User talk:Cedar777

Art+Feminism, Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Saturday, May 12th, 1-5pm
23:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Seattle Wiknic 2018
01:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 29, 1 PM
08:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Wikipedia Day 2019 — curating images from Asahel Curtis and older Seattle photos
04:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Women’s History Wikithon, Washington State History Museum, Saturday 3/9
To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Art+Feminism, Jacob Lawrence Gallery, Saturday, April 6th, 1-5 PM
05:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

L7 edit
Thanks for this. If you add more to the article, please put the citations in the template at the end. Very good work. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Seattle Wiknic 2019
04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ghislaine Maxwell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ghislaine_Maxwell check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ghislaine_Maxwell?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Prince Andrew
I noticed some of the Telegraph sources were removed from this article with an edit summary mentioning tabloid sources. While I do agree that tabloid sources should be removed or replaced where possible, the Telegraph isn't a tabloid. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The Telegraph is a broadsheet. The basis for my assessment was the rating of “Mixed” for factual reporting using this reference guide. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-telegraph/ I try to steer clear of using sources that are rated as mixed. Some bias left or right is often unavoidable but when the facts aren’t reliable, I hesitate to use it. Cedar777 (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Sex crime categories
The sex crime categories you are adding are diffusing categories. The articles are already in children or grandchildren categories and do not need to be added to the master. Elizium23 (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * sorry, not sure I follow you. Is it not useful to have all together in the master as sex crime and then be able to view by sub-type of crime? Cedar777 (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It would easily be too large. See WP:DIFFUSE. Elizium23 (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. My apologies, I will backtrack and try to fix them. Cedar777 (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is totally OK and fixable. Thank you for discussing and being prepared to fix them up. Happy editing! Elizium23 (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Maria Farmer (February 17)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Maria Farmer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Maria Farmer, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Maria_Farmer Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Maria_Farmer reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion and thank you for deleting the outdated draft. I also created the existing Maria Farmer article which is more up to date. I had meant to delete the draft after the main article was up but I was unsure if this would create difficulties. Thanks and Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No apology wanted or requested. In case it wasn't clear, Draft:Maria Farmer redirects to Maria Farmer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!
For adding the photos to the MMIW article. You located and added some really excellent images. They really improve the article. Good job! - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Judy Mikovits's DOB
Your recent edit adds her Date of Birth, where did you find it? I think that WP:DOB might apply. Thanks DarthFlappy (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm, I think you might be right about that one. I'll dig it back up for the year(s) but in the meantime will remove from her page.  Thank you, Cedar777 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maria Farmer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Maria_Farmer check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Maria_Farmer?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edward Razek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Edward_Razek check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Edward_Razek?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Was it something we said?
Please explain why you removed contributions by me, administrator, and user from the thread Spelling out N-word. NedFausa (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * My apologies! Too many windows open on the desktop yet again.  Cedar777 (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

File:CHOP artwork in Capitol Hill Seattle
today removed an internal link written as an external link that you included when adding an image to Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. The same image, which contains multiple filename extensions (.jpg.jpg). Since it is likely to confuse Wikipedia editors, I suggest you replace that file with one having only a single extension. NedFausa (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you, Cedar777 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Exemplary edits re CHOP
Great job this morning in handling the reclamation of Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in a dispassionate, encyclopedic manner. The simplicity of the lead's final sentence is quite powerful. I hope it stays that way. NedFausa (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on Ghislaine Maxwell edit
I would like to undo the edit in Revision 966443933 which you authored (and was an undo of an edit I made), and seek consensus. I invite you to add your POV to Talk:Ghislaine_Maxwell. Rklahn (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my comments in Talk:Ghislaine_Maxwell in edit Revision 966457103. I appreciate the fact that we can discuss it and assume good faith. I need to reflect on your thoughts overnight, and will likely have a response in several hours. Rklahn (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Maria Farmer
A must hear: --217.234.74.253 (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Epstein Victim Maria Farmer Speaks With Whitney Webb, Full Phone Call - Part 1, 24.04.2020
 * Epstein Victim Maria Farmer Speaks With Whitney Webb, Full Phone Call - Part 2, 26.05.2020


