User:ThePlatypusofDoom/Archive2

Hey there, thanks for getting back to me, first of all its not prohibited but discouraged as I read the whole page you've linked. I haven't written myself the story just published it through my account, we asked for a 3rd party author to handle the writing just because of this therefore the views and details of the actual listing are not from me. Lastly, most people vote on keeping the listing and edit it further which is quite funny because initially the submitted version was 2000+ words with many details about the company, early days, staff, business model etc and the wikipedia editors went ahead and ripped it multiple times to get it approved via the IRC channel. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.103.65 (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pablo Zibes
I went ahead and closed this AFD and cleaned up the mess. Looks like a different user may have tried to create an AFD for that article at exactly the same time or something. Anyway, please try again. Never mind. I see you were just trying to help after the fact -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  21:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * And I've wielded the mop to clean up a bit more! I've deleted the page as it was ambiguously recreated in error and removed the entry from the log. I've also cleaned up the Articles for deletion/Pablo Zibes page to put it back to the original nomination, it's listed just once in the log and there's only one tag on the article. The hiccup with Twinkle listed it twice on the log and placed two AfD tags on the article so all that was really needed to do was to remove a duplicate listing from the log and a duplicate tag from the article. All sorted now. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I had no intention of promoting a website. All materials are to be produced to be within wiki standards.Midnightmaniac45 (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC) , but how notable is the work which you want on Wikipedia? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Alex Riley
I removed nonsense stating this man had died. Any particular reason you've added it back? 188.208.198.161 (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

CVUA
Hello! I'd be more than willing to train you. I don't think timezones will matter a huge amount. Take a look at User:Omni_Flames/CVUA/ThePlatypusOfDoom, where I've started a page. Omni Flames  let's talk about it  07:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

AIV
Hi. I appreciate the help, but please use the proper format ("* brief reason for listing (keep it short)"), which makes it much easier for us admins to get to the contributions. Also, IP editors aren't SPAs--they don't have an A, so to speak. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing behavior
Hello, ThePlatypusofDoom, I was surprised by your bold confrontation of JaberEl-Hour on his talk page as I had never run into you before today. I see your account is only three weeks old but edits like this show quite a depth of knowledge about internal policies of the project. Additionally, you say you "patrol WP:COIN" which is an out-of-the-way place for a new editor to find themselves. You might be a very smart teenager, a quick study and pick up the finer points of Wikipedia guidelines very easily. But if you did have a previous account that you edited with, it would be best for you to declare it on your on your user page. I, myself, have changed my accounts over time and additionally had a username change. But it's all disclosed on my user page (see User:Liz) and editors prefer transparency and for folks to be open about ones past editing history. If I'm off-the-mark, please take this message as a welcome to Wikipedia because you are definitely making your presence known! In the future though, I'd be careful when confronting editors until you've acquired more experience. When one feels strongly about a situation, it can easily veer into biting comments and personal remarks which do not help diffuse a complicated dispute. Take care, Liz  Read! Talk! 21:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not edited Wikipedia before. I read up on the polices for a month before starting to edit on Wikipedia. I had a similar conversation with User:Anna Frodesiak about this, see my archive. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

TAFI
Hi, I have reviewed your nom at Today's articles for improvement/Nominations. If you want to, please take a look at my noms as well. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I also nominated Gunilla Persson. If you could review that as well, I would appreciate it. Anyways, thank you!--BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I really don't know enough about the topic to vote. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not know if you already have reviewed it but could you take a look at the TAFI nom for Tammy Lynn Leppert as it has received two supports so far. I have reviewed some further of your noms.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That's because I really don't know anything about her. I'm concerned that the article will get very little improvements, I probably wouldn't try to improve it, as it's really not interesting to me. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Pun of the Day
When the man ran into the doctor's office saying that he was shrinking, was the doctor a shrink, or would it have been in order for the doctor to send him to a shrink? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Corduroy pillows - they're making headlines! GABHello! 00:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Taking it to WP:ANI
While I understand why you said that you would take a particular case to WP:ANI where there are personal attacks and claims of vandalism, I wouldn't give that advice to DRN. At DRN, I see our mission not only as working out content disputes but as providing an alternative to ANI, because ANI is a mess. That is my opinion. (In that particular case, I think that the next step is semi-protection of the article. (By the way, I see that your talk page is semi-protected. I infer that you may have had a problem with insults by unregistered editors.) )

