User talk:Kikodawgzzz

=Discussion Section (oldest to newest)=

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. RolandR (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hi, Kikodawgzzz -- I've noticed you generally mark pretty much all of your edits as minor. I looked at a few, and they all seem to be constructive and productive. But a minor edit "signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions: typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc." So adding information or reverting previous deletions is not generally a minor edit.

Just a heads up, thanks for your time & contributions. --Glenfarclas (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure I agree with that assessment, Glen, especially considering the edits I've done under this username in no way represent the edits I've done since I started being a regular on the site in about 2005. I've edited under several logged IP addresses (most of which I no longer remember, so I can't list them here, and they've all been different computers and/or connections over the years so blah to all that) as well as other usernames I lost the passwords for. So although I appreciate you bringing the matter to my attention, I find it basically unwarranted given that my history is much more extensive than the username would lead you to believe.\

And in that same vein, I assure you I need not be thanked for my contributions. I've been contributing, lurker and not, for quite a few years now! But I appreciate the sentiment; I just don't wanna be taken as a 'newbie'.Kikodawgzzz (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries -- I tried to take a neutral and respectful tone since I obviously don't know you, so I hope I didn't cause any offense. And I know you don't "need" thanks, but I give my appreciation freely where merited. :)  --Glenfarclas (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you've been around for a while, so you don't need me to tell you that changing the entry's content is not minor. However, I thought I'd point out that the addition of tags (like the ones you've been adding in the white privilege entry) isn't considered minor either. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding Continued flagging of edits as minor when they are not. Thank you.

I'm sorry to be posting two notices, but I went to the wrong board the first time around:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your continued flagging of edits as minor when they are not. Thank you. --Marie Paradox (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Auric (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Auric: Sorry about that; I don't think I'd actually meant to full-on delete the text from those sections, although as you'll see, I have tagged them again as NPOV using tags, and I have followed-up by starting a new thread on the article's Talk page. I'm the article's original creator, so it disheartened me to see these new contentious sections on it — it's certainly not anything I would have added, and now I'm fighting to have it amended or taken off. The argument that Cuba is a 'repressive state' instituting 'repressive measures' of various kinds is a debatable viewpoint, not objective fact, but it does appear as though those for whom that viewpoint is reality insist on using every opportunity, including the Special Period, to voice it. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