 * I am well aware that Farmer's views were covered by several alternative media sites earlier this year that resulted audio recordings and YouTube videos, including these. Unverified YouTube content does not belong on Wikipedia. The structure of YouTube allows content to be monetized, leaving content generators more prone to sensationalism.  The particular platform that carried the links above, known as The Last American Vagabond, has been identified for promoting conspiracy theories. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "structure of YouTube" - You mean "algorithm of Youtube"? Yes, it`s a tragedy. Don't care for that "particular platform" The Last American Vagabond. I care for a brave woman like Maria Farmer, seeking for help from the US authorities since 1996. Don't like “victim-blaming rhetoric” and a “focus on discrediting Farmer’s testimony”. I wish her well.
 * Mapping the silence... since the 1990er it is known in Germany, the New York Academy of Art is a pedo-ring:
 * *FBI Protected Epstein's Accomplices: Maria Farmer NOW LEGALLY GAGGED!, 10.05.2020
 * *https://www.ch*nge.org/p/david-kratz-eileen-guggenheim-must-be-removed-for-harm-she-caused-to-maria-farmer-by-jeffrey-epstein?recruiter=30424804
 * *https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/new-york-academy-of-art-issues-apology-to-epstein-accuser-and-alumna-maria-farmer-after-claims-of-victim-blaming --217.234.67.171 (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Not LGBT...
Hi Cedar. As the user that began the Epstein Sex trafficking scandal NavBox I left a reply concerning weather or not GM was LGBT or not. I left a reply saying she was not. If she is reply back.Personisgaming (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Raz Simone
Hi. I wanted to explain the reversion of your obviously good-faith edit, since I understand the thinking behind your edit summary. In this case, because the sources are being cited as part of a statement about having published negative stories about Simone, rather than as sources for statements in Wikipedia's voice about Simone, they are acceptable for use. This usage also meets any attribution expectations, since we are saying "Fox News published a negative story about Simone" before sourcing a negative Fox News story. The other material from the other editor, adding in stuff about 18-year-olds and guns, has some weighty BLP issues, which is why I reverted that editor before. This version is a little better, although it required cleanup. If you want to discuss the inclusion of Post or Fox in this usage on this article, please open up a section on the talkpage so we can also solicit other opinions, and I'll be happy to discuss further. Grandpallama (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Northwest African American Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Street station.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic virtual edition 2020
04:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

DS notices
As the notice says, you haven't done anything to violate the DS but given the Andy Ngo topic its best to be aware. Springee (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Slow motion edit wars
Please remember that slow motion edit war, such as those that happened on Andy Ngo are still edit wars and can still result in sanctions even if you are respecting the 1RR -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Side bar?
Cedar, I know we haven't agreed much. I thought a sidebar discussion might help us find a bit of common ground. In replying to the recent RfC I think I see gap where my thinking was probably not clear to others. I was hoping that a sidebar with you might help us both clarify things. My intent isn't to pester so if you aren't interested please let me know and I'll leave you be. Thanks! Springee (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Springee, I am at a point where I need to step away from this for a bit but I do see your inquiry. Perhaps, in the meantime, you might consider following up on the Andy Ngo talk page after my last line of questioning regarding the disputed ABC content? Thanks, Cedar777 (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. I was thinking about the "alleged" part rather than the journalist question.  The short version is are all miss understanding what the other side really means?  I started thinking if people think a reader will read "alleged attack" and think "is Wikipedia saying there is a dispute if the fight happened?" then I totally get why people want "alleged" removed and I would agree with them.  My phrasing is bad if a reader will think the fact a brawl occurred is disputed.  My concern is really about effectively accusing a group (this would be a BLPGROUP) of a crime (premeditated assault and battery).  Do you think there is other language we could use that avoids any confusion that a fight occurred but keeps the accusations of premeditated as allegations?  Anyway, thanks for you input and sorry we have been butting virtual heads.  Springee (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Minor Andy Ngo question
Cedar777, I wanted to comment that I think you are doing a generally good job with the recent Ngo edits. I understand we disagree on a number of aspects but I still want to give credit where it is due. I do have one minor question regarding an edit here []. Your edit summary said you added two sources but it also appears you removed Fox News as a source. Any reason for removing the established source? The Fox News source was closer to the time of the event. Any reason not to just use both?

