User talk:Sammy1339

Welcome to the Wikipedia!
Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Sammy1339! Thanks for the copy edit over on the Bobby Fischer article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:


 * Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
 * When you have time, you can peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
 * Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
 * If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
 * Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: PrimeBOT (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC).

Best of luck, Sammy1339, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Secondary growth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cambia. 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) 09:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Isil
If you disagree with this redirect's target, you are welcome to discuss it on the talk page, or discuss it at RfD. Thanks! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In reply to your edit summary: typing "isil" into the search box presents ISIL as the first suggestion. Actually performing a search for "isil" returns, in order: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, International Society for Individual Liberty then Sun and Moon (Middle-earth). So I'd say everything works as intended at the moment without having to redirect Isil to a disambiguation page when it is not ambiguous with other titles. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

your revert
Your edit to restore bounds testing of civility states that the justification for doing so was that I was involved, but you are involved too, so this seems to be a double standard. Are you aware that civility is a policy? Unscintillating (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I just didn't think it was appropriate to silence one user like that, even if what he said was asinine. I did review the hat bound guidelines and they seemed to indicate that the addition of hat bounds should be made by an uninvolved person, so I thought it was appropriate to remove them. I apologize if my interpretation was wrong. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So you made a robotic revert based on your interpretation of what you read, but you are not concerned about Wikipedia's public-facing image? I'm not trying to go anywhere with this, I'm more concerned with the level of incivility tolerance which Wikipedia has acquired in the past five years.  I would also dispute that I was involved.  BTW, what was the guideline?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See the bold instructions at Template:Hidden archive top. I don't think I understand what your concern is or why you blanked the comment in the first place but I'll assume you had a reason and it's not really a big deal. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hatting is not blanking. The text remains available.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So you reverted without knowing or at least understanding what you were reverting. Unscintillating (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for identifying the template instructions. FYI, the relevant guideline is WP:TPO.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on image
Please explain your repeated removal of the image of battery cages for hens on at least two article pages. Your repeated removal is close to edit warring and you have not entered into any discussion about your edits.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=629005279 your edit] to Maria Ozawa may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * with occasional English}} Her mother is Japanese and her father is French-Canadian. The material from the

tyson
just curious - please watch this video of tyson's standard talk on the hayden planetarium website here - just 4 minutes. now read tyson's apology: here.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty embarrassing for him. However, I think you may be forgetting the enormous number of ridiculously vitriolic attacks that were coming out of conservative media, the overwhelming majority of which were about completely silly minutiae which - except in that case - were irrelevant to the point he was making in his talks. They also accused him of fabricating quotes, not just taking that Bush quote out of context. That may explain why his response was more than just an admission of guilt. I wouldn't object to mentioning this particular situation in the the Federalist article, and in fact I wrote 3 sentences on it there, which were deleted. If you're going to mention the whole "controversy," it's necessary to clarify that nonsense is nonsense, and the subject doesn't have enough weight to merit the lengthy block of text required to do that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * i don't think you understand where i am coming from. i have been arguing against including anything. you are singing to the choir.   but i am really asking -  did you watch it? Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's pretty ugly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * yes. honestly, until i watched that, i thought the attacks were all just a bunch of ugly political shit-slinging.   but this was dead on, and the talk was apparently not a one-off, but a talk tyson gave a lot of times.  ugly    i checked out the other charges that the bloggers were making, and 99% of it is just ugly and twisted.  but they clean busted him on this, and my sense of fairness says Wikipedia can't bury that.  tyson apologized for that and the rest he has (rightly) blown off.   so if you face the ugly on both sides... well, you end up where you end up.  i ended up with my recommendation - be honest on both sides.  shit slinging, got one thing dead-on right, tyson apologized for that one thing.  you don't have to agree.  but i wanted you to understand.  thanks for your time. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * with respect to this, you generally do not do anything dramatic with another editor's comments, like you did, without their consent. if i had wanted to address you on the article talk page, i would have done that.   i recommend you don't do that going forward.   Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I'll remove it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * too late. you did it already.  just don't mess around with other people's comments going forward without their consent.  i feel all violated. blech.  Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I don't really understand though: I only quoted you, without modifying what you said. It's not like it was a confidential conversation - it's here on a talk page for everyone to see. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * again, IF i had wanted to talk with you on the main Talk page, I would have. i chose to address you here. it just shows a lack of respect for what other people want to do what you did, and  it is generally not done. (pay attention - you will have a very hard time finding other examples)  If you look at the talk page guidelines and the help page about Talk pages you will see there is a strong instruction there - don't mess with other people's comments.  it does not explicitly instruct editors not to copy/paste... but again, this is the first time i have ever seen someone do it at all - definitely the first time it was done to me.  it's OK, it is not the end of the world, and not as bad as actually changing my comments.   you definitely didn't do something that bad.  but it was still weird and violate-y.   just don't do it again without asking.  Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Yes I did notice. Thank you for mentioning that it should be "User:Ssven2/....." and not "Ssven2/.....". I have already done it and moved the references. Ssven2 (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ask for undelete
Hello and thanks for commenting on my article. I am here to persuade that as you said wiki is not a cookbook, however, I can agree at all as my page-hong kong style beef entrails, is a page with all the details about the beef entrails, and the cooking methods are also the main focus on itself because people in Hong kong and China, has some traditional thoughts on how the beef entrail is served. It is welcome to give suggstions so we can improve the page, and I hope consensus can be built.Last but not least, please give a chance and not to delete the work. Thanks Janicefsc (talk)