White privilege
Please stop adding your disclaimer to the top of the article. See No disclaimers in articles. If you add it again, you will be blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Shabazz, you are not the boss of this article. Wikipedia is free to be edited by anyone, including people you don't agree with. I will not be threatened. And yes I will re-add the disclaimer Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read the guideline. Wikipedia doesn't use disclaimers. Get over yourself already. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just an expansion of "neutrality disputed". and the only arguments i've heard in support of white skin privilege are nationalist ones that use an emotional "racism" cover to forbid criticism of this THEORY. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not an "expansion" of anything; it's your own little diatribe. If you don't like the tone of the article, fix it. Otherwise, stop complaining. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you believe that the only people who can criticise are the people who can do it themselves? Frankly, as I said in my original recent-comments, the article has so vastly changed since the early days I was working on it that it's now impossible for me to balance it myself. But I am not taking on the responsibility of gathering a leftist anti-white-privilege-theory 'posse' to go in and balance it. Hopefully others who are already following the article can. But if you believe the only people who can complain are the ones who can take it upon themselves to fix it, then that's just another way to shut out opposing views. Nationalists don't like communists, and you, as a nationalist (as Marie also is), just don't want us around, that's all. You want the article to yourself. Too bad. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Name-calling doesn't help your argument at all. I don't give a damn whether you're a communist or a fascist, I'm just telling you that your diatribe doesn't belong on the article. Wikipedia has standardized templates, such as Disputed, and editors don't write their own complaints on top of encyclopedia articles.
 * If you don't want to add the balance you think is sorely lacking from the article, who do think will do it? Santa's elves? I'm not "shut[ting] out opposing views", I'm advising you to face Wikipedia's reality—if you want something done, do it yourself. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of speedy deletion
This is the third time you've nominated White privilege for speedy deletion. Have you bothered to read the criteria for speedy deletion? Which one of the reasons listed there does the article satisfy? (Hint: none.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A certain depth of POV is a definite criterium for speedy deletion. There's a point at which "the scales tip" and the article as it stands is surely firmly on one side of the scale. I say that objectively, because even if I didn't have the views I have, I know what objectivity is, and this isn't objective by any professional stretch. Of course, it has to be looked over by the wikipedia administrators to verify its POV essence, but I believe that when they do, they will see it is so. And if you have any journalistic objectivity at all, you'll allow that administrative review process to occur. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Which one of the criteria for speedy deletion is "a certain depth of POV"? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All of it, which is why the whole article must be purged. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed your fourth speedy deletion tag because you haven't specified a valid criterion for speedy deletion. Maybe you don't understand the process: In order for an article to be eligible for speedy deletion, you must specify one of the reasons listed at WP:CSD (e.g., A7). You can't just make up your own reason why you want the article to be deleted.
 * As an alternative to speedy deletion, you might want to consider WP:PROD or WP:AFD. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On your other post:
 * First off, the fact that you don't know the difference between a communist and a fascist (because you say you don't give a damn either way) shows a lack of either intelligence or willingness, probably both. Second, your definition of the 'reality of wikipedia' is not necessarily others' view of it. Wikipedia is by definition a worldwide collective project, and it's certainly, as far as I know, acceptable to have a person criticise and to then be joined by others later on who offer their input in support of that view. My estimation for why that hasn't happened thus far is because the only people who bother to edit or keep track of this article over the long term are the supporters of the view. Which would be fine, actually, if this were a scientific law being edited by a scientist in the field, or a political organization being fleshed out as objectively as possible by a member in that organisation (which I have done in the past for the Progressive Labor Party, for example) which can provide inside information/inner workings of such things. But "white skin privilege" is a social theory — and that means that a THEORY has to have both pro and con in it, both supporters and detractors. It needs to tell the story objectively, because otherwise, it either comes off as not-theory-but-fact, or it comes off as, on the other side, a ridiculous notion already universally debunked, which is of course equally impossible and ridiculous.
 * You are obviously in no way interested in objectivity on this social stance. You are not interested in the possibility that white skin privilege is not a valid way to fight racism and that the solution may be multi-racial unity instead. But you're going to have to accept it anyway, even if it means deleting the article and starting over, which it increasingly looks like we gotta do. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read my message more carefully before you insult me and my (lack of) intelligence. I didn't say I don't know the difference between communism and fascism, I said your diatribe doesn't belong at the top of the article, period, and it has nothing to do with your political views, be they right-wing or left-wing. I'm not sure why I'm a nationalist, since I don't have allegiance to any nation, but if you say so it must be true—after all, you have all the answers.
 * I have no problem with the article discussing the problems with the construct of white privilege—in fact, I restored such criticism yesterday after another editor deleted it—but you can't add your own analysis to the article, as you tried to do in the past. It has to be supported by reliable sources, and it will be given appropriate weight in the article relative to its general acceptance (see WP:FRINGE). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's ridiculous that you want me to believe that your refusal to encourage (if not to yourself include) a balanced assessment of white skin privilege is not because of ethnic nationalism and/or black power — which is what I meant by "nationalism," not nation-based nationalism by any means; both your and Marie's views are very clearly of that strain of thought, and don't try to tell me they aren't; I have enough personal experience with all of that stuff over years of activism to know how it all sounds, looks and acts — then you're basically expecting me to either be stupid or to discount everything I know from my experience in activist-life, which is certainly not a reasonable thing to expect. Again, you have no interest in journalistic objectivity, you and Marie are the only two people editing this article, and given those two apparent facts, or even if only one of the two is actually true, you really do appear to ultimately believe the article to be "yours" that you can do anything you want with. But in the process of ensuring that the article is kept in a certain (totally point of view) "condition"; by ensuring that the pro-white-skin-privilege positions fill up 98% of the article with the remaining 2% "criticism" appearing in the middle of the article and relegated to a couple pathetic paragraphs that are poorly sourced in themselves, while everything around it is shiny and end-noted and all that.... It's quite simply not an article fit for an encyclopedia. That's all. That's really what it comes down to at the end of the day. One, this article is not yours. Two, it is vastly POV and not objective. But three, if I came in and either reverted it to an earlier version in order that it would be rewritten, or found sourced material for opposing views, my guess is that a loud cry of foul would go up specifically from you and/or Marie about how such things "need more support" (and/or "are racist", which is white skin privilege's primary means of shutting down anti-white-skin privilege views; you can't refute being called a racist; the accusation in itself becomes the fact). Look, I have written articles from scratch before. People have come in and ripped it apart and tagged up everything with (citation needed); I then go out and find the sources those allegations or explanations come from or are scholastically supported by. In articles I haven't made myself, people might start out with unsourced statements but those statements are usually not automatically removed; what tends to happen is they are tagged up with (citation needed) and then either the person or another user can come in with a source and add it to the thing and/or rewrite it and add the source that way. An article is meant to be BUILT, not to have a boulder on the one scale and a couple pebbles on the other scale and go, "There! Looks good!" Ridiculous. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You seem to be a relatively new editor, so I'd recommend that you read WP:3RR. Editors will be blocked if they make more than three reversions during a 24-hour period. Please check the page history at White privilege before you make any more reversions. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm by no means a new editor; this is just a new name. I've been under various (similar) names and a whole slew of IP addresses over the years, starting in 2005 or so (with the first major edits to the Progressive Labor Party article). Read my page if you want an overview of my history. And as per the reversions-limit, I'm aware of it as well as aware of what is legal versus illegal action on Wikipedia. I'm not going to run the risk of getting myself blocked by Wikipedia administrators, but I'm also not going to leave this thing alone. I know I am not the only one not a right-wing racist fucknut, who still knows this article to be entirely POV and biased. If my attempts at deletion don't work, I'll eventually revert the article to a much much earlier stage of development, and fight to leave it there. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You've violated 3RR today. I'm not going to report you, but please stop edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make it clear that I don't know or care if you are right or wrong as far as the actual content dispute. The only reason for this block is your disruptive editing, not your actual opinions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you not read WP:3RR like previous editors have suggested? Your failure to comply to the rules has gotten you off to a bad start here. Please be sure to not to make that mistake again, or this process may be repeated. Edit warring is considered vandalism and many editors find it incredibly disruptive and annoying.(MDesjardinss (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Once again, this is years far from "a start" at Wikipedia—I am not a novice user and I don't take kindly to a "need" for edit-warring. These two editors at the article in question have been behaving as if the article belongs to them and have gone uncontested for, it seems, quite some time. I don't mind being blocked from the article for whatever period you need, so long as my actions in this arena have done their part to alert Wikipedia administrators to the total POV quality of this article and to raise the specter that it could be freshly purged and re-started. Again, the article as a whole has no place in constructive objective encyclopedic content. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Marie Paradox's justifications for keeping the article as-is are self-justifying. She's arguing that since white skin privilege is supposedly a widely accepted theory — supposedly, that is, accepted as compared to other left-wing anti-racist ideologies like class-based multi-racial unity — the opposing view, being class-based multi-racial unity, is "minority", and further than that, "fringe." She shapes the situation so that the inability to find sources that objectively oppose White Skin Privilege naturally must mean that the opposition to WSP is a "fringe" view. But that's fallacious. If I were to ask somebody in an article about God who complained about the lack of views of the significant portion of those who don't believe in God, to prove that there is no God by finding sources that prove that opposition view, and the person was not able to find such articles in places that aren't specifically oriented towards the God question, and that finding those sources would be the only way the opposition view against God would be able to stand in the article, then I could then perhaps claim that the argument against God is a "fringe" argument. That would be a rough approximation of what Marie Paradox is doing in the WSP article. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All of which is utterly irrelevant as far as the reason that you are blocked, as I explained in my message above. If you return to your combative behavior after the block expires, your next block will likely be indefinite. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't, but I do intend to continue my objections in more even-handed ways. Probably by consulting my academic friends on this matter. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, on second thought, I will probably simply post this article on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and see whether it's possible to get a number of people to go over to the article and look at it. By doing so, I believe that at least several, if not a large group, of people with a mind towards journalistic/encyclopedic objectivity will IMMEDIATELY see that this article is irreparably unbalanced and uses arguments based in the history of racism to instead provide support for the comparatively "new" (since the 60s) view known as White Skin Privilege. The reason I won't stand for the article as it is is not because I dislike WSP as a theory, although I do; I think there are much better ways to fight racism than basically saying that "white people benefit from it and thus can only go so far in being anti-racist." My opinion doesn't matter; it's Neutral point of view that does, and nothing Shabazz or Paradox might say that justifies (and self-justifies) a fundamentally POV article can change that basic Wikipedia pillar. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I feel I should ask: Upon the block being lifted, will it indeed be acceptable for me to report the article to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and try to make my case there, or might that too be considered unethical behavior? I don't want to get blocked more than once; that's not my basis here in this community, and it never has been. It is only that I see no other way to contest an entire-article-spanning POV problem other than to raise it in a collectively-sanctioned forum where other Wikipedia users can see it. Obviously my attempts at "flying solo" in this regard have been a miserable failure; frankly, I never should have let it get as far as I did to begin with. It was uncharacteristically unintelligent of me to pursue it in that fashion. That said, I'm not sure what to do from the point of the unblock onwards, given that it is at this stage absolutely impossible to be laissez-faire about something as totally POV-contested as the WSP article, as detailed on its Talk page (chiefly, the Talk given before I entered the fray most recently). If you go to the page now, you will even see that Shabazz and Paradox have removed all traces of warning-box contesting from the article, giving all the more reason for vulnerable newbies to Wikipedia to assume that the theory, being as 'widely supported' as it is made to appear, is accepted fact. What I mean to convey is that the NPOV work of the WSP article must be done democratically, and verifiably, but it also can't not be done; but on the other end of it, Shabazz and Paradox appear to be absolutely determined to control the article to the point where contestation of the slant of the article is written off as ridiculous, and attempts at it therefore "fringe" and vandalism. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for any response to my inquiries.Kikodawgzzz (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (undent) Seeking outside input to help find a consensus on this matter instead of revert warring and other combative editing would have prevented your being blocked in the first place. If you understand that and don't intend to repeat those behaviors if unblocked, there's no reason for you to remain blocked. I'm going to go ahead and give you the chance to pursue this in a more acceptable manner. You are now unblocked. Please make sure to focus your arguments on the article and not the editors involved. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said, it was uncharacteristically unintelligent of me to let it go this way, this far, this fast, and not stop it before it got there. My sincerest apologies for the method, if not the overall intent. And yes, of course there would be no reason whatsoever to target any editor(s) in order to achieve the goal of getting the article flagged and potentially purged as POV. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Users will find the appeal over here.Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Left Forum
A tag has been placed on Left Forum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Cleaver_protest.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Cleaver_protest.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Radical Left
Hi, just letting you know that Radical left is a WP:disambiguation page, and therefore shouldn't have any prose or other article-style content. I've reverted the page for now, but I do encourage you to write the article if you're interested, then move all the disambig stuff to Radical left (disambiguation) or something like that. Thanks! –Schmloof 04:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'll notice, I left a trail of discussion on the idea of whether or not Radical left should continue to be disambig, which is now once again left alone. I'm not gonna overly push it, but I may come back to it every now and again and continue to make my case. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

