User talk:Fyddlestix/Archive 3

Joe Teti
Please explain why an in line citation is needed when the actual reference is embedded in the article. Everything that was referenced has the corresponding legal document from the State of North Carolina included from the court. The dates, names, and all information referenced in the edited post is evident on documents Joe Teti submitted to the court with the exception of the affidavit of MG Guest, that was submitted by his counsel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gscarp12 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, as I looked closer, I noticed that even additions with inline citations were removed from the edit, your initially mentioned that an inline citation was needed in your post, but even when provided, you have removed the content, why? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gscarp12 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi - the material you added appears to have been referenced to images of primary source documents, which isn't normally allowed (see WP:OR). You need a published reliable source, especially when adding controversial info to a biography (see WP:BLP). Fyddlestix (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and the section which was appropriately sourced which you removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gscarp12 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove anything else as far as I'm aware - the paragraph discussing the lawsuit was simply moved up. Can you be more specific about what was removed that you don't think should have been? Also, the article's talk page would be a better place to be having this discussion. Thanks. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Will do, many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gscarp12 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal
You nominated Irish slaves myth for deletion when you apparently wanted a merge or redirect. The process for requesting a merge is described here. Regards, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * - I know the process perfectly well, thanks, and my nomination is perfectly within acceptable rules and processes. My preferred outcome is to delete while leaving a redirect anyway, as I do not think Aflie's article is acceptable and I don't see much there that's salvageable. Please let the discussion run its course. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Attack Page
Hi, you left something in my talk page letting me know that I had created an attack page that was nominated for deletion. Was this a mistake or have I done something wrong? Matt11235 (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, you can ignore it! You sent Rickinbaltimore sucks me read or else to AFD, and I sent the AFD page to CSD (looks like an admin already deleted it). Obviously you were not the page creator so its fine - next time you see a page like that it can be speedied as an attack page rather than sent to AFD. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Hello , Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. We now have New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a MASSIVE backlog