I don't agree with you that ANI is a mess. It is hard, and can be problematic, but I feel that it's necessary, and solves more problems that it creates. On another note, I haven't had a insult by an unregistered editor, it was just a precaution taken so the editor wouldn't target me. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * User:ThePlatypusofDoom - Maybe my use of the word "mess" was off the mark. I agree that ANI is necessary, at least in that the English Wikipedia doesn't have an alternative to it.  I meant basically that it is hard and sometimes problematic, and that we should only advise going to it as a last resort.  I simply don't advise advising editors to go to ANI except in desperate situations.  I don't think that we really disagree.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

About 3 articles from Polysports Complex
What is non notable??? Give me an answer??? If you don't, I will delete those. Ronald Galope Barniso (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

BUTUAN SPORT VENUES DISCUSSION
Why are you going to delete all of those, Men???!!! Do you want to delete my articles??? Ronald Galope Barniso (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Genocide Discussion
My own thought is that the discussion has gone on far too long for the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and that it is time for you and the parties to request formal mediation. That is my opinion, and is worth what they paid for it. I would say that, for a first-time moderator, you have been extremely patient. The only criticism that I can see is that maybe you have been too patient. I would also suggest using descriptive headings when introducing breaks, rather than just Break or Arbitrary Break. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is probably a good idea. I will close it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A fan for you!
How did you find this template: I just created it about a month ago?

I found it on someone's talk page. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Jaffe
I had to change the details of the permission granted to Dave Jaffe because he is a conflict of interest editor. He may request the changes that he wants, but he should not edit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

82.59.58.103 in Electronic Harassment
Please advise the IP to request the status as a party. They aren't a party. (At least, they aren't if they aren't editing logged out.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that the discussion is getting out of control. At this point, it appears that you are trying to insist on Wikipedia policy on fringe, but the issue is complicated because a reliable source has published a single fringe paper that is being used by proponents of a fringe theory.  As a result, you are being drawn into being non-neutral, which isn't so much to criticize you as to say that maybe the situation is hopeless in that the argument is going nowhere.  I think that closure, and referral to a Request for Comments, may be the next step.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I also would suggest that, in general, a moderator should avoid getting into direct discussions with participants, but that is a matter of style. You can see that this discussion has generated a lot of pixels.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like direct discussions with participants. I will continue the case, because it's better that a discussion takes place, I don't want the accounts to make more work for editors. I may be slightly non-neutral, but everything I say complies with WP:FRINGE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Different moderators have different styles. That is all right.  I don't think that the thread is going anywhere, but we shall see.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP addresses should be added as a party. They are almost certainly not User:Jed Stuart.  His user page says that he is in Australia.  The IP addresses are in Italy.  Unless there is some plausible reason to suspect sockpuppetry (involving Jed Stuart either lying or traveling to Italy), we just have two people pursuing the same fringe claim.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * However, in my opinion, it is very definitely time to shut the thread down, because the unregistered editor appears to be saying that Wikipedia, as well as the US government, is part of the conspiracy. If so, there is no real point in our trying to resolve this content dispute.  If you choose not to shut the thread down, I will request the status of a (non-neutral) party.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I will keep the thread, because it's better to have the WP:ADVOCACY editor at the noticeboard than actually editing, causing work for other editors. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Your moderation of the Electronic Harassment article dispute.
I have come back to the dispute resolution process that I initiated to find it has been moderated by you and closed already. I am slow to get back to this - three days - but there seems no urgency on such an important issue for the article, which has been stewing for years now. If we can achieve some agreement or determination on this issue then the article can move on rather than keep going around in circles. There is a statement that there are comments to read about why you closed it so quickly, but I can't find those. Can I get accessed to the closed discussion? Jed Stuart (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I closed the discussion because a settlement was never going to happen. The only way I would have let the discussion close as successful is if you and the IP address agree that you are wrong, because if I agreed with anything else, I wouldn't have been following WP:FRINGE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not pushing a fringe view. I am attempting to include the view of the Washington Post that the claims of those who describe themselves as Targeted Individuals could be evidence of something real happening to them. To say it is real would be not appropriate as there is not evidence of such, and that could be regarded as a fringe position. To moderate a discussion and not give the initiator of the DR request time to say anything seems a bit immoderate don't you think? Jed Stuart (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:FRINGE. Also, when you start a DR case, you are expected to check in at least once every 24 hours. Also, the scientific consensus is that there is nothing happening to "targeted individuals", they have some type of mental disorder. Please read WP:UNDUE, because that is what you are suggesting. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 11:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Coda Media Deletion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coda_Media Hey there, realize that this comes after the 7 day grace period to contest deletion, but was wanted to speak to you first before filing for the 'deletion review.' I was just a bit confused as to why this Wiki Page was considered promotional and then deleted, even though it seems to follow all the wiki guidelines and citations backing up all the facts? What can be done to fix this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValerieKipnis (talk • contribs) 19:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest Dispute
I would suggest that you tell both editors to comment on content, not contributors. One of them is primarily complaining that the other editor is deleting a lot of cruft, that is, commenting on the other editor rather than that the deleted material isn't cruft. I think "Comment on content, not contributors" is a good maxim here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of this. I am aware of Wikipedia policy, you do not need to comment on my cases at DRN. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good luck in moderating it. You are more likely to have good luck with it than with some recent cases.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For an account that is only 7 weeks old, I think you have schooled yourself on Wikipedia policy faster than any newbie I've ever met! Liz  Read! Talk! 21:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