ROAR
I left a comment for you on the "Restore Our Alienated Rights" talk page. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Deaf culture
I would appreciate your comments at Talk:Deaf culture. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Template
This has been added to way to many articles in my opinion. I have asked for input at WT:MED. Please stop additions until discussion has occurred. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, Doc, I am not a spambot and although I disagree that I did this to "way too many articles" (they are all disability-related), I will follow your directive until directed otherwise by WP:MED. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you convert this template to horizontal and add it to the bottom of the pages? This is how this content is usually formatted and I do not think anyone would have a problem with that. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish I could, but I don't feel confident that I'd know how. To create this template I simply copied the code from the Sociology template and modified the text. I wouldn't have an easy time trying to modify length and width and I'd rather let someone more qualified do it instead. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of another template you can emulate. But also look around at medical examples already present.

< > Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Emulating one of those would require that the underlying content be the medical model of disability. I'm not doing that just to 'fit in'. ;) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The underlying model is not really that important just that it is horizontal and at the bottom to comply with WP:LEAD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the version by this guy; it is indeed more compact. My recommendation: swap at will! Kikodawgzzz (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support is for a horizontal bar at the bottom not a vertical one. Can you please remove the horizontal version until this is settled. Thanks  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologise, sir, that I had forgotten and had re-added the Template. I did it again without thinking. As per the consensus you mention, I would really rather not do that work myself; surely someone in WP:MED would be able to do it. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I am away the next few days.  Will give you a hand next week. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Recently added boxes are so obtrusive as to amount to hijacking the article and totally contrary to the request above not to do this. I will remove them again (but I'll also add the project to the talk page if that has not yet been done and seems appropriate.) See my detailed comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability — Mirokado (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mirokado, there is no need for hostility here. There are plenty of people at WikiProject Disability who approve of the sidebar as-is for at least some of the articles in question. Please do not attempt to remove all instances of the Disability Template without discussion. It is undemocratic. Thanks. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Creatures of the night vinnie vincent cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Creatures of the night vinnie vincent cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  04:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of the Disability portal icon
As I have just mentioned on the portal talk page, we cannot link to the portal from articles until it is a live portal. That means it cannot appear in the sidebox yet, since the sidebox is transcluded on article pages. I will remove it the portal icon from the sidebox later this evening if necessary, but I imagine you would prefer to do that yourself? In any case I don't think it will be necessary to have it in the sidebox, as the standardised position for the portal icons is in the See also section or another section at the end of the article. See the documentation. Also, the portal icon spoils the graphic design of your sidebox which is composed of centered links. — Mirokado (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right that I would prefer to do it myself, but I didn't know the Disability Portal isn't a live portal yet. When will it go live? And if going live depends upon consensus, then upon consensus from whom? The WikiProject? The Portal contributors? someone else? Also, I disagree on the matter of the look of the portal icon "spoiling" the graphic design of the sidebox/sidebar-- you were the one who made the portal icon, yes? In my opinion the smallness of your design of that icon means it's small enough to fit comfortably and non-intrusively into the sidebar. It's not perfect but it doesn't need to be. Why don't we try to have a wider discussion about it on the Talk pages of all these things, and see what people say? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at to AXIS Dance Company. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''Clearly no consensus whatsoever to add this template to this or similar articles as has been repeatedly made clear to you in several talk pages. Wait for the Navbox to be ready and that can probably be added.'' Mirokado (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The navbox is to be added to medical articles, on which the Template/Sidebar clearly does not belong, according to the many who have said it doesn't. You continue to act as though you are the sole authority in this matter, and I don't see any reason why that should be tolerated by me or by anyone else working on these things. Your constant discussion-less or discussion-minimal reverts are highly annoying. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm not "the sole authority" in this or anything else. Neither am I the only editor who has asked you to stop doing this, nor am I the only editor who has found it necessary to revert the additions in some cases. Neither have I reverted indiscriminately, I have only done so where the sidebox swamps a very small article whose main topic is not disability or destroys the layout of the article or similar specific reasons. However, "consensus" is something that you need to achieve before doing something systematically and it is transparently clear that you will not obtain it for for such an obtrusive sidebar in articles whose main subject is not disability. The three articles which you have just updated are articles about dance companies, not about disability. CandoCo now reverted, the notice above is also relevant in this case. Mirokado (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you actually trying to tell me that the AXIS Dance Company and CandoCo articles are not disability-centric? What exactly is not disability-centered about those particular artistic groups? I absolutely refuse to take your judgment on these articles and others like them as final writ on the matter. And yes, you and one or two others are indeed the only ones who have demanded I stop doing this, and no, indeed there hasn't been a consensus on this matter, and yes, I have been bold enough to add this Template where I feel it should probably go, and no I don't particularly feel like that's a problem. I suggest we continue working on these things in concert together, all of us, and assume good faith rather than reflexive reverts and accusations and the like. I am not a vandal, and I deeply resent being called one. Would a vandal have any interest in even creating a Disability Template to begin with, or in trying to have constructive dialogue while being one of many new enthusiastic supporters of the Disability-centered initiatives on Wikipedia, including the Portal? I think not. You and the others who seem to refuse to see my intentions for the good that they are would do well to get your heads on straight. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the Portal icons just now (although the portal is not yet live, I hope that will not cause more trouble). With the Navbox now added to DV8 that means we can see both possibilities in action. I have asked the Dance project to let these changes stay. Mirokado (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, that would seem good enough for now. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