Joseph Crabtree
I see that you tagged Joseph Crabtree (fictional polymath) as being too in-universe. I've actually tried to address that very issue, and other than the dispute over the word revealed vs. invented in the lead (see the talk page), can you offer any other suggestions on how to clarify the fictional nature of this person? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 02:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that throughout the article it is not clear who is making up this story, or these parts of the story. I can't tell just from reading it if this all comes from a hoax in the 1954 talk, or if it was built up over time, or if it was from a novel. Take a look at the following paragraph:


 * "'Scholars (members) of the Crabtree Foundation meet annually to venerate his life. There are now over 400 scholars of the Foundation, and scholars, in the first President’s words, “scattered as they are over the face of the world”, have established overseas chapters in Australia, Portugal, Italy and Southern Africa each of which holds its own annual celebration of Joseph Crabtree. Their findings have established the international scope and diversity of Crabtree’s life and achievements.'"


 * It's not even clear that this is a joke. Are these real people who actively participate in an in-joke, or are they fictional scholars who study Crabtree in Crabtree's fictional universe? This sort of problem continues - the information about Crabtree in the subsequent paragraphs all needs to be attributed, no only to avoid sounding like a statement of actual fact, but for the sake of clarity. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I understand your point. To clarify for your own understanding (and I'll try to rewrite the article to bring this out more clearly), the Crabtree Orations are a series of lectures given at the University College of London wherein noted scholars are invited to come and update the ever-expanding joke that is the life of Joseph Crabtree. The man never existed, but the scholars who participate in the orations are all very real. This has been going on for 60 years now. I'm not a big enough nerd to get the joke, but someone must be enjoying it! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It kind of strikes me that the only conceivable purpose of this article is to ruin this joke. I mean, if you had had fewer scruples, you could have written it up as a hoax - you know what to do basically, just use a lot of offline references that nobody will check up on; and it doesn't matter if the books you cite say anything at all about the subject. But if the title just right out and says "fictional," well, everybody who hears one of these lectures is going to google the name and find that out immediately. If I were you I'd let Salvidrim!'s AfD go through, just for the sake of not being a killjoy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I really hope that the people attending these orations understand that they are a joke, or the UCL would be guilty of perpetrating a massive hoax and I, as a student of that university, would be massively pissed. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What could the joke possibly be, other than the deception? It sounds like you lack a sense of humor. By the way, are you aware of the works of S. Morgenstern? --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

List of similarities between Undeclared and Freaks and Geeks
Sorry, but this article had already been PRODded by and de-PRODded here, so it cannot be PRODded again. You will have to take it to WP:AFD. JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Listing of porn award nominations
Hello, Sammy1339. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there was consensus but the issue is not egregious for me to contest further. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It ain't always easy to reverse oneself
...but thank you for this.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