On a less minor point, are you OK with the resorting of the career section. I'm generally happy with it, including moving the provocateur part later in the section but I understand that what I think makes for a better article isn't always supported by all. Note, I'm generally holding off on any edits and would rather see what we can find in terms of common grounds where we can improve things. Getting the body sorted up seems like a better plan vs fighting over the lead. Springee (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Springee (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , You are correct that Fox News was removed. While I did not intentionally omit mention of this fact from my edit summary, the goal was to replace that less-than-desirable source with one more reliable due to the fact that Fox was downgraded for science and politics by Wikipedia in July 2020. This coverage in the Seattle Times was particularly . . . memorable. As far as exactly when the Wikipedia community's downgrade applies to citing Fox News politics content, i.e., is older content still considered stable by Wikipedia, that might require some research. Feel free to clarify what the policy states for including political content from Fox.  In general, I avoid both CNN and Fox in preference of alternative reports on content.
 * Regarding your second question, the career section, like much of the article, needs considerable care and attention to refining the who, what, where, when, why, and how in all these RS, particularly because they don't always agree. Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Cedar777, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I would like to restore the Fox News source in part because it no one will accuse it of being biased against Ngo.  Also, the actual outcome of the Fox New RfC was reliable for non-politics.  Use with care for political topics.  That primarily means they should be fine for run of the mill politics (Bob voted for X) but needs additional sources for something like "Bob is working for the Ukranians after all!".  Still, this is a minor thing.  As for the second part, how would you feel to some sort of group agreement that we will put the lead aside for a while and try to clean up the rest of the article first.  We can have a statement to the effect that we aren't agreeing that this is the stable version of the lead, just that we all see that the body has issues and if we clean that up perhaps it will be easier to find agreement in the lead?  Springee (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have no objection if you wish to restore the Fox News citation. Also agree that focusing editing attention towards refining the body makes sense. Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Cedar777, I haven't done anything with the Ngo body but Bacondrum and I did talk about the lead a bit. My attitude was if I can get something that Bacondrum and I both could grudgingly accept we probably are doing OK on neutrality. Would you mind taking a look at my suggested lead here []. It's based on a copy of the current lead. You can see my changes from the current lead in this edit []. There are a few editor comments in the lead just because I wanted to get some intent across. I'm open to suggestions in those areas. I figure it's easier to work on an offline copy of the lead vs a live one and hopefully if a few of us who haven't agreed in the past can agree here updates can be made with some buy in. Thanks - Springee (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for letting me know that you have continued to work towards a suitable lede for the article. A great deal has been written about Ngo, with approximately 20 articles (of decent quality) in the second half of 2019 (after the assault on Ngo), and another 18 or so (and growing) published in 2020. Taken all together, it is a lot to digest. You made mention before that the body needs to lay out the facts first and I agree with that point, that it can help with constructing a more concise and accurate lede. My current goal is to re-read the 38 - 40 articles listed on the talk page and sort them by relevance and common themes. Thanks, Cedar777 (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cedar. I'm interested to see what you find.  BTW, would you look at my proposed (still needs a bit of work) lead that I discussed with Bacondrum.  I would like to put it in the current article and Bacondrum's feedback was positive.  Still, given how sensitive people are about this topic I would feel more confident if you also find it a reasonable compromise.  Springee (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Andy Ngo
Your recent edits here violated WP:1RR. You also used a WP:NEWSBLOG for a contentious claim, which is a problem. Please self-revert. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , It would be helpful if you were more specific, named the sources and provided the relevant diffs. Cedar777 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your last two reverts violated 1RR. So first you need to self-revert, then we can talk about why Portland Mercury's "Blogtown" is covered by WP:NEWSBLOG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , There seems to be some confusion between edits made by NorthBySouthbaranof and myself. Of the three diffs you listed, two were edits I made and the other was by North. Additionally, it remains unclear why you are associating the Portland Mercury with any of my edits. Cedar777 (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cedar777, it appears you broke the 1RR, and that's what has been reported at WP:AN3. You should make it a priority to fix your 1RR by doing a self-revert, to avoid a block. The NEWSBLOG question is separate. EdJohnston (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Cedar777. You've been warned for 1RR violation at Andy Ngo per a complaint at the noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again before receiving a consensus in favor of your change on the article talk page. I'm also alerting you (below) to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAP2, since they apply to this article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Andy Ngo is covered by the American politics discretionary sanctions
EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would greatly appreciate a reply of some kind to the comment that I added to the edit warring page yesterday. The user that reported edit warring has repeatedly reverted content (multiple reverts within a 24 hour period on several days in October) at the Andy Ngo page. Why does this user get a pass for doing this? Thank you, Cedar777 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Cedar777. You managed to remove the phrase 'was pepper-sprayed' twice from the article within 24 hours. When you remove disputed text, this is a revert. Nominally this appears to be a 1RR violation. You didn't reply to the AN3 complaint before I closed it, and it was nevertheless closed without a block. This is a very contentious article, where you have posted nothing on the talk page since September. To remain in good standing, you need to show that you are respecting consensus. I make no comment on other editors for now. The AN3 was about you. If you believe someone else needs a sanction, file a new report, preferably within less than a day of whatever you perceive to be a violation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to provide this input. It appears that the line between a revert (tagged as such) and an edit is much more of a grey area that requires additional caution when editing contentious articles. The potential of a 1RR violation is not something I take lightly and understanding what 1RR entails is a matter I have been working to find clarity on over the past week. My edits were carefully sourced and they revised and clarified existing content.
 * In my contested edits, the reference to "was pepper sprayed" was not removed but was modified to "He reported being punched and blasted with pepper spray" in order to reflect the source, changed from Fox News (downgraded by Wikipedia for politics & science in July 2020) to The Oregonian (a Pulitzer-prize-winning regional publisher). Although I searched for a second instance in my edit history for a removal or modification of that phrase, I did not find one.
 * In October, I have in fact been active at the Andy Ngo talk page with 32 edits prior to the reporting user's complaint. It is true that my participation at the talk page has waned in the last two weeks as the discussions there tend to involve (un)civil POV pushing WP:CPP and bludgeoning of the debate by the reporting user. Much of my work on the talk page was to compile a list of green RS in the section Review of terminology used for subject in recent RS that covered the subject in the last 18 months. Many of these sources have yet to be added to the article. Hopefully editors can gradually come to an agreement on summarizing some of this content for inclusion. However, as I am the fourth editor at Andy Ngo that the reporting user has accused of 1RR violations in the past eight days, my optimism is limited.  I do appreciate your feedback and will factor it in to any future edits. Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bellevue Arts Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bellevue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Nowak
You recently reverted the edit on Martin Nowak to repeat what AP and NYT say Harvard says, rather than what Harvard did say, which is also available online and cited in the article. Would adding a citation to Harvard in the lede, giving the material "from the horse's mouth", suffice for retaining the more accurate version rather than AP/NYT paraphrase? 73.89.25.252 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for American politics
Hi, Cedar777. I noticed something unusual in the DS alert you recently gave a user. The cutoff for ds for American politics has been changed from 1932 to 1992, and if you use the template ap, that's how it'll read now. But your alert still reads "1932". Did you copypaste an old version of the full text, or something like that, rather than use the template? You can presumably do that, as long as you change the year to 1992, but the template gets it right automatically. (You can also use Twinkle, I believe, but I'm not sure how!) Best wishes, Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Hello Bishonen, Thank you for clarifying this. I did indeed copy and paste from the alert that another user previously posted on my talk page for concerns regarding the same article.  Attempts to use a template were initially unsuccessful but I do appreciate your input and will give it another go.  Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, unsuccessful just like my own attempts to use Twinkle for it! But I've had good luck with simply typing, or pasting, the template. Don't be put off by the warning that appears; just click "publish" again, assuming you have checked they haven't had the same alert within the past 12 months. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC).

Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 03:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC) by using the Meetup/Seattle/Invitees list. To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Meetup/Seattle, please add or remove your name here.

Thank you for trying to be helpful
Thanks for the links, but I have no intent of joining the community. That said, mad respect to the Wikipedia community for what they do. I decided to check out Ngo's Wikipedia article specifically because it was mentioned by Ngo in a couple media appearances. It doesn't seem like Springee is acting directly on Ngo's complaints, but it's obvious to me that the user in question is very clearly trying to censor criticism of Ngo. As a philistine to the workings of Wikipedia, it is extremely strange to see anyone entertain such a naked display of bad faith. I get why the norm is in place, but I think that alone is enough to turn me off from joining. 69.158.90.121 (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo WP:BLP question
"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page." I thought I was adhering to Wiki policy. Where have I gone wrong? TomReagan90 (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The material you have been modifying or removing outright is, in fact, reliably sourced. It is neither “unsourced” nor “poorly sourced”. You have been removing language that very carefully confirms to that used by the sources already in the article. Keep in mind that there are some 100+ sources already listed for this article. Quite a  bit has been written about Ngo and the publishing platforms that he is affiliated with are themselves considered unreliable, e.g. the Post Millennial, the New York Post.  See the listing near the bottom of the WP:RSP page for an overview.  Cedar777 (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean up.
Hey, just wanted to say thanks for your effort to do a lot of house cleaning work on the Kenosha Unrest Shooting article. Not always fun work but it's good work none the less. Springee (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to again give you a thumbs up for the work on this article. Springee (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha Unrest Shooting
I self reverted my revert of you immediately after making it, and my subsequent edits were not reverted by anyone, therefore no edit war occurred at all. Even if I kept my single revert, that would not have violated Wikipedia rules anyway, considering there is no "zero revert rule" on this article. If you have a specific problem with something I added, please let me know. Bill Williams 07:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the second time in a handful of days that you have reverted the same edit repeatedly. See for the diffs of set one, and also  for set 2. Please follow BRD. Cedar777 (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are two completely unrelated sets of edits, and in the end most editors agreed and left the part about Grosskreutz believing Rittenhouse to be an active shooter in the body, because the thoughts of every single other person involved are not mentioned in the lead, so there was no reason for Grosskreutz' to be. As for the second part, I made a single change that you reverted, and then I reinstated that change in a different manner that included part of what you wanted. None of that constitutes edit warring. Bill Williams 08:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bill Williams, you are simply mistaken. If you take the time review the 6 diffs, you can observe that “caused” or “causing” was added in the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th diff despite other editors removing that problematic language and addressing why it was problematic in the edit summaries.
 * More worrisome are your justifications for suppressing content from the man Rittenhouse shot and wounded along with your straw man argument that it’s all or nothing regarding the three men who were shot (which have resulted in some truly bizarre edit summaries)! Cedar777 (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Content relevant to this dispute, including diffs for each occasion can now be found in the archives of the Kenosha unrest shooting talk page here at | Active shooter statement - repeated removal of RS content and also here at | Slow motion edit war. Cedar777 (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion 2
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. hemantha (brief) 05:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Cedar777. You appear to have broken the WP:1RR restriction on Ayurveda with your two edits of February 6. There may still be time for you to undo your last edit to avoid a block. If you do so you can reply at the complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Mark Bradford
Hi Cedar777, nice to meet you. I noticed that you are interested in both art and BLPs, and thought you might be willing to take a look at my edit request for artist Mark Bradford at Talk:Mark Bradford. Thanks, Stewart for HW (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Cedar777, thanks for looking at the Mark Bradford article and adding the Time magazine material! I see that you also fixed some of the old references on the page- much appreciated. If you get a chance to check out the remaining suggestions, that would be great. Please do let me know if you need anything else from me to get them included. Thanks again for your work on this, Stewart for HW (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ref names
Regarding these edits, can you please elaborate a bit on what exactly is consistent reference formatting? Hemantha (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand the citation->cite journal etc parts. I'm specifically objecting to the change of descriptive, alphabetic names to visual-editor style :1, :2 reference name changes. I request you stop doing those since they make things more confusing. Hemantha (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:CITE section 5.1.2. Cedar777 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See VisualEditor. Hemantha (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you edit on mobile devices? For an article with 200+ citations it is extremely difficult to view, verify, fill in and avoid duplicating citations . . . if they are obscured inside templates.
 * Here is what it looks like when clicking on one of the inline cite numbers while editing: "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be edited in source mode. This reference is used 4 times on this page." There is no information at all regarding author, date, url, etc..
 * On mobile, only one section or subsection is accessible while editing; an editor can't scroll down to hunt through the list of refs. On desktop it is also incredibly inefficient to encounter the error message (to fill in author/date/title/url or simply verify the existence of a source) but scrolling down is at least an option. Regardless, with 200+ refs it is beyond tedious. It's much less of an issue on a simple article with >25 refs. However, if the references have been added so they are not within a template, it is super easy to scroll through or search the full list of 200+ from any one of the subsections while editing on mobile or desktop. (BTW - I don't pick the numbers or care what the tool does so long as things aren't obscured in a template. It has never made any sense why editors would choose to impose a template on a reference. Are there any advantages? It just makes things, to use your words, more confusing for visual editors to have these refs inside the mysterious template.) The only work around is to create a fresh reference and remove the old one.
 * What I am hearing you advocate for here, at my talk page, is for manually renaming the numbered references using source code after modifying them in visual editor so that they have some sort of an alphabetic identity, am I right?
 * Would you be willing to provide a few examples that show how the code would appear before and then after? By starting with a ref, generated in visual editor that is used in multiple places within an article. i.e., what changes and how would the improved version look in code? Cedar777 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So I think this - Here is what it looks like when clicking on one of the inline cite numbers while editing: "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be edited in source mode. This reference is used 4 times on this page." There is no information at all regarding author, date, url, etc. - was the issue? In that case, I have to request you to stop editing refs from mobiles. You ended up duplicating two references, because of limitations of an interface you are using. For the readers, there was no improvement at all; instead there is a little bit of confusion because there are duplicated refs.
 * Naming refs ":1" or "ATRAMM" has nothing to do with that "obscured in template" message. That message is because those refs are defined inside a reflist template. But just to be on the same page here, what exactly did you add to D Bombardieri and W Sampson references? Those refs had every detail - url, page number, authors etc - already and it was clearly available to readers - mobile or otherwise. From your edits, I'm unable to see any value addition. Were those edits - specifically this sequence - simply to get rid of that visual editor message? Hemantha (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I find it rather implausible that you have come here (to my talk page) to discuss edits to a page (Alternative medicine) that you yourself have never once edited . . . all because you are really concerned about what the readers see.