More advice
Hi Platypus. I would advise being slower on the trigger when it comes to applying WP:TNT to articles that come up for discussion on WP:FTN. We generally wait until after a few editors have weighed in on the subject and formed a consensus that the article has so many problems it needs TNTing. Also, I would never TNT an article that's being put up for AfD. In order to evaluate an article for deletion, it's helpful for the community to see it, bad sources and all, rather than judge a cleaned-up version of it. Also opponents of the AfD will often argue that, since the delete votes didn't get a chance to evaluate the pre-TNT version, those votes are misinformed and not valid. Thanks for your efforts to assist Wikipedia, and I hope you'll take this in the helpful spirit it was intended. Best regards - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Levofloxacin
edit to Levofloxacin seemed less than neutral to PofD

overuse of antibiotics has led to drug resistant bacteria increasing probability drugs such as these will be used, it is important to patients using this drug class to receive information such as this in case they have issues with genetic connective tissue conditions today combined with high prevalence of statin drugs (used to lower cholesterol). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.219.147 (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

mail and puns
The pun generator is awesome. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Note from a part-time UnVersitan Theological reader
Being an admin is not without some risks :-, http://blog.wikimedia.fr/dcri-threat-a-sysop-to-delete-a-wikipedia-article-5493., (You might consider working this one in. France also was has a tradition of sometimes very controversial satire.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you note
I just now logged in and saw the archived ANI thread...it seems quite a bit happened while I was procrastinating regarding what I thought was a simple spelling issue. You have my thanks for contributing to that and helping to get it resolved. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

About this
this. I don't believe you have actually studied my interactions with paid editors. If you do yes you will find episodes of harshness but you will also find many things like this (note the comments by a third party here and the comment by the paid editor here.

I have interactions like that all the time. Jytdog (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please properly explain the removal of my text from a User's page. You accuse me of "Do not modify other user's comments!" Where did I do that? I have altered no other text at all, and looking at the editing record shows exactly that. Editors cannot make false statements about other editors. Removing that text simply reinforces that. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Advice about reporting vandalism
Hey ThePlatypusofDoom! I came here from a talk page I watch (where you recently posted). A small advice about reporting vandalism at AIV. This report ("account is being used only for promotional purposes") wasn't appropriate at all. AIV is used for obvious vandalism. NPOV is a subjective and contentious issue and for violations of NPOV it is preferable to use ANI, particularly when the account is not an SPA. Reporting an user at AIV, who is not indulging in obvious vandalism/spamming, can be interpreted as a personal attack and I have seen it boomerang on the reporter previously. It is best to pause a while and evaluate the situation (examine the user's past history for similar behaviour) before going ahead and reporting. Cheers. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Tammy
Hi, I have nominated Tammy Lynn Leppert one more time at TAFI. As it was close to be accepted last time around. Take a look if you want to. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Frederiskberg
I wasn't sure what I could say at first, but I now found something that I think could move the discussion forward. What do you suggest I do in this case? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I would tell the person that you are in a dispute with, and see if you want to resubmit it to DR/N. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Why will someone call me fringey editor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=724558828&oldid=724528689

