriate (maybe if it was sourced and attributed to an expert?) Fyddlestix (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I see your point and will respect your undo (i.e. not try and redo my edit or anything like that). However, I'm not sure my edit does require attribution by an expert. I didn't say he was mentally ill I just said it was unclear if he is or not. And I think that is a very fair assessment that can reasonably be made by anyone. The rest of the edit about his shouting I felt was an assessment anyone could reasonably make. I think my edit was at least as fair/objective as the statement "David Zancai (born May 7, 1968[1][2][3]) is a street entertainer". But again, I am a wikipedia first timer so I defer to your experience and appreciate your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.206.179 (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that your first edit was so quickly removed, please don't be discouraged by it! I'm afraid the Zanta article gets a fair bit of unsourced and inappropriate material posted to it, your edit was not a "bad" one it's just not really appropriate to give readers advice on how to interact with him in an encyclopedia article, especially without a source. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Request that you stop using ethnically offensive langauge

(cc @Checkingfax:@Doug Weller:) I am respectfully requesting that you immediatly cease your use of the ethnically offensive langauge you've been using on the Sorcha Faal reports article Talk Page, and as I've noted same here. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if you found my wording offensive, but don't you think "ethnically offensive" is overstating things just a tad? I remain convinced that the content you added does not belong. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Can I move its location?

Can I move the speedy deletion notice to the bottom? Madimyers (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

3RR

Please be sure and mind 3RR at Heartland. Let's set a good example for those who are inclined to be over-contentious. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Irish slave trade

Hi Fyddlestix,I addressed a question and comments to you at Talk:Irish slave trade. Alfie Gandon (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Personalizing Comments

Fyddlestix: I'd ask that you not personalize editorial discussions as you did in your recent comment on Crash Override Network. It's clear from the talk page and RSN discussions that a significant number of editors support inclusion. Framing it as if I were the only editor standing in the way of exclusion is unjustified. I realize we disagree on content but I see no reason we can't disagree without being disagreeable. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if I caused offense - but I simply don't see a strong consensus to include the material in any of the discussions that have been had. And when it's been argued by multiple editors that the material is either undue or a BLP vio, you need a strong consensus before it can be put back it. My point was that there's not really any sign of a consensus forming, and the material can't be included without one, so the debate (especially on the article talk page, where it's the same people arguing in circles) is basically a waste of time at this point. You can try an RFC if you really want but I don't think it will go the way you want. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sure it didn't help that one post above yours an editor had questioned my literacy. I agree with most of what you wrote above. I did hope to get clarity on inclusion as opinion, which wasn't the focus of the RSN discussion, but you're right that outside eyes are probably best at this point. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask a question

Fyddlestix, I understand your concern about the Hugh related stuff. I'm sure I didn't handle that as well as I could have. That said, what did I do wrong in this case? I believe in acting in good faith so of I'm not what mistakes am I making here. When I look at the claims Dennis had made and then review the evidence I'm just not seeing it. If you're saying it's there then I would ask that you help me understand where I'm tripping up. You know that I've asked you for advice in the past even when I didn't think you would be sympathetic with my POV. I would appreciate your view on the current issue with Dennis to know where you think I dropped the ball or which of his accusations have merit. Thanks Springee (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, I really would appreciate an answer to my question. I understand if you don't want to discuss it, if so please tell me and I will drop it but it really would be helpful if you could tell me what you think I did wrong with respect to the recent edits Dennis claims are disruptive. Springee (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Springee, I apologize for not responding before - I wasn't trying to evade the question or anything, just been very busy the last few days. I've punted the most recent disruption at the wikiproject talk page to ANI, hope you don't mind - I do think Dennis was crossing a line by re-removing your comments so many times there.

To briefly answer your question, though - I was troubled to see you following Dennis to a page that you hadn't previously edited and that was at best tangentially related to the dispute, and to see you posting requests for advice on un-involved admin/user pages that seemed (to me at least) to look more like requests for backup. More generally, it still looks to me like you get kind of "caught up" in these disputes, and feel like you're the only person who sees/can stop the damage that you think Dennis (or Hugh, or whoever) is doing. Which isn't true - if they are doing something that is really that bad, then someone other than you will eventually notice and it will be taken care of. You don't need to work so hard to counter/oppose them at every turn - if they are really pushing a pov that hard or being that disruptive, it will get noticed and taken care of. Sometimes you just have to wait for that to happen. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, Thanks for the reply. I really do appreciate it. I do get the issue with HughD and I take your point about trying too hard to correct his wrongs. With respect to Dennis I'm actually frustrated by the mater, mostly because Dennis is a good editor in general and I really dislike the accusations. I think he can be short with people and doesn't like to have his reasons challenged. But, I don't see him as a POV pusher or anything like that.