HughD Ip editing.
Hey Fyddlestix. The Amazon proxy IP is clearly HughD. The Wordsmith agrees. []. You are welcome to read through the behavior evidence but I think you would agree on the end. Springee (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're thinking, and I can definitely see why you might think the IP is HughD. I can see similarities for sure, but I also know it's not really my job/place to decide that it is HughD. Absent a positive SPI or other "official" admin action, I'm uncomfortable with all the reverting and striking when it's disputed (by the IP, Felsic, and others) that the IP is Hugh. "Leave it to the admins" is my advice - but I really have very little appetite/energy for wading into more HughD-related drama, so I'm not likely to say/do much more than the this. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think that is a reasonable suggestion. Springee (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure some intrepid admin will step up and figure this out - if not, maybe another SPI will settle it? I have to admit, the IP does have similar interests. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the only example. Here is another Amazon proxy IP editing the S&W M&P15 page and the GM Chapter 11 page... at the same time I'm making changes...  [].  I got suspicious when a few random, Chicago area IPs started editing pages I had worked on (this was during Hugh's block).  I hope an admin does step in.  Perhaps the evidence is now strong enough for a second SPI.  Springee (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Possessive
Fyddlestix's or Fyddlestix' ? :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I, uh... I have no idea - this is the first time that's come up! I guess Fyddlestix's? Looks weird but x' looks weirder! Fyddlestix (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Day-care sex-abuse hysteria
Hi there! I generally try to avoid discussing content too much on user talk pages, but I'm moving here because I always respect your opinion and I want to continue our conversation, and the discussion at Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria is getting rather convoluted. So here's the thing. I appreciate your research, very helpful. So you've convinced me there are enough reliable sources to put together an article called Day-care sex-abuse moral panic that includes a list of cases. But there is still a serious problem beyond the lead section (which you did an admirable job of rewriting): the descriptions of these cases would have to be completely re-written to explain how these cases were examples of moral panic, citing the sources you've found. Then we'd have to accommodate the other reliable sources that arguably conflict, saying that various flaws in these cases were due to factors other than moral panic, such as an ignorance of the unreliability of toddler interviews. This seems totally doable, but (a) will it actually get done, and (b) in the meantime don't we have a serious problem, and (c) is it really necessary? Isn't there a shorter and easier path to policy and guideline compliance in which we move the article to something like Day-care sex-abuse cases in the 1980s and then add a substantial new section about moral panic? After all, as groupuscule notes, an article of that nature does not exist, would be quite useful, and could potentially be built out to be more comprehensive than an article devoted exclusively to one viewpoint about these cases. Your thoughts please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the note, and let me start by apologizing if I've come across as brusque/rude at any point in this discussion - I'm used to agreeing with you when we cross paths so I hate that a couple of my comments yesterday were a bit catty. Sorry!
 * Anyway, to me, the issue boils down 100% to sources - I went looking and found tons of reliable sources on the topic of the moral panic/ritual abuse topic, but I don't see a similar body of sources about "day care abuse in the 1980s." Type that in to any major research library catalog and what comes up is the books about the moral panic & "ritual abuse" controversies. I've spent the better part of several days researching this, and I am very very convinced that that is what the sources indicate is the primary topic here. Yes, there is a body of literature about day care abuse more generally - but it's actually smaller than the body of literature on the moral panic, and doesn't focus exclusively on the 1980s. So while there is probably a place for that somewhere, on wikipedia, either at Child sexual abuse in daycares or in a sub-section of Child sexual abuse, that's clearly a quite different topic from what's currently in the article and what's discussed in the sources I'm finding, which is a very clearly defined, well-documented topic/historical event that occurred between 1983 and 1995.
 * In answer to your "will it get done" and "major problem" questions, I actually think the problems with the article body can be pretty easily resolved using the sources I've dug up, and am happy to work on it. One thing that might bear discussing is whether we really need the detailed discussions in the "cases" section, or whether that can be reduced to a table/list format listing of cases that the most reliable sources (like Jenkins and de Young) have clearly identified as cases of the panic, and let the details of each case be addressed in their own articles (I'm sure you've noticed most of them are blue links already). The bulk of the article, imo, should be a discussion of the panic in general, rather than a list of specific cases (and I'm finding lots of sources that could be used to write that). Another option is to simply go through one and directly state/attribute that "Scholars X, Y, Z, and W have all called this case an instance of the panic," and include any opposing viewpoints that can be reliably sourced where necessary. But that is a) going to get really repetitive, and b) kind of unnecessary in most cases - looking at the sources, I think you're underestimating the extent to which most law enforcement, psychologists, child welfare workers and academics agree that most of these cases were unfounded, and the product of flawed investigative (especially interviewing) techniques. It's true that some of the cases are more of a grey area and/or have been shoe-horned into the article for whatever reason - I'd be the first to support either removing those or providing a NPOV summary of the different viewpoints on them though. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI I have not forgotten this. I'm mulling it over. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are a lot of sources referring to these cases in connection with moral panic or hysteria--however how many of the sources say the charges were actually the result of moral panic/hysteria? I agree that there were a bunch of seriously flawed cases in the 1980s and that they were part of a moral panic, but do the sources support a causal relationship? I'm not so sure. And even if they do, wouldn't you want to include an analysis in this article about other aspects of the phenomenon not directly tied to moral panic but clearly tied to these cases, such as developments in the scholarly literature about suggestive interview techniques? You even include a sentence about that in your proposed lead re-write. It appears to be out of your proposed scope. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten about it either, but at this point I'm happy to wait-and-see what happens with the RFC. It sounds like there might be some confusion about what the term "moral panic" implies at work here though - the literature treats both the legal cases and the suggestive interviewing as part-and-parcel of the panic itself. "Panic," in other words, does not refer to people running screaming in the streets or something. When these scholars talk about the "daycare abuse panic" the cases and the suggestive interviewing - and media coverage of them - are a very large component of what they're referring to. I don't really see how that could possibly be off-topic, certainly sources treat it as a key component of the panic itself. My suggestion is that we wait and see how the RFC winds down and then resume the discussion on the talk page as needed. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could live with a title that included "moral panic" in it as long as it covered those sorts of aspects in a balanced and informative way. And for what it's worth, while I was researching this issue I ran into a book that criticized the relatively recent "moral panic" backlash against these cases and said the pendulum had swung too far. I'll see if I can find it again. (And just to be clear, I'm not saying I agree with that source, I'm saying that the article title should neutrally reflect the reliable sources.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is what I was looking for: a NY Times review of The Witch-Hunt Narrative by Ross E. Cheit. In the process of looking for this I also found this: Confronting Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse by Cynthia Crosson-Tower, which appears to describe the various viewpoints on pages 15-17. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Crash Override Network
Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit in the blink of an eye, did you really read it that fast? I understand my account is new, but that's because my old one has expired, as I only do sporadic editing. I also understand it's a touchy subject, but I think my edit is well meaning and fully within Wiki policies. So what's the deal? I was removing puffery. Could you please make me understand how anonymous people can have verified identities (as victims) at the same time, and where this is reliably confirmed in the sources? I read the sources and this seems like marketing claims - i certainly doubt it's true for all employees and even if it's true - partially or not - such astounding, unverifiable claims demand better sources. The other bit I changed was oversimplified, also serving apparent promotional purposes and seems better left to the gamergate article (which is linked). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sss ra (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not puffery - the sources cited specifically state that the site is "staffed by a number of online abuse survivors" and "for survivors, by sirvivors." You might dismiss that as "marketing" but we need to stick with what reliable sources say. And yes, I did read your edit that fast, it just happened to be at the top of my watchlist when I was browsing on my phone during an idle moment. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's unverifiable data provided by the leader of the organisation, not by a reliable 3rd party = self-promotion. It's not ok to have advertisement. Sss ra (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Coverage in a reliable source = verifiable. You might want to check out WP:V and WP:RS as you seem a bit confused about what constitutes verifiability and reliability here. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello ,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just reviews, the  backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