-- X-Men   XtremE  12:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry X-Men, I didn't mean it personally - I was referring to the topics that you chose to write about. They fall under a policy Wikipedia calls WP:FRINGE. Nothing personal meant by it. --Krelnik (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleting warnings
Hey, don't think we've crossed paths before, so hi! I noticed in this edit you asked why they deleted their warnings - users are allowed to delete warnings from their page, and you can take it to mean that they have read them, though personally I always find the act of it slightly suspicious. I do agree the editor is likely distruptive, but I thought I'd just pop by and let you know --  samtar talk or stalk 14:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And he just deleted my question about deleting warnings. I agree, I do find removal of warnings very suspicious, unless it is per WP:DTTR, or if it is very old, or moved to archives. He seems to completely ignore anything that he doesn't like on his talk page. Could you try to message him about it, as I'm not making any progress. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * look at his talk page history. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've tried to leave a message, we'll see if that helps open a dialogue --  samtar talk or stalk 14:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Educational Development Center, Inc.


The article Educational Development Center, Inc. has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * insufficient reason for notability.

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 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 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.  DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Islam and domestic violence
Regarding your revert at Islam and domestic violenc. Please take a look at (1) the cited sources and (2) the POV language used in the article. Are you really sure you want to fight for the inclusion of such content? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello ThePlatypusofDoom. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A granted] the "rollbacker" and "pending changes reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.


 * Rollback user right
 * Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).


 * Pending changes reviewer user right
 * The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing.
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello PlatypusofDoom. Thank you again for starting the Education Development Center page as a stub. It has been added to and has survived a notability challenge! I'm hoping you can do me one more solid. Are you able to add this objective information to the page? I have no idea how to manage all the citations; I've tried before but I am not a skilled Wikipedian. I'd appreciate any help you can offer. Thank you again. Here is the info: Areas of Work http://www.edc.org/our-work EDC’s work includes a focus on early grade reading in several countries including Literacy Language, and Learning (L3) initiative in Rwanda http://l3.edc.org/node/1. It is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development Another focus of EDC’s work is the prevention of injury, violence, and suicide http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/participants/edc/en/ EDC is home to the Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands (REL-NEI), http://www.relnei.org/ one of 10 Regional Educational Laboratories in the United States funded by the US Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/

Leadership EDC President and CEO is David Offensend, previously the Chief Operating Officer of America Achieves after 10 years as the Chief Operating Officer at the New York Public Library (NYPL). EDC’s Board of Trustees is chaired by Marvin J. Suomi https://www.edc.org/marvin-j-suomi who is president of KUD International. http://www.kajimausa.com/group/kud/

EDC has twice been selected as one of the Top Places to Work In Boston: 2009: http://archive.boston.com/jobs/topworkplaces/2009/globe100_top_places_to_work/ (#29) 2008: http://archive.boston.com/jobs/topworkplaces/2008/topworkplaces_chart/ (#50)Alisonbck (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonbck (talk • contribs)

AN comment
Hey just a note to say that this isn't intended as a jab. I know the proposal was in good faith and based on previous comments. I just found the level of procedural detail some people have been suggesting verging on the amusing (and on Wikipedia procedural detail can be both merited and amusing) :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Advice
Maybe unwanted advice, but here goes: You need to comment less in Wikipedia space and user talk pages, and do more content work. I had a look at your edit count breakdown recently, and it is, frankly, awful. Something like 19% of your edits were to articles, while 41% were to Wikipedia space. What we are all here for is to build an encyclopedia, but you appear to me more interested in other matters. My advice is to cut back on the other matters, and concentrate on building the encyclopedia. Thanks. BMK (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't really want to write articles. I do anti-vandalism work, but most of my work is at DRN, ANI, FTN, and AfD. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * All very well, but if you're setting yourself up to be an admin, which, frankly, is what your editing looks like to me, your lack of content work -- and therefore lack of understanding of what content contributors need from admins -- is going to be held against you. Just saying... BMK (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