I wish I had thought a bit more about how one might see the Oso Mudslide comment before making it. I know Dennis felt that was hounding via following but it's not actually true. It was actually a topic relevant to other recent topics starting with a reply to an RfC on the Sig MCX page. The basic question that ties most of the recent pages I've commented on together is "When do facts about item A have sufficient WEIGHT to be mentioned in article B?" Based on these recent discussions I've asked CuriousMind01 to help draft a NPOVN question on the subject [[13]]. CuriousMind01 added the disputed content to the F-650 page actually as a follow on to a comment that was made on the gun talk page. If you look you will see that many of my recent edits/comments all focus on that same idea. [[14]], [[15]], [[16]]. The comment on the Oso Mudslide was part of the same line of thinking and came from an RfC link on CuriousMind01's talk page.

I do agree with you that I can get "caught up" in things. This is part of why I have long winded (sorry about this one) replies and I will often push for more detailed reasons etc from other editors. Anyway, I should have just left the talk page comments alone. Eventually the RfC will be closed and that will be that. Thanks for the reply. I don't always agree with you but I do respect your opinions and really appreciate the level headed feedback. Also, I do think Dennis is a good editor and means well overall even if I am frustrated by recent events and comments. Springee (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

PP/Sanger/abortion

Thanks for doing the work necessary to turn some garbage into a genuine, substantive improvement in the article. Much appreciated. --JBL (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate the thanks! I'm not sure I'm worthy of being singled out though, all I did was find a couple extra sources and fix up one paragraph. That article needs a ton of work, wish I had the time and energy to tackle more of it right now. Maybe one day soon... Fyddlestix (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated question

Fyddlestix, I was hoping you might have a suggestion here. I've been trying to craft a good NPOVN question related to the question related to a basic question of when is weight reciprocal? This is a question that has been at the core of most of my recent editing. I've been trying to tap other editors for input since I think the language of the question isn't clear to all. Would you mind taking a look? [[17]] Springee (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Springee: Thanks for asking me for input! I've read through it - my first (and main) thought is that you're likely to get a lot of "it depends, every situation is different" and "it depends on what the sources say" responses when you bring this to the noticeboard. Looking at your draft question, that would certainly be how I would respond to it - using the F-700 argument as an example, my response would be that if significant, high-quality sources that are primarily about the F-700 mention the bombing, then it can and should be included there. If not, then a discussion of the bombing in that article is UNDUE/trivia. In other words, I'm not sure that this is something we can make a hard-and-fast rule about, or that we need a policy/guideline for: it seems to me that we basically already have policies that cover this, and the over-riding guiding principle (as always) should be that the article summarizes and is consistent with available reliable sources.

I'm guessing you were looking for more constructive feedback about the question itself rather than my opinion on the subject though - my main advice would be to try to phrase this in a less abstract manner. It's going to be hard for people to figure out what you're asking and you're likely to get some blowback if you ask a vague, general question like "is weight reciprocal" - I would maybe pick a more specific focus like cars (or weapons?) since that's where this seems to come up anyway, and ask specifically about that. Just a suggestion. Oh, and you could also think about floating this at the village pump too - folks at NPOVN are likely to want you to focus on something narrow and specific. Just my 2 cents - hope it's helpful! Fyddlestix (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