NPOV discussion
Thanks for the input. I'm going to have to get back to it later. Though I strongly feel I am being unjustly accused of being bad I have agreed to avoid topic until June 11. You can see the [] edits I tried to make and the outcome. Why have a BOLD policy if you get threatened with a block for using it? I'll have more later but I think it's safe to close the current listing with no conclusion reached. Thanks for trying.Getoverpops (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I really should advise you not to get back to it later. Even if you are completely right, at this point you have a reputation on this issue and people's kneejerk reaction will be to oppose you. I also advise you to avoid the topic of U.S. politics entirely while your topic ban is in effect, just to be safe. You need to pick your battles, and there are other dragons to slay. You've made it apparent you have a lot to bring to the table, so I suggest putting it to use somewhere where you won't immediately end up in another heated conflict. The culture of Wikipedia is such that users who make constructive edits on a variety of topics are much less likely to be viewed suspiciously or accused of bias. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. However, I signed up specifically because that particular topic had been pointed out to me and is in very bad shape.  I strongly disagree with the self imposed ban and feel that even the cause was not adequately justified to me.  Regardless, when the time comes I will explain why I disagree with your review of my information.  I think my big mistake was just bringing back an old NVOP claim which had become confused and muddled.  I would be happy to share the info with you once the topic ban is taken care of.  Getoverpops (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, I appreciate your recent edit in that I understand you were just trying to help with the stay out of politics part. However, the edits were on my sandbox page. I don't think that counts as editing in general since it's a place where most edit guidelines don't apply.Getoverpops (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it does. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree and disagree with the change you made to a page that was not about the off limit topic. However, I think you are trying to watch out for me so I can accept the edits.  I hope when things time out you would be open to a reversion on the article.  If I see other things I will add them to the sandbox page since it's the best place I know to, for lack of a better term, keep notes.Getoverpops (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You should refrain from using your sandbox page or any other page to make edits that might be construed as violating your topic ban, as this may be used against you next time you are nominated for a block, which, given your stated intentions, seems likely to happen. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, last time I think the block was totally unfair and I still wish to discuss that in the future. I don't think a topic block is at all reasonable so long as there is no reversion war.  Even last time there wasn't other than my misunderstanding of the neutrality tag.  Recently I made a series of article edits but that conforms to BOLD.  After they were undone I wanted to move to a discussion of the issue.  However, that didn't happen before I was told to take a brake.  Since you seem to know more about this, how should I keep personal notes as to issues with the article?  Getoverpops (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You can keep notes offline if you like, and bring up your concerns on the talk page after your topic ban expires. (You should not follow WP:BOLD right after coming back from a topic ban; instead, assume your edits will be controversial and raise them on the talk page first.) I must reiterate, though, that you are going to be fighting an uphill battle and this might not be worth your time. The issue has been given an extensive hearing, twice, so when you bring it up a third time you can expect the reception to be chilly. Especially if you will be relying on more references to Gerard Alexander and partisan sources such as conservative think tanks, the consensus against your proposals is not likely to change. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to come back to the source quality disagreement. The NVOP was just one request (the second was a restart) and I clearly needed to have a more organized argument.  The big issue was I started with the wrong question.  I tried to evolve the topic but that wasn't the best plan.  Regardless, what we have now are two NVOP's that don't really answer the newer questions I've asked.  I guess you are right about the BOLD part.  I will keep that in mind going forward.  Getoverpops (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Dru yoga
Hi Sammy1339. Nice and short, well done. I'll follow your example on the Dutch Wikipedia and shorten it. BLP: I should have thought of that. Would you like to advise me on whether to go and ask for an SPI? If not, no problem. Regards, Sander1453 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it makes sense to do an SPI. I was going to do it myself but didn't feel like investing the time in collecting all the diffs. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll do it tonight, after work. Meanwhlie the whole bunch (4 or 5 of them) moved over to the Dutch Wikipedia, did disruptive editing and were proven socks, by CU request. Sander1453 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Your recent editing history at List of vegans shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress
Just to let you know that I wrote a long reply to this post of yours, then decided not to post it on that talk page (I find that page quite frustrating), but was going to post it here instead. Then the video happened, so I'd want to write it differently now. I wanted you to know that I hadn't simply not responded. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no hurry and posting it here is fine. Yes, the talk page is frustrating. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * So let me get this straight: it's a BLP violation to have the target visible on a non-functioning redirect, but not in page history? I really don't think you can have this both ways. If this is a dire BLP issue that needs prompt excising, see WP:BLPN. Otherwise, let RfD run its course. --BDD (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There was already a BLPN discussion on using the name, which is linked from the RfD discussion. The closer found conditional consensus for including the name under terms which there has been no attempt made to meet, and the default has been that the name is not included. As I am not an admin I do not have the power to delete the name from page history, but I have never used it myself. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So it's likely to be deleted at RfD, and that's fine. Say WP:SNOW delete and if enough people do, I might even close it early. I'm not on a crusade to keep this name or anything. I just want a regular discussion. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As the nominator I cannot vote SNOW, but I did state it should be deleted immediately. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. Feel free to make a note at WP:AN, WP:BLPN, or somewhere if you want to try to get an early close. Just know that until the redirect is deleted, you can't really expunge the name anyway, and it may be counterproductive to try. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll make a note at AN. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, I'm here to ask you to remember that there are five people involved in this to whom BLP applies, not one. Four of the names are known. I'm concerned that your posts imply that four of those people are lying or don't matter, and that you question whether what they say should even be called sexual-assault allegations.