So why do you use a gadget to revert edits automatically?
That's all I'm asking. Oppashi (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is twinkle, it's not automatic it just makes reverting easier/faster. I ought to have left a better edit summary there, but basically the edit you made is not accurate - not everyone who writes or talks about male privilege or patriarchy is a "social justice warrior." Rather, these are mainstream concepts used and understood by a very wide range of academics and writers. Your edit seemed to be rather POV. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * {Random passerby) If by "rather" you mean "very" then I agree. That's not to say that the edit was POV, but it definitely shouted "POV PUSH!!" at the top of its lungs. The brief edit war over it strongly reinforces this impression. We should not ever use pejorative terms to refer to any group, unless that group has adopted the pejorative term (usually in an attempt to "own" it). This is, of course, in addition to your point about the factual inaccuracy. Hell, even men's rights advocates have examined male privilege alongside the concept of patriarchy. The fact that they came to very different conclusions doesn't change this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So I'm right at one point. Not just feminists use that. Oppashi (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
 * Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Page Curation/Suggested improvements
 * The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
 * User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
 * User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:
 * Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Warning...the BLP violations are real
I will revert you one more time, but this article is a hit piece - pure attack page, not a BLP, and if you want to be part of the ANI I'm about to file, keep reverting blatant BLP violations. Atsme 📞📧 02:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Go nuts, you're an embarrassment to the project if you think your whitewashing of Jared Taylor is appropriate. You probably should have checked out the massive, ongoing discussions on the article's talk page (and, you know, actually looked at what RS say about Taylor) before jumping into this.... Fyddlestix (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Whitewashing? No, I removed blatant BLP-NPOV violations - blatant beyond the shadow of a doubt violations. I don't have a problem quoting and attributing criticism to RS, and including their "opinions" about a BLP, but I'm not going to allow it to be stated as factual in Wiki voice. I'm being compliant with BLP, NPOV by not allowing labels to be attached to living persons just because a group of lawyers don't like the guy. Good gosh, how do you think that man's children feel when they read such derogatory bs about their father in the manner it was presented in an encyclopedia. Have some sensitivy and at least try to follow WP policy: ...written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives... And also: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; There isn't one thing that can be considered responsible, conservative, or disinterested in tone when labeling a person a white supremacist in Wiki voice and sourcing it to an advocacy group of lawyers who make their living disparaging people who have views that don't coincide with their own. Atsme 📞📧 02:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to illustrate what I mean: you attributed "white supremacist" to the SPLC and removed all other references to it, but the SPLC is not the only group/source that calls him that. He is variously referred to as "a white supremacist/seperatist," a "Virignia White Supremacist," a "major force in white supremacist circles," "one of the leaders" of the white supremacist movement, and "Jared Taylor, a white supremacist" in some of the highest-quality sources on him that I could find.  Your edit is WP:FALSEBALANCE at its worst. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Now to reply to the EC post: Re: sourcing it to an advocacy group of lawyers, your feelings about the SPLC are what's blinding you here - this is very far from "their" view, but rather how a large number of very reliable sources describe Taylor. See the links in my post below for a couple of examples. Other editors have provided still more/better sources at the article talk page, and within the article itself. It seems like you are not familiar with what RS say here. Maybe pause, take a deep breath and actually read something you CRYBLP in defense of someone who is widely recognized as a racist with repugnant views. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hell, the freaking NYT describes this guy as "long one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists". Maybe time to get down off that horse you rode in on... Fyddlestix (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You link to their section "Election 2016" knowing they supported Clinton, and want people to accept the defamatory labels they hang on people? This is an encyclopedia, not the election section of a newspaper during a heated and highly controversial election. I'm sure there are plenty of tabloids and left-leaning newspapers that would love to add (and even pay) editors who will promote their agendas. WP has policies - and any editor who feels that it's encyclopedic to quote the Election section to include a derogatory comment (regardless of who it is), there are policies to follow. You know, not everything that's published by MSM belongs in an encyclopedia, and you certainly don't state opinions as "facts" which is what I removed from that BLP. Move the comment down to a "Reception" section, and use inline text attribution and quote the Times, but don't include it as if it's factual information in Wiki voice. Atsme 📞📧 03:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, so the NYT is WP:BIASED now? You're too funny, but totally not worth wasting time/energy on. Don't post here (on this topic) again, I'm done with you. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are seriously saying that the Politics sections of mainstream newspapers are unreliable during election season. Poof! There goes any credibility you once had. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