On the go reply so this has to be short. Thanks for the feedback. It's valuable when trying to nail down a somewhat vague concept. I agree with the "primarily about the F700" type argument. It's that sort of feed back in more generalized terms that I'm looking for. Anyway, I've got more thoughts but I hate typing on my phone. Thanks, Springee (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Hi. You cannot just remove neutrality tags, claiming ther eisnt a problem. There clearly is a problem if another established editor judges that there is and tags the article. By removing both the tag and a ref you come across as impatient and wanting to have the article your way, ie having your cake and eating it, ie making it less neutral while removing the neutrality tag. You need to gain consensus on the talk page before agreeing to remove a tag or getting the prson who added it to remove it. This can happen, we just need a more neutral article. Removing refs of course wont make for a more neutral article but I have added another 7 or 8. You need to discuss and not merely express your opinion if you want to work towards removing the tag. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: please spare me the lecture - I know perfectly well when the tag can or can't be removed, and I'm not the only one who thinks your tagging was off base (or, at minimum, that you haven't made a sufficient case for it on the talk page). I am happy to discuss further but please let's do it on the article talk page. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The talk page is the place to discuss the issues concerning the page. If you wanted me to spare you a lecture you should not have removed the tag in the way you did, ie before seeking consensus to do so, and it was this act that got me to leave a message (what you rather rudley describe as a lecture) here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

thanks for help on James Boyd

the article has suffered from advocate editing, honest ones kinda, I think, but advocates still. I have not looked at your edits yet but I noticed a lot of comments about sourcing in the edit summaries. I have had an issue with this with the other editor, yes. I did want to mention however re primary sources that this article is unusual in that almost all of the material is lapel-cam video and video-taped testimony, so it has been difficult to enforce secondary-only as a standard. Also, some of the news coverage is contradictory and/or inaccurate; a lot of the local mainstream media is underfunded/unquestioning/sensationalistic. An example of this is sources (apparently reading one another) who keep talking about a duffek bag, apparently in reference to a what he and I agreed was blue cloth shopping bag, a minor but glaring inaccuracy. So... much has been said about about the WP policy that says primary sources may be used with care. This has led to issues though with the editor who is retired-LE, as things that seem obvious to him are not necessarily obvious to me or, I think, to the average lay reader. Just some context. Thanks again for the help, I appreciate it. Elinruby (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

removal of content with a reliable source

please participate on the talk page, instead of blindly reverting and removing sourced material. i am including material from a book by carol m. swain, which was published by cambridge university press. it is a very valid and reliable source. what you are restoring is a negative comment with no source, in an article about a living person. frankly, i believe your actions almost amount to vandalism and your frivolous comments about a "concensus" is something that i would expect to hear from a lawyer. please participate in a more constructive way, and provide your own sourced material. this is not supposed to be a war and your participation is only needed, if you have something of relevance to contribute. -- mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.34.175 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Uebert Angel

I've explained my reasons on Talk:Uebert Angel. I think the onus is on you to show that Daily News (Harare) is not a reliable source. Please continue this discussion at the talk page. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey RexxS, I see it, thanks. Let's keep the discussion over there, working on a reply to you right now. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for helping to save my sanity at Uebert Angel

Jbh^Talk 21:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy to help JBH - hope you're well! Fyddlestix (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I am doing quite well, thank you and I hope all is well with you and yours. Jbh^Talk 01:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for not digging the GlobalSecurity hole any deeper than it had got. Andy Dingley (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks Andy, that's awfully nice of you - I'm still embarrassed I made such a silly mistake, you might just as well have trouted me! Fyddlestix (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

History of Asperger syndrome

Thanks for the correction to the over zealous removal of sources, but because of the block I can't re-add the said sources. Would you be able to do that for me? Thanks in advance. 203.27.47.150 (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Bill Ayers article Jan 2017

Bill Ayers, per this wiki article, set off bombs in public places in the US _targeting civilians. This fits the definition of "domestic terrorist" exactly. I also added a ref to an FBI release explicitly describing Ayers as a "domestic terrorist." Please explain how this is defamation or "unreferenced" when I added a reference, other than you personally disagreeing with it due to your political views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.61.167 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see any reference that supports what you added. Can you link it? Fyddlestix (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Fyddlestix. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 15,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Stix of Fyddle!

I fixed a typo on your userpage, hope you don't mind. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, thanks for catching it! Fyddlestix (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

Hi! Just a note in response to your edit summary. I tagged that quote because all quotes should be accompanied by in-text attribution. I wasn't doubting the reliability of the source. But I think your edit was the right one, since the quote really added nothing useful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman:, Thanks! I did not check the history so did not know who added the tag - and definitely didn't mean to imply that the tag was untoward with that edit summary - you're right, of course, that quotes should be attributed. Seems simpler to just state it as a fact though. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Fyddlestix,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 805 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)