 * It simply isn't visible to readers either way as it's only an issue based on preference for source or visual editor.


 * Take a look at the info here with a nice graph that makes it clear that visual editor is not going away. Any other editor who uses visual editor will not be able to see what the hell these references are. The little bit of confusion you refer to is the items in the ref list (when display in source mode) with the prefix of <! -- remarked out, yes? If you are interested in finding a way forward that does not create confusion for either visual or source editors . . . then it seems like the duplicate ref that is not displayed to readers just needs to be deleted. By the looks of the ref list viewed as source code for Alternative Medicine, there are a lot of duplicates in there clogging up the works. It looks like a fairly widspread problem.
 * For example:
 * <! -- remark out unused ref 
 * <! -- remarked out
 * <! -- remark out unused ref
 * <! -- remarked out
 * <! -- remarked out
 * and on and on they go from A to Z . . . (side note: a space was added between <! and -- so that the text would display). Cedar777 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * visual editor is not going away - yes and its limitations will be fixed by the developers. There is no need for you to do unnecessary changes in the guise of "fixing something" that wasn't even broken.
 * You're bringing in completely irrelevant points. The commented-out references have nothing to do with this. They aren't shown to readers, they aren't shown to editors. The confusion I was referring to was your duplication of Bombardieri and W. Sampson references.
 * To again bring this back to original point,
 * Don't edit references just for the sake of it, as you did here
 * ":1", ":2" naming is a Visual Editor limitation which is probably going to be fixed. While it's not a big deal for new refs, changing previously named refs to numerical ones like you did, is both unnecessary and disruptive.
 * I understand that you think all those references should be editable by visual editor. They will be, once the bugs are fixed. Until then, since those references already had all the necessary information, there is no need to touch them. Hemantha (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: Editor Hemantha was indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry in July 2022. Cedar777 (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for CAM
-- Valjean (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Caution regarding watering down mainstream, ergo scientific skeptical, content
You've been here for several years, but I'll just remind you of some things about fringe topics you may have forgotten. CAM topics are fringe subjects, so all mainstream skeptical POV has great due weight and must be dominant. That doesn't mean "most" quantity in an article, but that it should remain a strong presence in an article that should not be diminished in the slightest. We are a mainstream encyclopedia, so be careful with your editing on these types of articles. You appear to be deleting long-standing content, sometimes on dubious grounds.

Regarding sources, keep PARITY in mind (Fringe theories). Because writers in mainstream science and medicine tend to ignore fringe topics as inconsequential nonsense and concentrate their energies on writing about their own mainstream subjects and research, it is primarily scientific skeptics who serve the job of providing the criticisms that NPOV and balance require we include. Per PARITY these may be writings that aren't found in medical journals, but sometimes only found in books, magazines, and websites, such as Skeptical Inquirer and Science-Based Medicine. Don't let the word "blog" scare you. The types of blogs we are against are personal diaries and writings by unknowns. Subject matter experts are allowed. When comparing them with junk "science" and fringe views from CAM, they carry much more weight here. Because their views are usually only a small part of an article, the deletion of even one is a serious matter that tips the scales in the wrong direction, so don't do it without serious reasons, especially if it's long-standing content. Discuss it first.

BTW, Tim Minchin's quote about altmed is the best summary of the mainstream view. He's smart and has a way with words. He's an intellectual's comedian and understands the CAM topic well. Just because he's a comic doesn't diminish the quality of his succinct statement. In the political realm we have Stephen Colbert's political commentary, which, even though sarcastic and humorous, doesn't diminish the fact that he is an extremely insightful and prominent voice in American politics. We use all kinds of voices here, even comedians. -- Valjean (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * , I decided to wait a few days to respond to you after my primary impression was that your post was made out of a desire to undermine. Since then, quite a few editors have come forward to confirm that some of the existing sources at Alternative Medicine are not serving the article well in 2022. Others also see that the article covers a part of the picture, but does not provide a decent overview of the whole. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with your insinuation that my edits are diluting a flawless, contemporary assessment of CAM or of Ayurveda. The editor put it well here when stating on the AM talk page that "You appear to have a ricochet bias against anything that isn't reductionist, and don't appear willing to actually look at the research that decides WHICH of the actual PRACTICES are evidence-based, and which are not."