We have to write the article (and talk page) by maintaining apparently contradictory positions. It can be done, though it needs careful writing. There's just no point in adopting a strong view, because we don't and can't know what happened. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, three of those people don't matter. Excluding them from mention in Wikipedia isn't libel. As for using "sexual assault", most people understand this term to mean rape, while the Columbia disciplinary guidelines use the term much more broadly.
 * To address your central concern, however, I understand that you find it inappropriate to impugn the credibility of a rape accuser. Many people feel this way, and it is in large part what Mattress Performance is about. However, Wikipedia policy tells us to protect the presumption of innocence of people accused of crimes, which inescapably means either placing doubt on the accusations or silencing them. The imperative to refrain from suggesting that someone may be guilty of a crime takes precedence over the desire not to imply that the accuser is mistaken or dishonest. This is what the presumption of innocence means. Is it just? I don't care.
 * If you wanted to, you might have enough clout get special protections for the dignity of rape accusers written into BLP policy. I would oppose this, and at present there are no such provisions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of libel, but of BLP violations. You've implied that the women are lying, and this is a violation whether they're named in the article or not, just as it's a violation if we imply that the accused is lying.


 * Second, it just isn't true that people understand sexual assault to mean rape; see sexual assault. Also, you're mimimizing the allegations, turning that someone says she was suddenly grabbed by a man, who she alleges would not let go when asked, into an unwanted kiss. (If a man were suddenly to grab you in the street and refuse to release you, I doubt you'd see it as uninvited affection.) Finally, you're accusing Sulkowicz of a crime, in that if she's lying she made a false police report.


 * "... which inescapably means either placing doubt on the accusations or silencing them." No, it means writing the article carefully and keeping the sexual claims to a minimum so that we don't undermine any of the parties with detailed, unproven allegations. This is admittedly difficult given the crowdsourcing, and would be difficult anyway, but it can be done. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Badges
I see you PRODed this but did not provide a concern. Would you be willing to fix this by adding a concern to the template? Everymorning  talk  00:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I prodded it for no reason because twinkle wouldn't let me CSD it for no reason like somebody else did. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol
I intend to request sanctions if the situation at Mattress is transferred to any other page related to Sulkowicz. To do that I have to alert you to the existence of the sanctions. There are two applicable sets – gender-related controversy and BLP – and apparently you have to be alerted to both. I apologize for the templates.

Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Abiogenesis
Not sure if you've read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources According to these guidelines, yes, my source is valid. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E95:6F20:F058:FA71:1443:46F2 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are attempting to insert pseudoscience into the article. There are numerous reasons why this is a waste of your time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tell me again about how an article with absolutely no mention of a supernatural being, deity, religion, psuedoscience or any variation thereof is psuedoscience. According to the previously posted guidelines, the author is reputable enough to make the source reliable, and everything in the source is scientific fact, with no talk about any sort of religion. I;m sorry that you want the page to be slanted towards your viewpoint, but if there are criticisms that are valid, they must be addressed, not censored.
 * Nope. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope meaning that you have no valid argument and that you will ignore science in order to keep it and indoctrinate others with the same view? Interesting, because Wikipedia is supposed to be based on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E95:6F20:F058:FA71:1443:46F2 (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Facts, not creation science. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. Which is why I used the article I did, as there was only pure science, and nothing regarding creation at all. Denying this is equivalent to throwing a fit at not getting your way, Sammy boy. In fact, how about this: you show me one instance of "psuedoscience"or "creation science" in the article, and I will back off and stop trying to edit the page. 2602:30A:2E95:6F20:F058:FA71:1443:46F2 (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Give up. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Optimistic Knowledge Gradient
Hi, I'm the author of "Optimistic Knowledge Gradient". The article is reported to violet the copyright of one paper which is main resources of my article, i.e. I create this item based on this paper: []. Thus the phrases that Duplication Detector reported is exactly my key words. Could you please tell me how to fix it in order to avoid delet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuzhi222 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the deletion nomination, however, please be aware of WP:SELFCITE and try to reference other authors' work in preference to your own when possible. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Just curious. What makes Jezebel and the Federalist unreliable as sources? Neither are self published sources, there is a byline, etc.Mattnad (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * They both seriously lack editorial standards. We should avoid using them the same way we avoid using supermarket tabloids. There was some discussion of the use of Jezebel on the Mattress page, which led me to look into it specifically. I found that on RS/N basically every time anything from the Gawker network (of which Jezebel is part) came up, people roundly rejected it as unreliable. I also found some interesting stuff on the Gawker network's modus operandi which basically said that their standards are nil: even though it looks like a newspaper, it basically functions like a blog, in that nobody is editing or policing it. Besides being unreliable, both Jezebel and The Federalist are rabidly partisan. We should try to cite sources that at least attempt to maintain some kind of neutrality. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Partisan is not a dis-qualifier for WP:RS, although I understand your concern. We also use the Huffington Post which includes highly partisan views among their writers who are basically free agents. One person's partisan is another person's truth speaker. However, typically we don't question sources like Jezebel unless they are posting really extreme stuff (see the 2014 Isla Vista killings for some of the partisan commentary that's been happily included in that by editors of many stripes).  If you read the article I cited from Jezebel, it's benignly factual. The Federalist was an opinion piece, but no less so than the other's.Mattnad (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know partisan sources can be acceptable, but with caveats per WP:BIASED. As for Jezebel though, after reading up on its editorial policies (or lack thereof) I don't think it should ever be used, except as a primary source under WP:SELFPUB. People at RSN seem to agree. I don't know about the standards at The Federalist specifically, but my guess is they are not top notch. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