3RR Notice
An issue involving you has been filed at at 3RR Atsme 📞📧 02:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding me.
 * a) I haven't edit warred, I moved your post, and reverted you once, when you duplicated your own wall-of-text and isolated it from all the replies that people had since written in response to it (by moving it back to the very top of the RFC, no less).
 * b) you haven't warned me for edit warring, which is required before going to 3RR.
 * Did you really expect that report to fly? I'm sorry if I've gotten under your skin and that we got off on the wrong foot on this issue, and I regret the combative tone of some of my earlier posts/edit summaries (sorry about those), but you seem to have lost perspective here a bit. I would be very happy to make this a less adversarial discussion going forward but this kind of spurious report makes that difficult. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverting of additions to Sebastian Gorka's page regarding his wife, Katharine Gorka
Reacting to the speedy revision and citing that the article is about him and not her; Several efforts have been made to create an article about her and have failed. So, essentially some editors have successfully prevented information on her BLP from appearing in wikipedia. Let this be noted. --Wikipietime (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , you need to respect the consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Katharine Gorka. Also, Not all verifiable material deserves a place in the encyclopedia. That said, keep editing User:Argento Surfer/Katharine Gorka and it could potentially be restored if it satisfies the concerns raised in the AfD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to the consensus and lodged an appeal to deletion. I will try to refrain from further engagements in anticipation of a wider body's consensus.  My position is clearly stated. --Wikipietime (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically, what Dr. F. said - if an article was deleted at AFD it's not acceptable to just go copy the content somewhere else - the consensus was that it is out of place on wikipedia (at least for now), since she is not notable. Also, having a long tangent about stuff that his wife has done (not directly related to him) is just pointlessly cluttering up Sebastian Gorka's biograhy. I do think there should be a sentence or two on her and have trimmed what you added down. Hopefully it sticks. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Your trimming of wifey is outlandish, especially when creation of her own article is prohibited. I call foul.--Wikipietime (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Trimming the Katharine Gorka material
FYI - the information I added to Sebastian Gorka about his wife was the result of a discussion here. An article about her was previously deleted, but several of the commenters there supported a merge to Sebastian's page. Please reconsider the volume that you removed with this edit. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Mansplaining". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I missed that edit
Sorry, I'd gone back one to far, to this IP user's vandalism. Don't know how I missed that. TheValeyard (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize (at least not to me)! It's super easy to miss a small change like that when there are a lot of edits flying. Have done similar stuff myself without realizing it. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary
What part of [|this] is "unclear" to you? - C askt o pic say 21:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi sorry if I was unclear (heh) - what I mean is that I am not sure that Jennings' view has sufficient WP:WEIGHT to be included in that article. His book was, after all, published in 1892, which is a very long time ago in terms of how much the scholarship on subjects like this has changed over time. It's certainly not a valid source for factual information - it might be worth including Jennings' view, but it should be made clear that this is a very outdated perspective, and we would probably need a WP:SECONDARY source showing that his views are significant to the history of the topic. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Cheryl B. Schrader
Fyddlestix,