 * The WHO’s definitions of CAM and of traditional medicine reflect a wider understanding that many communities and cultures are shaped by a history of being brutalized by the mainstream (e.g. Canadian Indian residential school system and American Indian boarding schools in N America, and the imperialist exploitation of India by westerners since 1600). Several articles in the AM topic area read from a dated and limited perspective.
 * in reading about the topic, I saw this come up several times re: Canada, that different provinces have different laws based on what was observed working for patients. If a doctor has elderly patients that were personally affected by or strongly influenced by a parent who was in a residential school, all the quotes in the world from Angel, Minchin, or anyone else are not going to have any impact on the comfort of having a credentialed MD who also is knowledgeable in traditional healing methods and herbs from that region.
 * From an old 1998 article "Comments from the survey respondents indicated that Canadian medical school faculty believe that they should provide a general conceptual overview of alternative medicine, and that it is acceptable to deal with the different therapies as a group. Understanding alternative medicine as part of patients’ health care belief systems is emphasized. When attention is given to specific therapies, it often reflects the therapies that are most popular in the province where the medical education takes place or those that are particularly important to specific segments of the population (e.g., native traditional healing in the western provinces, where aboriginal populations are larger and more visible)."
 * It seems you are unable to recognize that it is really offensive for communities and cultures that have already suffered enormous losses under imperialism and Settler colonialism, to hear that anything not absorbed by mainstream medicine is crap/quackery/rubbish, i.e. there cannot be two kinds of medicine, Angel et al..
 * I am not optimistic that further discussion here at my talk page is going to help matters. I have already responded on the article talk page. Cedar777 (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

More about ref names
Please excuse me if you and Hemantha have already discussed this above, but have you looked at Help:Footnotes? Ref names that are purely numerical provide zero useful information, and we prefer them to have such information when any editor simply looks at the ref name.

Cedar777, I must admit I find your practice very disruptive and not an improvement in any sense. Please undo what you've done. You're destroying good refs. This is not a minor matter.

There are many ways an editor can create good references, and at User:Valjean I describe a method that serves me well. It follows standard practices found in scientific liturature and other professional sources and the ref names are unique, accurate, and very informational.

Yadkard isn't perfect. Sometimes it doesn't work, possibly because of buffering issues or other matters. One must check the result before using it because it sometimes fails to produce all the information. Sometimes it gets the date wrong. Otherwise, it produces all the information normally used in a professional and scholarly reference, and that is our standard here.

To see an article where this is the only ref format used, check out the Steele dossier article. I maintain and update all references that are added so it has a consistent format with very informative refs, and that is the format to use in that article per this from Citation templates: "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus; see WP:CITECONSENSUS and WP:CITEVAR." -- Valjean (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Cedar777 says the changes were to mitigate the "Footnotes inside templates" limitation of Visual Editor, which results in reference parameters not being shown in Visual Editor window (only when editing, no issues for readers or those editing wikitext). But I haven't been able to understand why that's a problem, especially in this case where the references already contained all possibly necessary information and didn't need to be edited at all. Given previous instances where they'd included contested language in large edits that were otherwise mostly reference filling or trivial copy-edit (like this, this or this), I have closely looked at all their edits to pages I watchlist and while some of their reference updates have been helpful ones like adding URLs, I agree that the sequence of edits to Alternative Medicine which has prompted the discussion, do appear disruptive. Hemantha (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hemantha, I don't use Visual Editor so I can't address that. No matter what method an editor uses, the end result should produce a ref with the elements and unique and informative ref name, preferably using the type found in professional citations, shown below:


 * Template:


 * Contents:


 * Result: Harding, Luke (November 15, 2017). "How Trump walked into Putin's web". The Guardian. Retrieved December 24, 2017. "At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months—during the first half of the year—Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease."

I like to choose a unique ref name, so I use the last name(s) of the standard professional format of author(s) and publication date. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See this citation tool: Yadkard. It produces the right ref name format.
 * An alternative date format is the ISO format: "Harding_20171115"

Note: User Hemantha was indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry in July of 2022. Cedar777 (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thanks ! I appreciate the kind words and am quite a fan of coffee and tea. Cheers, Cedar777 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Rittenhouse
Hello just to let you know I re-added the part about why Kyle had the rifle destroyed as I believe its a relevant point to be aware of. If you think overwise please let me know and we can talk about it.Let's not start an edit war and we should try to have a constructive consensus.

many thanks CCB :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservative cheese ball (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm,, it looks like you were just |recently blocked by an admin for edit warring. Perhaps you might want to slow down a bit? Things generally flow better on contentious articles when editors follow WP:BRD aka Bold, Revert, Discuss. Everything that Rittenhouse opines through his lawyers and spokespeople does not automatically need to go into an encyclopedia article about the shooting. Instead of Bold Revert Discuss, the pattern was bold, revert, revert. Better to raise the specific issue in step three to discuss instead of revert again, as its in step 3 that the warring truly begins. Any further debate about the article content is best raised directly on the article talk page where other editors can weight in. Cedar777 (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you for the kind words. Cedar777 (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022 Seattle meetup
23:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