pinging
Just so you know, this almost certainly did not work. For notifications to work you need to mention the user with a ping or other method and in the same edit sign your name, as it needs the signature for your name and the time. See Notifications.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 02:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was unaware of that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Pronounce the PETA
Is the pronunciation for the PETA abbreviation necessary for that article? Is it? I just want to know because I just hope it would not disrupt the flow of the article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 09:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, just checking. By the way, got citations for the correct pronunciation? Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 20:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, citations for pronunciations are often hard to find. But I've heard it on the news and such often enough; you can also look up youtube videos and see how they pronounce it. Granted this is OR, but it's non-controversial enough that I'm sure nobody will mind. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All right. That is all okay! Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it's gone now. Just it's stylization, which looks weird, because in print it never appears like that. Oh well.--A21sauce (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Much appreciated. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Another one!

 * Thanks a lot for that, and for your many helpful contributions to the article and talk page. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Response to your 3RR template
Consider this Sammy1339, the 3RR rule refers to three reverts on the same page within 24 hours, something that I have not done. We have come into conflict on three different pages. You reverted my edit three times on Speciesism. I reverted your edit the second time only after you declined to discuss and wrote: "Feel free to take it to the noticeboards." instead of discussing the matter. Do you think that I need to get consensus for my edits but you do not need consensus for yours? In Carnism you reverted my edit twice. I reverted your reversion once and disagree with your claim that my edit amounted to sythesis. As I see it you are perpetuating an advocacy position by refusing to allow my edit that conflicts with the advocacy point of view. In Antireligion you removed my work once and I restored it with additional material after you declined to discuss it. What should an editor do after another editor declines discussion? It seems that we have considerable disagreement on what constitutes an article in conformity with Wikipedia policies. I do not see how it helps to put a 3RR template on my talk page instead of discussing. If you consider my behavior an edit war, yours is more so. I have difficulty understanding your discussion, but we have plenty of time. - Fartherred (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that at carnism, my NPOV concern was in the opposite direction of the POV you accuse me of pushing.
 * At antireligion, you wrote something which is substantively true, but misleadingly worded, and sourced it questionably. I promised to find a more authoritative source and we can discuss that on the article's talk page later if there's still a problem.
 * At speciesism, consensus is against your use of a self-published personal website to support a very silly claim about anti-plant discrimination.
 * Respectfully, --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

What's this with yoga and its gurus?
Hi Sammy1339. Here's another: Bikram Yoga (BLP). I'm handling AfD for Dutch Wikipedia right now, that's why I came to see it. And why I don't have the time, sorry. Regards, Sander1453 (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks like a much different situation from the Dru yoga case, in that the accused person in this case is an independently notable public figure. WP:BLPCRIME suggests censorship of criminal claims only if they are made against relatively unknown people. We have to take care that all the claims are well-sourced, and that the wording of the article gives him the benefit of doubt to which he is entitled, but I think that the allegations can't simply be removed in this case. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, fine. Thanks. Sander1453 (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * It's no problem - contentious articles can be frustrating. Thanks a lot for laying out all your reasons in a nice table on the talk page. That was very helpful. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm. Thank you. WCM email 09:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please allow me to offer my apologies, checkuser has just cleared you. Once again, sorry. WCM email 15:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC

White phosphorous
What if we did a redirect, come take a look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