use of distinguish hatnote
The distinguish hatnote is used when two terms are confused per se, without need of explanation. See for example Alkane. In the last cases you used them, they were used for complementary terms, so a See also hatnote was more appropriate in my opinion, and I made it so. Best regards and happy editing! --Muhandes (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Errr.. I have zero idea what you're specifically referring to, but whatever, I'm sure it's fine! :) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I forgot to mention what article I was referring to... It was Caregiver, and I just redid the same change. I hope it is clearer now. --Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Walking sticks
Hi, please can you visit Talk:Walking_stick and comment and/or close the proposal? You can see how to close it at Help:Merging. Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said on the page over there, sir, in the first place I am really not supremely committed to that particular merger, and in the second place I'm not really all that highly opinionated on the matter. In fact I don't even know if I have an opinion on the matter. I usually do have an opinion on stuff I work on, as you very well know by this point, but this is just one of those things that's like "meh" for me. Y'all do what you want over there. I don't really care in that particular case. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had noticed about opinions! -- Mirokado (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * lol. :) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Patient lifts
I hope you are paying attention to all your merge suggestions and have updated any others so that the tags link to a talk section which explains why you want the merger. I have updated a couple that I noticed, it was good practice for me as I had not done that before, but I am not going to spend all my time completing the paperwork for incomplete proposals. If you don't have them all on your watch list you should add them.

In particular have a look at Talk:Sling_lift where someone has responded. That shows it is indeed worth creating the talk section for each proposal.

Good work with the new do do list, by the way. Mirokado (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Information
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Tardive dyskinesia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Since you insist--repeatedly and loudly--that you have been editing for a long time and are not a "noobie", I'll skip the customary new-user notices. For Wikipedia to be useful, it must be accurate; adding statements implying T-D is cerebral palsy is very, very bad. Please research your contributions, cite them and mark them with appropriate Edit Summary entries. Thanks!'' &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 03:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have absolutely zero need to be nearly as hostile or threatening as your wording implies. The reason I added the cerebral palsy classification to Tardive dyskinesia is because there is a dyskinetic form of cerebral palsy! The article cerebral palsy links to Tardive dyskinesia under the section titled "Dyskinetic" under "Types". I trust you when you say I was wrong to add the info to Tardive dyskinesia, but what that in turn must mean is that the cerebral palsy article should not have directed to TD from the "dyskinetic" link. So... I guess what that must mean is that I (or somebody) must create a separate article for dyskinetic CP..? You could've just told me that, instead of being so nasty about it all. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't hostile or threatening at all (my message even says "please" and "thank you"). Rather, I looked carefully at how you had responded to several other people and crafted my remarks accordingly. Here's the way it works: If a new or inexperienced user makes a mistake, our response to him/her should be quiet, supportive, and coaching. If, on the other hand, a well-seasoned, veteran editor starts messing up pages, I feel that s/he probably knows exactly what s/he is doing, so kid gloves are not necessary (and may be counterproductive). One theme I saw running through your comments is "I'm not a new editor/noob", so I took your words at face value and treated you exactly as I would a veteran editor. I guess at this point the thought that comes to mind is, "Be careful what you ask for; you just might get it." If you had not cautioned other editors--at least twice--against treating you as a noobie, I assure you my wording would have been very different. At the heart of the matter remains the question of whether or not to include a CP reference in the TD article just because CP can present dyskinetic symptoms. I maintain that the two are separate syndromes and cross-linking the articles is likely to be confusing, as would be cross-linking Rabies to parasympathomimetic drugs just because they can both promote excessive salivation. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 03:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In theory that's fine, but you also have to recognize, UncleBubba, that even a veteran editor of 6 or so years can still make an honest mistake. Here's the chain of events: I had not been aware there is a clinical distinction between dyskinetic cerebral palsy and Tardive dyskinesia; I clicked on the link on the CP page that says "dyskinetic CP" and got pushed to "Tardive dyskinesia"; I therefore incorrectly assumed that "Tardive dyskinesia" must in itself be some sort of umbrella term incorporating both the other types of dyskinesia and dyskinetic CP — otherwise why wouldn't there have already been a dyskinetic cerebral palsy attached to that wording in the CP article? (I had to create "dyskinetic cerebral palsy" as an article myself.) Bottom line, it was an honest mistake, and in response, you come in fighting, or at least being highly stern. It's unnecessary, is all I'm saying, given the circumstances. Alright? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course people make mistakes; that's a given. However, we, as editors, have a responsibility--especially with an academic product--not to be careless or negligent. If I understand the situation correctly, you followed a link into a page and then assumed TD includes CP. Then you altered the TD page to mention CP (a change I reverted). Then you created a "dyskinetic cerebral palsy" page (even though the preferred name is "athetoid cerebral palsy"), pointed it to "cerebral palsy" with a redirect, and wikilinked it to itself, so when a reader clicks on the link on the page, they don't go anywhere, right?