I am writing to inform you that I added the DUI charge back in. The Idaho Court records is an extremely credible source that highlights an important (and yes unfortunate) part of Dr. Schrader's life, and Wikipedia standards dictate that both good and bad facts should be included in an objective article. If we were to remove every fact that does not include a secondary source, we would also need to remove sections such as her having 2 children, graduating from from Valparaiso University, etc.
 * I'm quite certain that the content is a violation of WP:BLP - the fact that there is no coverage in reliable published sources and the fact that there was no conviction means it should not be included. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you agree to keep the section if another source is found? This is taken from the BLP policy you cited: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
 * If this was covered in reliable, secondary sources then that would help make the case for inclusion yes. FYI I brought this up at the BLP Noticeboard, pretty sure most experienced editors will agree with me here but you never know. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Killing_of_Patrick_Harman
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Killing_of_Patrick_Harman. Zazpot (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
 * Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: 
 * On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
 * Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Jacob Truedson Demitz
Hi, Fyddlesticks. I've replied to you on the article AfD as well as COIN, but I'm concerned my pings may not be working. Apparently, there was something recently about ping concerns at the Village Pump, and I know I had one fail yesterday. Anyway, I'd be very interested to see what you think of my commentary at AfD on the article sourcing. For myself, I'm really not sure as to keep/delete. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Thanks ! I did get a ping but it may have been a re-ping I think? Regardless, thank you so much for doing the work of looking through those sources and winnowing it down to his best-shots at notability. I've commented at the AFD with my initial thoughts. I couldn't tell if your comment about leaning "support" meant you were leaning keep or delete - which is actually nice because it allowed me to just go with my gut without worrying about what you'd concluded :-) I'm the first to admit I skew a bit more to the deletionist side of the spectrum than many editors, and I do feel uncomfortable with how my early-days comments might have led to a bit of a pile-on at that AFD (poor Serge, I feel bad for him!) but having re-read your source summaries and thought about it quite a bit I don't think I would be !voting keep on this AFD if I came across it fresh (ie, without the COI or language factors) today. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * God, I'm an idiot. I meant leaning "keep". Bishonen &#124; talk 21:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Ah, well my most recent comment at the AFD might have been disappointing then, sorry! I saw yours too - if Serge wants to try a rewrite I am happy to look at a revised version, maybe he (and the better sources) will convince me. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, from me too. I hope you're reasonable. And I really fear the issue's focal point has tilted, especially among many of those who have voted with very brief comments. It really shouldn't be a Woodzing question, but a Dermitz question. The latter one is apparently some fan of Dermitz, but that fact in itself shouldn't be a concern. Or should it ? A re-written article would be for the best, I really believe. Thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Boeing - I pretty much agree with you that at this point animosity towards Serge might have poisoned the debate a bit. It's unfortunate, but could also easily have been avoided if he'd abided by the COI guidelines from the start. If there is a pause here while Serge tries a re-write hopefully that will give time for cooler heads to prevail. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This sounds good. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I've gone in for being neutral, and I won't have a problem with the article ending up deleted (as seems likely), but I seem to be losing my temper with the unrelenting hostility from some quarters. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC).

On several points you made today, Fyddlestix, such as fairness, appreciation, book and (especially) neutrality, my sincerest thanks. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