CSD of Ethical eating
Hi, Sammy1339! How are you seeing this as a candidate for speedy deletion? valereee (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment on your talk page. I support the creation of such an article and thank you for your work, but I was concerned that the article as written might be deleted, so I moved it to Draft:Ethical eating where you can work on it further without such fears. The article I nominated for speedy deletion was simply a redirect to this draft. Deleting that redirect will allow you to move the article back to main space after the blank sections are filled in. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sammy, can you direct me to the rule that says you aren't supposed to have blank sections in articles being actively edited? valereee (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no such rule, but at this discussion you can see that a majority of editors feel that empty sections should be used only rarely, and many feel they should not be used at all. Certainly it's not appropriate to have an article consisting almost entirely of empty sections. Also, in the future, could we keep our conversations on just one talk page? I don't care which one. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely, we can talk here. That discussion was about a template, and even that had no consensus.  Using empty sections while actively editing is a useful way of indicating to other editors what you have in mind for the organization of the article.  If the article remains in draft space, other editors who are interested in this topic will not easily find it.  valereee (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can advertize the draft on the appropriate WikiProjects, but I really think that just throwing a stub article full of empty sections into main space is not a good practice - especially when the only filled-in section is a summary-style section with a hatnote directing to an existing article. There was even an unfinished sentence. This is what draft space is for. In my own opinion, empty sections should never be used, but even those who think they are sometimes appropriate think that they should be used when the article is undergoing rapid revisions by more than one editor, not as a way shouting out to the world "here, somebody else do this!" --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sammy1339, indicating to other editors the direction I'm headed while actively editing is not the same as throwing a stub out and asking others to finish it. However, I'll temporarily place the sections into comment so they'll show up only in the editing and not in the article until they're filled in.  valereee (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

CJTF-OIR
Hello. I've posed a few questions to you, on (discussion) page Articles for deletion/Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve, a few hours ago. Perhaps you feel like reacting on them, there (but you aren't obliged to do that). --Corriebertus (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is a mathematician?
Sammy1339, I responded to you a while back at Talk:List of female mathematicians. Most participants seemed to favor my approach, and it would be nice to have closure on this. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI
Try to stick to one revert per article per day. Accounts like "Zippy" are basically used to get other editors blocked. You're being played. Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing about you, re civility, not reverts. This is obviously an experienced editor who is trolling. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, which is why I stuck to 1RR. Viriditas (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you've made comments regarding Martin Hogbin's edits
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rose (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Riley Reid
I don't know how you can say this dispute is just "simple confusion". The factual matters are absolutely clear. If you review the (often NSFW) sources I cited at 3RRN, you will see both a statement by the article subject contradicting the claim and links to online pornographic videos showing the claim I remove is clearly false. It's quite disturbing that, prior to my involvement in the dispute, Rebecca1990 had, without explanation, removed a accurate description, properly sourced, of the subject's career. That seriously casts doubt on Rebecca's good faith.

I do thank you for your support on the infobox photo question. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly my mistake, sorry. The discussion was hard to follow since you were talking in different places. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Blanket revert
I've explained my reasoning in edit summaries. You failed to address the issues raised, therefore you don't blanket revert because you "don't like it". Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Campus Sexual Assault
Hello. As you have previously provided comment on the discussion in his article, I invite you now to please review and provide comment (if any) to the proposed alternatives located here. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