Then, you changed the CP page to state: "Regardless, cerebral palsy is not a form of paralysis nor is any type of it in any way scientifically known as a 'paralytic disorder'", even though 20 seconds worth of research (or anyone familiar with Latin) will tell you that "palsy" is a derivation of the Middle English "palesie", which is an alteration of the Anglo-French "paralisie", which is from--you guessed it--the Latin "paralysis", which meant the same thing to Julius Caesar as it does to us.

If you won't listen to the Romans, at least look at Webster's:


 * Definition of PALSY
 * 1: paralysis
 * 2: a condition marked by uncontrollable tremor of the body or a part

Wikipedia is an information source used by people all over the world. When you introduce errors into its body of knowledge, it is harmful and--in some cases--can be dangerous. You should be using WP to acquire knowledge, not changing WP to fit your understanding of All Things.

Now, my question to you is, "Are you going to fix what you broke or do I have to do it?" If you decide to fix it, please do so no later than 15:00 UCT today, after which time I will fix it myself. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 11:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, you are totally being a jerk. Stop it. (Also, you are totally being a jerk while extremely-thinly claiming you are not, which makes it even more insulting because it assumes you think I'm gonna take your word for it even though the rest of your language is blatantly hostile and condescending. That insults my intelligence, which I like to think I have a lot of.) Second of all, at no point in time does the original meaning of a word ever have to permanently describe the exact underlying etymology of a particular disorder; i.e., the condition can be relatively newly scientifically understood to not actually be (for example in this case) a form of paralysis, yet still have the paralysis "name" within it from days of old. Remember that cerebral palsy is an umbrella term and by no means a singular condition. This means inherently that cerebral palsy as a whole can contain subtypes wherein certain symptoms of it may present with paralysis-type features — but it still does not make that subtype, much less cerebral palsy generally, a form of paralysis. If you need another context, consider my very own spastic diplegia, which does not make me paralyzed, but instead, very tight. I can still move (which paralyzed people cannot do), I just cannot move smoothly. That's not original research; any other spastic diplegic on earth can tell you the same thing. Go ask them. They're everywhere on the planet. So, if cerebral palsy was on the whole a "form of paralysis", then both the scientific community's conclusions and the conclusions of CP people themselves would be inherently wrong in their assessment and self-assessment of this condition!
 * Lastly, I have done absolutely nothing wrong in making a page called "dyskinetic cerebral palsy". If it's not the right term for it, then go ahead and make an athetoid cerebral palsy page and fill it in over there, ok? It's not that hard, and there is, again, zero reason to get this hostile about this whole situation. You seem almost on the edge of rage over this. Did I somehow personally insult your understanding, "hurt your brain" so to speak, or some other personal crap like that (personal crap which, by the way, is never supposed to enter into an encyclopedia? Too bad for you — your hurt feelings do not give you the right to yell at people this way and basically accuse them of being irresponsible editors. I am not an irresponsible editor. Aggressive in editing and in discussion, sure. Militantly so, sometimes, maybe. But irresponsible? Hardly. You need to really learn some humility somehow. And now, I am absolutely done talking with you. I don't tolerate abuse and any further threats and/or hostile language of this degree will be reported as a slew of personal attacks (which to my knowledge is a punishable offense on Wikipedia if it comes often enough, which certainly this string of bile-infused "criticism" qualifies as). Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by economic system
Hi, I've converted your CSD tag to a PROD tag because the rationale you gave didn't line up with a valid CSD criterion. Regards, Airplaneman   ✈  20:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Where are you hiding?
There's been no sign of you in or around any of the Disability Project items article's you've put so much work into lately - we miss you! Hope you like what's been done to Disability - I think the additions and changes you initiated have come along really nicely. Roger (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Discrimination against the disabled a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Jafeluv (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Award

 * lol thanks Roger!!!! Kikodawgzzz (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You can copy it to your user page if you'd like to display it. Roger (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, that's okay man, thanks anyway, but I definitely appreciate the thought! Makes me feel all warm n fuzzy n stuff. :) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Medical model of disability
An article that you have been involved in editing, Medical model of disability, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tcp-ip (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have registered my objection and I sincerely and deeply hope this badly-conceived merge proposal fails miserably. I worked hard recently to launch the Disability Sidebar which in turn, by its mere existence, helped to launch the Disability Portal — and I'd hate to see all my work (and others' work) begin to unravel via a series of heavy-handed hatchet jobs such as this one. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Left Forum