hacking off bits of your talk page
I notified you on the IP's talk page as to why I just blanked a portion of unsigned info posted to your talk page. I'm looking into that IP's contributions now. Edaham (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks like the IP is blocked now. That was weird... Fyddlestix (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I reported it (incorrectly) and got told off at ANI. FYI if you see something similar again, use the email address at ANI which appears when you click to create a new thread. Don't post a message linking to any of the instances of the issue at hand. Seems pretty obvious now but I was between a cup of coffee and a sandwich druring my lunch break and just left a new thread in a rush pointing to the issue, which was basically just compounding a potential privacy issue. Edaham (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Intimate Partner Violence Page
Dear Fyddlestix: I am a new Wikipedia contributor and would like to make edits to the "intimate partner violence" page. I am working on this page as part of a graduate seminar, which requires me to make some greater changes to the page as it currently stands. I apologize if I did not follow proper etiquette when making changes last night. I noticed that you reverted the page to its original. Please let me know what I can do, as my aim is to make meaningful contributions to this page. Thank you in advance for your help, Julia Juliafhammett (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Julia, I replied on the article talk page (as you saw). Sorry if my revert was a rough introduction to wikipedia, I explained it on the talk page. Thanks for your contributions! Fyddlestix (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion sorting
Hello, Krishna. I noticed that you did a bit of deletion sorting recently. Thank you for your efforts. However, I noticed that in several cases you sorted some of the nominations under both the "United States of America" and and one of its sub-lists of states (e.g., "California", "Virginia", etc.). Although not listed in its instructions, it is common practice at Deletion Sorting to not list a nomination under both the "United States" list and one of the individual state lists. Thanks again for your efforts. I hope this was helpful. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 05:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thordis Elva
Hi Fyddle. I noticed you reviewed a page which I created or to which I made significant contributions, but I couldn't find any changes or feedback regarding the review. May I ask where I could find the review report and also if you found anything which requires alteration. Many thanks! Elliott Edaham (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey! The review was via WP:NPP - it's not a "review" in the "critique my page" sense, more of a screening process that is primarily designed to weed out spam, non-notable topics, copyright violations, etc. So more of maintenance task than anything. I noticed that the page you created had not been reviewed since March (I tend to work from the back of the cue) but I did not spot any major issues. I'm guessing the subject matter kept a lot of other people from marking it as reviewed, but I looked pretty carefully and did not see anything worth tagging. I did briefly wonder about notabilty but I think the book got enough press coverage to meet GNG. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Three personal reasons made me want to create an article for it, 1) it's interesting - the nature of the event is an anomaly which raises debate and a need for an aggregation of information. I think we (Wikipedians and readers) benefit from having info on it. 2)Besides the book, the TED talks generated a lot of ongoing coverage and led me to believe that the number of people wanting to find information here would be significant. This seems to have been verified by the 1-2000 visitors per month. 3)I do offsite talks on feminism in China and frequently mention Wikipedia, and so jumped on the chance to bring a related article into existence.
 * Although at a glance BLPCRIME/PERP (no conviction secured) alarm bells start ringing, they are assuaged by the fact that the secondary subject in the article has received very sustained coverage in which he frequently self identifies as having partaken in the events described. Having been put through the wringer of BLP scrutiny it also stands as a study example (for me at any rate) of how to write on a sensitive subject. I am pleased that the article has not been AfDed and welcome any suggestions for improvement.
 * I had not considered joining NPP until now and will begin the process of reading the relevant information today. I would like to know if there is somewhere where rather than rushing to request reviewer rights immediately, I'd like to know if I can make a public/formal notification of intent to learn about the process so as to attract help with questions about the process and association with people already involved in the process. Edaham (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Domestic violence against men
Fyddlestix, you've proven very knowledgeable on gendered issues, such as sexism and domestic violence. You also understand WP:Due very well. Perhaps you would be willing to weigh in on the Talk:Domestic violence against men/Archive 2 discussion? If you find any of my arguments there worth criticizing, please do. I'd rather the discussion not continue to solely involve me and the other editor. We've tried compromises and our compromises generally are not working. I've already posted at WP:Med for help. I'm not sure that anyone there will help, though (except for maybe Jytdog and/or Doc James).

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Flyer, happy thanksgiving to you! I'll take a look. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I know that reading or skimming walls upon walls of text can be frustrating (and, yeah, that includes my replies). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Janice Forsyth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Varsity ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Janice_Forsyth check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Janice_Forsyth?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) 20:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

removing "neutrality dispute" tags placed by OTHER USERS
hello;

i am not sure how well you understand wikipedia policies, but you DO NOT remove "neutrality dispute" tags placed by other users without discussing it on the article's talkpage, & getting "consensus", FIRST. do it again (to me, or any other users), & i will report you. IF you want to dispute the nnpov complaint, or otherwise have opinions about it, you put your comments about it on the relevant talkpage. Lx 121 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Lx 121, see what Template:POV states. The dispute needs to be valid and should be taken to the talk page if one is going to add the tag. So Fyddlestix was right about not WP:Drive-by tagging. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

hello & thank-you for jumping into the discussion SO quickly! ^__^ i did not know we were having an "rfc", & usually rfc's take a great deal more time to "get rolling"

but ok, so here we go. THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR STATEMENT:

1. "template:pov is NOT "wp", nor does it repeat or represent actual "wp"; it is "user advice", & it carries no weight as "policy".