CSA edit
Any thoughts on this? It seemed like pretty much everyone agreed that the statement, at a minimum, needed re-wording. I know you said you didn't plan to become involved, but an outside voice might be helpful here, given how much Mattnad seems to dislike me. I would prefer to avoid ANI, but I also think this is a fairly egregious edit. Nblund (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You should avoid AN/I as it might not go your way. Without commenting on this specific edit, my honest view of the broader situation is that both you and Mattnad have legitimate points. My opinion remains the same as what I wrote in the RfC: you should either A: refrain from getting involved in the details of primary sources and cut down the AAU and related studies to a size no greater than the well-established NCVS, per WP:WEIGHT, or B: greatly expand the focus of the article to cover all the controversy surrounding campus sexual assault, rather than just the narrow question of how prevalent it is. Either way the kinds of changes in your sandbox are well-advised; I might suggest going further, into this level of detail. Option B would make room for dissenting voices such as Cathy Young, Ashe Schow, Stuart Taylor, and Emily Yoffe; it would also be much more informative regarding the campus climate surveys as it would explain the political context of these studies and the criticism of them. I notice Anti-rape movement is badly outdated, and so is Title IX, besides being underdeveloped and located in an out-of-the-way place. It's frankly awkward that the article omits mention of what's obvious on the talk page: that this issue is a battleground in a culture war between feminists who are concerned about the widespread violence of rape culture and conservatives who are concerned about the erosion of civil liberties such as free speech and due process. I'm concerned about both of these things and I think there's room for you to work together, although it might require some serious efforts at reconciliation from both of you. If that fails, try dispute resolution again. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was pinged here. I'd also caution Nblund. What I wrote in the KU section is very neutral and true to the source. The KU survey is unique and designed to get the largest sample possible, with a reason, according to its designer.  That's a notable difference between it and other campus surveys.  It says no more, no less. I didn't just go and make that edit, but attempted to reason with you (Nblund) on the talk page over what must be thousands of words between the two of us. It comes down to this.  Is the text accurate to what the sources say?  Is it written neutrally?  I think it is.  BTW, I don't dislike you, per se, but I'm frustrated when you take a position that's not based on what's written, or the related sources. I also agree with Sammy1339 that this issue is a battleground and frankly that social issue should be included in the article more directly rather than skirting the issue as we have to date.Mattnad (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mattnad, dude, three other editors agreed that the wording of the phrase "sexual assault" needed to change. You didn't participate in that portion of the conversation at all, you just argued with me and then added the material back in using the exact same wording. The only change you made in response to my concern was to add more of the stuff I objected to. You want to demonstrate a desire to collaborate? Self revert the KU stuff, and either start an RfC or bring it to a noticeboard the way you're supposed to. Nblund (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sammy: I realize ANI sometimes results in mutual lockouts, i'm not sure I've crossed that line, but I also don't think that would be the worst possible outcome. I generally agree about a rewrite, but I don't think that can (or should) really happen without additional input from other editors. Would you be open to writing an RfC? Nblund (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You and Mattnad are arguing at great length over some very small points here. I would suggest you look at the bigger picture and try to form a plan for making significant changes to the article that might break the gridlock. Another RfC on this issue is not likely to be productive - the subject is both highly technical and politically charged in the extreme. Nobody's going to want to inject themselves into this. If it really is impossible for you to work with Mattnad, you should be thinking of dispute resolution, not AN/I. He has made edits I disagree with, but I don't see that he's been disruptive. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do have to ask a question. How exactly is it synth as written?  It's true to the sources, the KU survey is a campus climate survey (consistent with the section), it's notable in it's design, and the AAU section already discusses concerns about it's small 19% sample.Mattnad (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Unlike typical campus surveys that rely on volunteer student responses, the University of Kentucky deliberately made their survey mandatory." The clear implication was that this is a better survey than the AAU one; it invited the reader to view the subsequent comments as a criticism of the AAU study. The quotes were also a bit undue, and struck me as having been selected to give this impression. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was really suggesting an RfC over the issue of rewriting the section as a whole, not over the Kentucky issue specifically. I would prefer to get other editors involved so that Mattnad and I aren't the primary editors in the discussion -- which would probably go a long way toward improving relations on that page, and would also lessen the workload.
 * I think it's disruptive for on editor to revert to their preferred version while a discussion is ongoing, especially since it seems to be a regular occurrence. This certainly isn't a productive way to address a clear lack of consensus. I appreciate the advise and will consider it, though. Nblund (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sammy1339, I didn't invent that. It's derived from this news report that quotes the KU director responsible for the survey.  To further the point, Here's an NPR Morning Edition piece on the topic .  Diane Follingstad, a serious academic on the study of crime victims comments on "the reliability of small samples" in this context and then Tovia Smith, the reporter states "Diane Follingstad studies violence against women at the University of Kentucky that has just made its climate survey mandatory, forcing the participation of students who, otherwise, would never have bothered." They go on to get a quote from a female student who says she's never been assaulted so he she had no interest in the survey.  Smith then says, "Follingstad says that's exactly the problem. Voluntary surveys, she says, tend to get a self-selected group of students motivated by personal experience, and that can really skew results. In Kentucky's mandatory survey, just 5 percent of students said they were victims - far less than Rutgers' 20 percent."  Is this really OR on my part?  I don't think the quotes, as expansive as they are, are necessary, except that there's been resistance to including the basic facts from the get go. Mattnad (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a comparison to the Rutgers study though, and this occurred right underneath the AAU study. Generally speaking I think what you are trying to do makes sense and I certainly don't think these edits were bad faith, but it's probably a better idea to present the differences in studies systematically rather than through quotes and the like. Readers won't recognize all these subtleties anyway. I would suggest going to the talk page and suggesting major revisions. 