A tag has been placed on Left Forum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To try to save this Left Forum page, this time, for once....
 * My god, it's like rescuing a perpetually drowning infant.
 * CSD A7. The apparent bane of any "Left Forum" page attempt's existence.
 * I allege that given all the times this page has been auto-deleted on the grounds of 'lack of self-evidence of notability', some particular person or group must have a personal vendetta against The Left Forum.
 * Here's The Left Forum's self-evidence of notability: It's real. It happens every year. There are public notices on the street about it every year. POSTERS are made and physically wheatpasted up about it, every year. Universities provide space for it every year. Thousands of people attend hundreds of panels, every year. And I say all this without so much as knowing even ONE of the organizers and also without having actually even been to even ONE of the actual events!!!!
 * People, the YouTube clips alone should be proof enough that this Forum is notable. Noam Chomsky's regular attendance alone should be proof enough that this Forum is notable. Heck, I'm pretty sure Slavoj Zizek has been to this thing too. It's notable, people! Period!!! Kikodawgzzz (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ambient Assisted Living
Hi, Was wondering about the deletion of Ambient Assisted Living - a major European research effort with dozens of research and industry partners and hundreds of contributing researchers. Why exactly was it deleted? Andreas FhG (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ambient Assisted Living
I restored this after the prod was contested at WP:REFUND. You may want to work on it, merge it, or AfD it, or none of the above. Fences &amp;  Windows  01:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The page has been re-deleted due to the fact that it was simply restored, rather than improved. Thanks. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ableism
Ableism "belongs to" both the discrimination and disability projects each of which have lengthy navigational aids, so this is a good example of an article where the collapsible navboxen need to be used instead of sidebars. Oh, and happy new year! --Mirokado (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I didn't notice the navboxes; thank you for pointing them out. Happy new year to you too. And once again, why on earth are you, me, and Roger the only ones taking WikiProject Disability seriously? It's still just as ridiculous now as it was five months ago. ;)  Kikodawgzzz (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Please take your comments to the talk page. As written, they are unsourced, original research that will be removed. If you continue to revert to add them to the article, you will end blocked. See the edit war policy. Ravensfire ( talk ) 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your recommended route for saying the same things (which are all true), but not making them "unsourced, original research"? I mean, assuming you aren't against the essence of the language being added. Like if you are an insurance company rep trying to whitewash the bill. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See those first two links in my response? Read them.  To start, you need to find a reliable source that makes those claims.  And the sources you've used so far don't cut it.  Not even remotely close.  The article also describes the bill as it is - not what it isn't.  I don't think anyone considers it "universal health care".  And finally, you need to avoid the "minor edit" button.  If you add information to an article, it is not a minor edit.  You use that all the time, which is considered rude by most WP editors.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and drop the personal attacks. "Like if you are an insurance company rep trying to whitewash the bill" is not acceptable.  Comment on the edit, not the editors.  Don't speculate about the editors.  Because honestly, we don't really care.  See the "Everyone can edit" part of wikipedia - that includes people that don't like what you believe or say, or are strongly against what you believe or say.  And you have to work with them.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 01:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't deny being a private insurance company stooge. Deny it or you basically admit that you are one. Do you deny it? You should have zero trouble denying it if you aren't one. It's not hard to deny an attack that isn't true. Go on! Deny it! Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:No personal attacks -- "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What part of 'outing' is a 'serious offense'? It's definitely not the place of any Wikipedian to talk about 'serious consequences' of a given action in this manner. Would you say the same thing if an editor playing down the significance of electric cars happened to turn out to be a paid representative of the oil industry? Come on. You see what could be happening here, Sarek, just as clearly as anyone else can see it. I'm not calling Ravensfire a private health insurance company stooge, but I am indeed saying the possibility exists that he could be one, and there's no reason to stand by and tolerate his behavior if he is one. That's all. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

HR676 redirects
FYI, I nominated the HR-redirects to the USNHCA for deletion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 4, since there could be an HR676 in any given Congress. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The name "HR 676" has historically been, and presumably will continue to perpetually be, the legal name for this bill. In other words, subsequent Congresses are likely to continue to file the USNHCA under "HR 676" and not under a different HR number, if for no other reason than the fact that this is the historical name and is most readily identifiable under this name. If the consensus here emerges in favor of a purge of this redirect, I'm okay with that, but personally I oppose it. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ableism deletion request
As a result of the recent deletion request I have now looked at this article in more detail. As you will see my comments are rather critical and since I have mentioned one of your editing actions in particular (link to the diff with comments) I had better notify you. --Mirokado (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No rage in response here, just a clear caution: there seems to be more than one Wikipedian opposed to the idea of deletion. I don't personally care what you do, but I do have to say, you seem to have been engaging in a lot of "culling"-type behavior recently, and I don't know if it's hostile (it's not my place to judge your intent, and you've done some really good work on other articles), but in any case, I think you should probably ask yourself whether it's really worth it to go around chopping down major articles that deal with major topics in the scope of the Disability WikiProject and that are in its Sidebar and Navbar. You have to start recognizing that there is a limit to the overall usefulness of article-cropping. There is a point at which it goes beyond culling and starts becoming destruction. Again, I don't ultimately care what you do --- not the way I care about edits made to the activism articles I've worked on, for example-- but I'd ask you to think about the many others who have done such good work in getting this Project and its major articles really off the ground-- the people other than me-- and keep in mind that whatever 'disassembly' actions you undertake, are basically your responsibility to uphold the justifications for. I am not going to defend your decisions to start burning down forests for the sake of a prettier tree patch. You are on your own. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Har. I think your concern is misplaced. Since Cn tags often get ignored for years (see the article's talk page) it is entirely necessary to follow through and delete the content if nobody can or will provide a reference. The tags are not there for decoration, the content may be incorrect or misleading and can be restored later once a reference is found. I try to avoid tagging trivially obvious stuff, but good referencing is important, particularly for controversial subjects. I place the tags in the expectation that the authors will want to provide references not assuming that I will delete the content and often the result is better article text too. I try to provide a reference with everything I add and you should do the same: it would make your contributions far more deletion-proof particularly given your often controversial subjects. As far as "burning things down" is concerned, I spent an unplanned few hours considering how it might be possible to rescue a pretty miserable article. Others have said "well I can find lots of references" etc but have not added any to the article so far. You seem often prepared to edit articles without bothering about the necessary references and seem to be walking away from this one despite having make many edits to it. So all in all I think my approach is pretty positive. --Mirokado (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced addition to Shower
I am not stalking you honest. You have edited an article that I have been watching for ages because commercial IPs keep trying to spam it. For this reason it is essential that additions be well sourced unless obvious common sense. Your edit includes two statistics which require (one or two) sources. The only sources I can find are yahoo blog entries which are not reliable. Please restore your content with a inline references to the reliable source(s) you are relying on, while they are fresh in your mind. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The content isn't mine; it's a cut-and-paste from elsewhere in the article. Sorry, I didn't know you'd been working on it. Good luck, I'm sure you're keeping it wonderful. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see. The "sources" I was finding were ripoffs of the earlier copy of the text from our article. That is itself unsourced, which I suppose I must try to sort out, since I chose to make a fuss about it! The lead does need expansion too, but preferably by summarising rather than just duplicating text from elsewhere in the article. --Mirokado (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussing your edit
I've reverted your most recent edit to the PPACA article, and started a discussion at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. You may wish to participate there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shall do. I knew that with enough irritating reverts, someone would eventually talk about my edits. ;) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Public health insurance option. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Also, history is important. If you update it, keep the information at the very least in a history section of the article.--Jorfer (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot respect edits that simply amount to reverting the article back to an out-of-date version. Like I say on the discussion page there, if what you want is to revert back to a previous version, at least re-write that previous version so it is up-to-date. You didn't really do that. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I cannot find your edit to Talk:Public health insurance option, I am assuming you meant edit summary instead to which I responded in my edit summaries.--Jorfer (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Ba-france20 PH1 0502421840.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ba-france20 PH1 0502421840.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Col 1771245c.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Col 1771245c.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal Care Assistant
I am trying to understand your last edit at this article and the claim that my edit was POV. Your edit seems more POV than my own IMHO. Surely the purpose of the financial aid is to help with independent living defined by the disabled person and the purpose of the rights movement is to ensure that it is properly funded. Your edit seems to imply that they are not properly funded. That may be the situation in your part of the world, but surely it is wrong to imply that it applies everywhere. Or have I misunderstood something?Hauskalainen (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You've obviously misunderstood on some level, although I can't quite figure out where. My ultimate point in the edit is to actually clarify your original point of the various PCAs worldwide not being given enough money for their work due to program underfunding (since the money paid to PCAs mostly comes from social service programs underwritten or created by a government, rather than money paid directly by the disabled person), while at the same time, the disabled person him or her self also has no money to give the PCA, also because of underfunding to his or her own coffers which also typically comes mainly or even completely from government assistance programs. Your edits had somewhat-discombobulated language which appeared to try to be making this same point, but was failing. So I fixed it. And sure, my edits might be slanted somewhat towards workers' rights and the rights of the disabled, but your original edits had blatant POV stuff that — however much I might agree with what you said in those lines I deleted — is inappropriate for an encyclopedia both on the academic level and on the language-phrasing level (too conversational-ish). Again, none of this is meant as a personal affront; these types of edits are actually meant to help the article, not to hinder it or to "ruin" your work. I hope you know that. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You wrote