2. "wp:drive-by-tagging" is an ESSAY, & also, in fact a FAILED PROPOSAL'. therefore it has EXACTLY ZERO-value as "wp".

tl,dr - you are expressing your personal opinion in support of the other user; you are NOT "proving your case" as per wikipedia policy.

cheers,

Lx 121 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

...AND - here is a quotation from your cited "information links", that you seem to have missed:

" it is important to explain yourself on the article's talk page or in an edit summary"

you will find that i did in fact leave a comment in the edit summary, both times Lx 121 (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Lx 121, whatever it is you are talking about, Template:POV is clear. If you want to use it, you need to follow what it states. What it states has been the result of plenty of discussion at Template talk:POV. You cannot simply tag an article as being not neutral and expect that tag to stay on when you have not identified why and how the article is not neutral. Like the template states, "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Flyer, well said. There's an active ANI thread about Lx's edits, seems like they are likely to be re-indeffed. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Molyneux
Interestingly enough, the end of the Salon piece has recently been modified to state only that Molyneux "claims" to have a Jewish connection. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk  04:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh, interesting. You'd think that'd be the end of it but it seems some folk just don't want to let this go... Fyddlestix (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion
Hi, Fyddlesticks.

I have removed the proposed deletion section of Patrick West (climber) that you told me about. And so why should the page stay? because Pat West (as he is often called) is a fairly notable climber, despite the fact that he passed not many years ago. He is, understandably, best known in Montana--the state of his birth and where he was killed in 2014. Being a climber myself, I can tell you from personal experience that all other climbers here in Montana know of him. This is the reason I wrote the page in the first place. He was a notable figure but there was no single article about him I could find that contained the information I eventually compiled into the article I wrote. It is likely that he is most known for having been killed while climbing. I believe otherwise many would not know of him. Because it is still a fairly new article and not the only one I have written, I still add information to it. As it is, it is quite short. Because you have clearly been editing here longer than I, I would gladly be open to the type of information I could research and add to the page to make it more page-worthy if it still appears lacking in ways besides the fact that Pat West himself may not seem notable. He certainly is here in the States.

ThreePhaseAC (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there ThreePhaseAC - I am still not convinced that West is notable, since I do not see enough significant coverage of him in independent, reliable sources. Since you've chosen to remove the proposed deletion tag I will quite likely nominate the article for deletion so that other editors can weigh in. If you want the article to stay, you'll need to find as many third party, published reliable sources as you can to bolster the case for keeping it. Nothing personal - I just happened upon the page and in my judgement it is not about a notable person. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
 * Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
 * The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Outreach and Invitations:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
 * Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
 * If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: . Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive
 * A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
 * Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 
 * ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
 * The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Stefanie DeLuca
Hello, thank you for adding {notability} to Stefanie DeLuca. In hindsight, the article was clearly not ready for primetime when I moved it out of draftspace. I am still relatively new and particularly new when it comes to this type of article. I’m learning that different article types have different notability thresholds.

I have given it a full overhaul. I believe this more detailed article matches or surpasses articles of peers in DeLuca’s field. I believe that, while it may still be a stub, it is now on the Stub-Starter threshold, rather than a deletion candidate, which it admittedly was when you reviewed it. Would you consider giving it a look with an eye toward a removal of the tag in light of the accomplishments described?

Also, if you have any advice, I’m all ears. I’ve learned what little I know from asking folks like yourself.

One fact that I don’t know how to attempt to capture is how cited she is. That alone speaks to the notability of her work. I included the Google Scholar template, which shows her total citations (2500+) and her rather high-end index scores. Is that as far as I should try to go on those points?

Thanks again. Mariefrance (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Jayx80
Per what I've stated before, I will likely be reporting Jayx80 at WP:ANI. Thoughts? In this case, we have a POV-pusher in the opposite direction (meaning opposite the men's rights nonsense). Even this latest edit by the editor has issues. There are only so many times that a person can be told to stop changing wording to wording not supported by the source(s) or wording that puts a POV slant on things. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Flyer! Sorry for the delay replying to this, I started a new job and have - almost - no time to edit just now. Will try to take a look later today. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)