Rupert Sheldrake
see WP:ASSERT. If a lot of scholars think this way, we can assert it as fact. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm . . . . user Shibbolethink, you seem to be responding to this edit where you added a New Republic opinion piece to serve as an additional source to already sourced content in the lede.
 * I removed the New Republic portion of it here per the WP:RSP guidelines for New Republic which states "opinions in the magazine should be attributed". In the piece published in 2013, the author, Jerry Coyne, repeatedly refers to the subject derisively as a "Woomeister", openly acknowledges that he "campaigned against his(Sheldrake's) TED talk", and goes into great detail about the Wikipedia page drama around his BLP. Coyne includes his own opinions of GSoW in that piece, published in 2013, which was prior to the ArbCom ruling this year |here regarding that group. The 2022 ruling on GSoW concludes that there is little to no transparency on who, exactly, is involved in the group or which pages they edit despite what Coyne believed in 2013. "The lack of a list of members and articles worked on by the GSoW has increased suspicion of GSoW and its members from some editors. Further, it has meaningfully disrupted the ability of the community to use its typical dispute resolution methods to come to a consensus about allegations of canvassing, including vote stacking, point of view pushing, and conflicts of interest".
 * Attribute Coyne's views on Sheldrake in the body of the article, but for the lede, better quality sources should be utilized to support the terminology. Cedar777 (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you would bring up GSoW in this discussion. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of that organization. I don't really care about the above edit and have no intention of reinserting that material. Aside from that, if you have an issue with my behavior, mind WP:ASPERSIONS and bring it up in the appropriate venue or not at all. Thanks. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Your edit to Rupert Sheldrake has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. ''You copied a sentence essentially word-for-word from the source. That's not allowed on Wikipedia.'' — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Sheldrake is a practicing Anglican by his own admission. This part of the sentence was already reported by the existing source in the article. The phrase added was that he is also "favourably disposed towards all spiritual traditions". Adding quotations onto that phrase would have been the simple solution to your concerns. Paraphrasing is another option. To state that he is "supportive of all spiritual traditions" would similarly reflect the source. Cedar777 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Source filling
Hello Cedar177, Can you please fill in the sources to the two latest edits to List of longest prison sentences? I am new and don't know how to do that.--208.84.93.25 (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Whatcom Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alfred Lee.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023 Seattle meetup
04:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

March 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Alternative medicine. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''You are at 3 reverts in 24 hours. Tread carefully...'' — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Hmmmm user Shibolethink, this is the second time you have come to my talk page assuming bad faith. This time you are accusing me of edit warring. Take another look at the sequence. I made three consecutive edits. An editor reverted my first two edits while I was working on the third, i.e. I wasn’t even aware of that revert when publishing the 3rd edit in a different section.
 * Interestingly, the content you yourself then reverted, is unsourced content, tagged with citation needed for nearly a year. Cedar777 (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The lack of a 3rd revert was my mistake, mistook a different user's edit for yours. Re: the content, I'll look into it and add citations as necessary! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Er, Bon courage, why are you making this unfounded accusation and templating me on my talk page? Look again at the text+RSx2 I added and see that the language reflects what the RS actually say - both NYT articles say she "developed" EMDR. The shift was from "invented" --> to "originated and developed".
 * Apparently you yourself have copied/used an excerpt from the text that you recently wrote into the biography for Francine Shapiro and then repeated the same two sentences verbatim on the EMDR page. Why do you believe it is necessary to duplicate both of those sentences word for word on two pages? A biography is a different animal than an article about a psychotherapy procedure. While there needs to be correlation, it needn't be so rigid and regimented. Also, I can't say that I have ever seen an excerpt for a similar situation used elsewhere on Wikipedia for, say, the alignment between the biography of Kyle Rittenhouse and the Kenosha unrest shooting pages. Cedar777 (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You replaced a transclusion template with copy/pasted text from another article, without recording the attribution chain anywhere. I didn't "copy my own text" but even if I did it's not a problem since I am the copyright holder. Also, it's better to summarize in our own words rather than duplicating and expanding on words in the source. Bon courage (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Please follow BRD and take your proposed changes to the article talk page to get consensus.Cedar777 (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Seattle Wiknic 2023
01:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Meetup in Seattle on 16 January 2024
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Seattle March 2024 Events
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 01:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC) by using the Meetup/Portland/Participants list. To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name here.