 * Financial assistance programs for the disabled is meant to provide funds to enable the person to both define and obtain the physical support they need for daily living from the PCA service(s), but a carers rights movement has developed in many countries which, its PCAs claim, do not provide adequate pay for the PCAs to live adequately from their often very intense work. Many varying activist campaigns exist for sufficient funding to pay the PCAs adequately for services provided. Most disabled persons themselves, meanwhile, have severely limited individual financial resources to pay, or even to supplement, the PCAs' wages themselves. A lack of funding for all parties can create tensions in the worker-client relationship.


 * I am too modest to point out all the errors in your own text and I will try very hard not to be offended that you did not answer my question to you about what your allegation of POV in the text you replaced, or that you accused me of "discombobulation" and being unencyclopedic in my phrasing. My advice to you is to keep all your sentences shorter and put them in a logical order. Your texts would be much easier to read and you will make fewer errors. Consider the following alternative.


 * ''Most disabled have severely limited personal financial resources due to their disability. Financial assistance programs exist to provide funds to enable the disabled person to obtain the support they have themselves defined as necessary for daily living. For example the services of a PCA. In places where the assistance level is insufficient for the disabled person to pay their PCA a living wage, carers rights movements have emerged to press for better funding. When PCAs are inadequately paid tensions can be created in the worker-client relationship.


 * Please do not take this too personally. I am only trying to help you. Hauskalainen (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Ba-france20 PH1 0502421840.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ba-france20 PH1 0502421840.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 02:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Col 1771245c.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Col 1771245c.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Disability Studies article
I noticed on the WikiProject Disability page, that you say that the article on Disability Studies is rather suspect about beingNPOV. I have just been to the talk page of the article - could you be a little more specific about which parts are prone to bias, please? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hatchet job
I've nominated this redirect you made for deletion, see here. 68.35.40.154 (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ba-france20 PH1 0502421840.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Ba-france20 PH1 0502421840.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Col 1771245c.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Col 1771245c.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Col 1771245c.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Col 1771245c.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:Col 1771245c.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Col 1771245c.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Links
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.



See also WP:COI in case it might apply. --Ronz (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Popshirt.jpg
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Popshirt.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.thenthdegree.com/advocacy.asp. As a copyright violation, File:Popshirt.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Popshirt.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Popshirt.jpg and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Popshirt.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Popshirt.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Peacock (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

CP
Hi there,

With this edit some text was removed from the CP article - I quite agree with the removal of most of it - thank you very much :) but I have recused one sentance that is supported by it's citation  and have inserted at the bottom of the causes section rather than it's prevous place of the top ( this edit ). Let me know if this causes you any problems.

Thanks

Failedwizard (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Panther (film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Mob, Creative license and Based on a true story (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Health and Social Care Bill 2011, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ISTB351 (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Disaboom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broken pipe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Disaboom. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ISTB351 (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Panther (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2000s (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. When you recently edited Involuntary celibacy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friend with benefits (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. When you recently edited NYLON, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Myalgic encephalomyelitis
Was it your intent to copy the entire Chronic fatigue syndrome article to the Myalgic encephalomyelitis article or should that be reverted to a redirect once again? – RobinHood70 <sup style="line-height:0">talk 06:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