مجتبیٰ
Hello there, I've noticed that this user maybe is an authistic one. What do you think? In my own observation thru him/her, the way he/she acts on requesting for granting user rights was really gives me a pause and a confusion to myself. I don't know on what he/she wants or intending to.... Maybe we should observe his/her ways then let us discuss on what should we do for it. Hamham31 Heke!  KushKush!  04:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean "autistic" and not "authistic", and I'd say that was (1) none of your damn business, and (2) not an indication of anything nefarious. Autism is a spectrum, and Wikipedia has had numerous editors who were on the spectrum and yet contributed significantly to the project, as well as some who have not.  I suggest you keep you opinions about that editor's psychological state to yourself, lest you be blocked, and concentrate on their editing and behavior, which are legitimate concerns. BMK (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's none of your business. Speaking as someone who has Asperger's, I highly doubt that he does, but it's none of my business. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 10:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content
Hi there, I don't understand your rationale for removing the list of episodes from Monica the Medium. Your explanation "not needed" is simply insufficient. Feel free to reply below, or open a discussion on the article's talk page to discuss. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

João Vale e Azevedo
was adding unsourced content for three days now. I complained and user was blocked. Why did you revert me if I am the one who improved the article by adding sources? SLBedit (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi PlatypusofDOom did that work? Here is the correct version of our entry:

Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC) is a nonprofit research and development organization[1] with headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts, and offices in Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, and other locations in the United States and around the world. EDC has 1,400 employees who develop and implement programs in education, health, and international development.

EDC is known for creating the curriculum Man: A Course of Study .[2] The organization was founded (as Educational Services, Inc.) by Jerrold Zacharias, who started the Physical Science Study Committee , credited with changing physics education in the United States.[3][5] In a number of countries, EDC uses technology, most notably radio, to provide educational opportunities for hard to reach learners. For instance, during the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Liberia, EDC and its partners used radio to provide lessons to students whose schools were closed due to the disease.[4][6] Research conducted by EDC on teen smoking, has been cited by numerous communities and states as they consider raising the age to purchase tobacco to 21.[7][8] The organization manages the Suicide Prevention Resource Center and serves as secretariat of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention .[9] 1.Jump up ^ http://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/press-announcements/201509181200

perhaps best to be in touch with my colleague Ejmarshall39. He has all the references and can write whatever you need. thanks again. alisonbckAlisonbck (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

User talk:FAMASFREENODE
Please stop poking this editor and go and find something better to do - the situation is being observed by experienced admins and editors, and you really are not helping! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I recommend that you spend a lot less time messing around in administrative areas of the project, and spend more time building the encyclopedia. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll do that when I want to be bored, writing articles is really boring, I write enough in school. I'm more focused on stopping vandals. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're at school. That's great and I wish you well with your studies - but leave the adult stuff for adults to deal with, OK? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Ageism. Great. Note that there have been many administrators who are minors, so that argument is invalid. I was expecting an admin to not discriminate (unless it is required by law) by age.ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, the youngest admin was 12 when he became an admin! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If a 12-year-old can become an admin, why can't an older student post on admin noticeboards? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not ageism and it's not just age - a 12-year-old can become an admin if they show sufficient maturity and judgment, and a 60-year-old can be denied it if they don't. Currently, you do not appear to possess either the maturity or the judgment to resolve admin-type issues. So yes, please revert vandalism when you see it, and please report persistent vandalism to admins - and yes, sure, please offer your comments on noticeboards. But when you have done that, please back off and leave those with more maturity and experience than you to deal with the problematic users themselves - those who are better able to douse fires than pour more fuel on them. You already had one "poking" addition to User talk:FAMASFREENODE removed, here with the comment "these comments are becoming unhelpful - please find something else to do", and yet you continued. You have now had two admins asking you to stop trying to stir it up at that user talk page, so you need to listen - further edits of a similar nature will be considered disruptive and might lead to blocks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Have fun, I'll just not be able to do anything on Wikipedia! Great! Note, you seem to be having a hard time with AGF. Please leave my talk page, as I am getting annoyed, and I don't want to be blocked. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll offer one more comment (which you are welcome to revert if you wish), and then I will say no more here (other than to post any messages that Wikipedia requires me to post). I am not for a second doubting your good faith, just your exhibited maturity and judgement. I want to see you enjoying a long and fruitful time here at Wikipedia, and I don't want you to ruin it for yourself with your youthful impetuosity. That is all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll add a note here. PoD, I have appreciated some of your contributions to the COI work, but have also been puzzled by some things you have done that didn't make sense to me, and have been wondering if I can trust you.  The COI work is difficult and delicate, and touches on issues that are very divisive in the community.  The mainstream view in the community at this time, in my view,  is that it wants better COI management but is also concerned that it can go off the rails too many ways (violating the privacy/OUTING policy in spirit and letter, turning into a vehicle for harassment, scaring away new users, etc).  I worry that if we handle things badly too many times, the community consensus will shift and it will become intolerant of efforts to manage COI better.  That could happen.  So I kind of encourage people who show good judgement and I kind of discourage people who don't, so that the COI work doesn't get into trouble with the community.  And like I said, I've been.... wondering if you are trustworthy.   Your making clear that you are a kid helps me understand some of what you have done.