3rr
There appears to be an edit war at Chronic fatigue syndrome. Please discuss at the talk page to seek consensus for the change, and please do not attempt the redirect while discussion is ongoing. Thank you. Taroaldo (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Acquiescence. I have no intention of digging this hole deeper. For the future, I'll try to get Myalgic encephalomyelitis acknowledgement advocates over to the article called CFS to argue for the change. Experts and M.E. patients alike argue that the term CFS for this condition is actively insulting, and considering I have recently gotten a lover with M.E. who has educated me on the debate and on the reality of this condition, it isn't something I feel comfortable just leaving alone, 'specially not while she's still around. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am aware that Wikipedia articles involving M.E. and CFS have been controversial for years. I think one of the main problems faced by Wikipedia editors is that even the medical profession is not agreed on this.  More aggressive research efforts need to be undertaken by scientists, and more attention, in general, needs to be paid to this illness. Regards, Taroaldo (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, recruiting "advocates" from off-site in order to sway consensus is a violation of our policies and can get you blocked from editing. I would suggest you not do that. Yobol (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to suggest a lot of things, Yobol. Stay calm; I'm very, very far from being new to Wikipedia (in fact, I'm only a couple years away from a full decade in total). No need to back up, but don't bite at my heels either, please. I don't take well to being threatened, not even mildly. Even when I make mistakes, and I don't especially consider this controversy I've started to have been a mistake (if anything, it's extremely healthy), they are mine to have made and I own up to them; I don't need to be hollered-at on top of that as if that's going to help anything. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Clawback
Hi - did you revert the Clawback article to say that clawbacks are "pay that are deferred rather than bonuses that are able to be spent by an individual immediately"? I'm new on here, but that simply isn't true. I rewrote the article to be more accurate. What NewYorker article are you getting that definition from? In my (first ever) edit I put a number of references that more accurately describe what a clawback provision is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcharli (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bobcharli, I'm not sure what changes you are under the impression you've made, but a quick glance at the article doesn't reveal any substantial changes. Also, a finance article dealing with a major concept that in today's environment no longer limits itself to just the finance industry but also blurs in to socioeconomic and even social-justice factors is probably not the best of all choices for a "(first ever) edit". Unless you are already a financial-sector employee with an intimate knowledge of the workings of clawbacks from day to day experiences inside your own firm, I fail to see how you can say with any authority that the ways in which various economists have recently taken to describing clawbacks, i.e. as "bonuses in pay that are deferred rather than bonuses that are able to be spent by an individual immediately", is wrong. If anything that description is extremely accurate. The whole point of a clawback scheme or a set of clawback provisions by a company is to ensure that if a bonus for something that fails later is paid out, it can then be reclaimed once the failure occurs, or alternatively to ensure that a bonus is withheld entirely from an employee until a set time period has elapsed in the performance of the product, after which the bonus is paid out and presumably can also still be taken back if the product fails after the bonus has already been paid. Basically, in either case, a payment-by-results scheme. And in either case, a program via which the financial companies can (in my opinion falsely, and very thinly) claim that they are taking action to tame the past bad practices that led to the current global crisis we all (except the extremely rich) now find ourselves in. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm - I'm new here so am not entirely sure I'm looking at the articles correctly. I rewrote the Clawback article a few weeks ago to change the description from something that sounds like "deferred compensation" to a more precise definition of a "clawback" provision.  When I said "first ever" - I mean my own first ever edit, not the first edit in the article!  Portions of the article I over-wrote have been restored so that the "deferred compensation" definition is there again.  The term "clawback" might have been used broadly in the past, so perhaps that is the source of confusion.  Here is the commonly accepted definition as quoted from the Dodd-Frank Act and as used widely in academic, legal, and financial circles: "SEC. 10D. RECOVERY OF ERRONEOUSLY AWARDED COMPENSATION POLICY. (b) (2) that, in the event that the issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance of the issuer with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws, the issuer will  recover from any current or former executive officer of the issuer who received incentive-based compensation (including stock options awarded as com- pensation) during the 3-year period preceding the date  on which the issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatement, based on the erroneous data, in excess of what would have been paid to the executive officer under the accounting restatement.’’. The "recover" wording is the key part - a "clawback" is "clawing back" previously paid compensation! I encourage you to search the term "clawback" in the following repository of current academic research: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/DisplayAbstractSearch.cfm.  I think you'll find that all the articles use the term "clawback" in the same way that the SEC describes it.  Bobcharli1123 (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bobcharli, when I said "a finance article dealing with a major concept that in today's environment no longer limits itself to just the finance industry but also blurs in to socioeconomic and even social-justice factors is probably not the best of all choices for a "(first ever) edit"," I was indeed referring to your declaration that you are new here, and I was basically saying that you might want to edit some other articles first and get the hang of it more before you edit articles like this unless you are already in the finance sector. Do you work in the finance sector? Even if you do, it's still not appropriate on Wikipedia to completely overhaul an article including the parts of the article that are valid. When you made your edits (now I remember them, btw; I hadn't known they were you) you erased a ton of very pertinent information, and a ton of very pertinent language, in your clarification quest. What I did after that was I came back in and integrated your changes with a lot of the restored language from what I'd originally written. So it was a compromise, a conglomeration, not a reversion. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well - I'm going to let this issue die because it frankly is not that important to me. I have been using Wikipedia since its inception and usually find it to be a great resource. I thought that I'd try to "give back" to the community by updating an inaccurate article on which I can safely say that I am an "expert." I worked in the financial sector for a number of years, have graduate degrees in financial economics and accounting, and now do academic research on clawback provisions at a major US research university. I have also provided numerous academic references to support the statements in my article, and I referred you to a repository of additional articles. Frankly, I overhauled the original (and now largely restored) clawbacks article because it is simply inaccurate. The only reference provided for your definition of a "clawback" is a New Yorker article that I cannot seem to locate online anywhere. Even if I could find it, I am not convinced that a popular press article should be interpreted as "authoritative" and given such credence in an encyclopedia. I am sincerely appreciative of people such as yourself that write on such a broad number of topics. I see that you take your role in this community seriously, and I thank you for that. Please know, though, that your writing on clawbacks is incorrect. If this topic were politically or morally-charged then I could understand your hesitance to accept my edits without having to provide my credentials, but "clawbacks" are really not very controversial so I'm not even sure why we are having this debate. Respectfully, bobcharli. Bobcharli1123 (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

White Privilege Article
. Yesterday I resurrected the "Criticism" section of this article, adding several new entries and renaming it. Yet the editors who invited me to do this, are now moving to, once again, eliminate it. Your input would be appreciated, as you seem to favor a more balanced approach. Thank you. Apostle12 (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Email, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Workplace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spartacist League (US), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radical left (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gross motor function classification system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clinical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issues
You added this image. It appears to be from here. Did you get release of it under a CC BY SA license? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The image you tried to replace the public domain one with is copyright infringement aswell . Please clarify. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly removing this image may be deemed vandalism or at least disruptive and may get you blocked. Recommend you discuss your issues on the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Human sexuality
Template:Human sexuality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

List of countries by economic system listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of countries by economic system. Since you had some involvement with the List of countries by economic system redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Theosophist (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Wednesday's Child (TV program) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wednesday's Child (TV program) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Wednesday's Child (TV program) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Spastic Diplegia.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Spastic Diplegia.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Woman with cntfai flag-3-.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Woman with cntfai flag-3-.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 06:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"Righteous revenge" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Righteous revenge and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)