 * Please do hear what everybody says above (and what Wordsmith says below!!) - it's all relevant and important.


 * So just a couple of notes from me.


 * I hear you that to you writing content is boring. Please bear in mind that everyone here needs to have writing or maintaining content or working behind the scenes to facilitate content creation and maintenance, as their highest priority, and if you continue to not work on content, and you show more bad judgement as you did with FAMASFREENODE and somewhat with that astronomer who was harshly concerned with COI,  you are likely to end up indeffed per WP:NOTHERE (you should read that).  I also get it that the interpersonal stuff - the drama -- is, well, more interesting.  Drama is interesting. I hear that.  Please be careful to always be reducing the level of drama and not doing anything to raise it.
 * Finally, please be very careful when working on COI stuff to be as disciplined and professional as you can and to keep any entertainment value out of it.
 * Best regards Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC) (clarify Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC))


 * Erm no, you're wrong. You might want to look down that page just a few lines to WP:NOTNOTHERE, specifically Focusing on particular processes: "A user may have an interest in creating stubs, tagging articles for cleanup, improving article compliance with the Manual of Style, or nominating articles for deletion. These are essential activities that improve the encyclopedia in indirect ways. Many "behind the scenes" processes and activities are essential to allow tens of thousands of users to edit collectively. Not every editor needs to perform "on stage", by creating articles and drafting new guidelines." The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to have a giant fight on my talk page, please. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but still. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wordsmith, you are correct and I've redacted above. But being here just for interpersonal drama is not OK.  Corrected above. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Got it, no problem. Enjoy the rest of your day, if I don't see you on IRC. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just an uninvited comment from a talk page watcher - I've seen lots of good comments and reasoning come out of you, but I can also agree with some of the comments above. What about content work don't you enjoy? Feel free to drop me a message if you'd like, as I'd be more than happy to help you find an area of content creation/editing you might enjoy --  samtar talk or stalk 18:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Portugal national football team 2000–19 results
Every single football article correctly formatted does not use spaces in match score. SLBedit (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:MOS and go down to the "dashes" section. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Section 9.9. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Check this. SLBedit (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * They do use the ndash . Also, that isn't a guideline. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 22:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS does not mention scores in football matches. The most similar example there: a 51–30 win;  a 22–17 majority vote;   but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals: a six-to-two majority decision, not the awkward a six–two majority decision. SLBedit (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How are scores in soccer matches different from any other article? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus at WP:FOOTY? As far as I know using "ndash" or "–" is the same thing: it's an "en dash". SLBedit (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See this: "When naming an article, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash". Taken from the MOS. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not changing the name of an article nor using a hyphen. I'm changing the dash and removing spaces in football box's score parameter. Click on the template to see it. SLBedit (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As this is pointless, I'm going to WP:DTS and stop this long and pointless argument. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Nominate Jude Quinn for deletion
Hi ThePlatypusofDoom, fyi I've nominated Jude Quinn for deletion [] Thanks, Mick gold (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I noticed your contribution to Articles for deletion/Jack Rollins (Character) and thought this Afd raised similar issues. Mick gold (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit at User:Stemoc
I reverted your edit on Stemoc's user page as it went against the consensus that was developed at MFD which was a Snow Keep. Its fine to be bold but not necessarily good form to be bold on another user's user page. Consensus is one of the backbones of the Wikipedia philosophy and as such should be respected. If you disagree with my actions feel free to discuss it with me here, or on my talk page or on IRC if you feel comfortable talking about it there. In the future even if you feel you are doing the right thing editing another user's user page at least do them courtesy of dropping a message at their talk page.

I also feel as though this section from The User Page Policy might be of benefit "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to)." (emphasis added) --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)