's sandbox also has good ideas. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The general concept is the challenge of volunteer, self-selected surveys which is really more Follingrad's point. Even if we put this survey before the AAU discuss, I don't think Nblund's objections would go away. In part it's because KU reported significantly lower rates than other volunteer surveys, as you can see by the Rutgers comparison in the NPR piece.  I've reached out to Nblund about collaboration around a rewrite on her talk page.Mattnad (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a man, by the way. The KU survey measured attempted/completed penetration in the last year, the Rutgers and the AAU surveys measured all sexual assaults since entering college. It's not all that surprising that KU found fewer assaults given that they used a narrower time frame and only measured the least common form of sexual violence. More important than the point about novel synthesis and response rates, this comparison is just plain misleading, and it seemed like you kept trying to make it after I pointed it out. Moving forward, this is the sort of edit we should really avoid. Nblund (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not dwelling on the Rutgers comparison and I'm not proposing that we include it as NPR did. What is very different is how KU got their sample, and the known issues with small, self-selected respondents.  Do you know of any other study that has such a large sample of a population?  Even if you don't agree with the strategy behind the KU study design, they thought it mattered and reliable sources brought it up.  So a couple of questions - are you willing to permit wording that highlights the differences in approach in that section (2015 Campus Climate Surveys) per Follingrad?  We have two reliable sources that explain why she designed the survey the way she did.  She's not exactly inexpert or biased towards minimizing reporting rates.  If yes, why don't you take a crack at writing it.Mattnad (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We should discuss this on my talk page instead. Nblund (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Starting new section gambit
In case you haven't noticed, Hogbin and Magoo both rely on the "starting new section" gambit to flood the talk page with meaningless, trivial questions and distract editors from the ongoing RFCs. This allows them to confuse editors who might otherwise show up to participate. What is needed in this situation is to tightly control and structure the discussion page through archiving, collapsing, and movement to user talk pages. Magoo's understanding may be slightly relevant, but it is distracting from the primary discussions. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course I notice, though in Mr. Magoo's case I don't think it is a deliberate tactic. I understand it is difficult to deal with the absurdities generated by Martin Hogbin's increasingly successful campaign to publicize made-up controversies, however, I'm concerned your actions are muddying the water. Please remember that he has done this for years on a variety of articles, including BP which I believe you were involved in, and it has worked because he is good at creating confusion and deflecting blame. Even though your harsh words are usually justified, by acting in a manner that, to editors who don't know the context, appears bullying, you are playing into his hands. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was never involved in the BP article, talk page disputes, or related controversy, so I think you are confusing me with another editor. Talk page refactoring is considered best practice, not bullying. I'm taking Veganism off my Watchlist now. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I must have mixed you up with someone else. I should clarify I'm certainly not accusing you of bullying - the relevant point is that Martin is. I hope you didn't take that the wrong way. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Check the Talk:March Against Monsanto talk archives for my relevant experience with Hogbin. He tries repeatedly to wikilawyer and game the policies and guidelines, not to improve articles, but to impose his own POV on them.  This is not a good faith editor. I'm no longer interested in this nonsense.  The community has had years and years to do something and has refused because most people have no clue what Hogbin is up to. This is essentially disinformation and propaganda management 101.  I've raised the problem too many times and I'm done.  I'll let other people figure it out for themselves now. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparent conflict of interest
I have reason to believe that you have a conflict of interest. I brought up a concern I had about neutrality on the neutral point of view noticeboard at 0.999... Academic and common sense POV. There were several participants in the conversation but none acknowledged that they understood my concern or attempted to address it. Then you closed the discussion by writing: "People are not entitled to points of view about mathematics." It appears to me that you have abused your authority to close discussions on the neutral point of view noticeboard due to your personal view regarding mathematics. Kevincook13 (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline is WP:PARITY. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that you have not understood my concern with the neutrality of the article. The article addresses two fundamental questions regarding the term (0.999...). One is: What does the academic community have to say about it? The other is: What do people think about what the academic community has to say? My concern is that the article gives a false impression regarding the answer to the second question. Notice that academic sources are not necessarily reliable for answering that second question. The article gives the reader the false impression that people who oppose the currently prevailing academic point of view are unschooled children. This is a subtle yet effective strategy for persuading people to accept that view. Wikipedia is being used to persuade people to accept a view of academic authorities whose success relies upon such acceptance. A group of people are using Wikipedia to promote their own group interest. Kevincook13 (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * then you should report these people at the Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. - DVdm (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * as I have explained here, the article 0.999... already clearly and abundantly gives both the academic view and the common sense view, whereas user Kevincook13 is trying to spam/insert his private nonsense view (Kevin Cook's proposal) into the article. So perhaps you should have chosen another closure text, like for instance "Academic sources are already balanced against "common sense" points of view and there is no room for private nonsense views." Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't need this explained to me. There is a copy of Calculus Made Easy on my bookshelf. Ironically I think the kind of confusion expressed by this person is a product of the educational establishment's reluctance to teach infinitesimals, often regarding them as some sort of witchcraft despite Robinson's construction from 50 years ago. In that sense he has a legitimate grievance, but it's not a grievance against Wikipedia. Our mathematics articles would be a lot uglier if we decided to make them about everyone's errors in understanding. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it's just that your summary suggested that the common sense view has no place in the article, whereas it actually already is extensively treated in this particular rather exceptional case. Actually it is treated way too extensively i.m.o., because that (over)emphasis seems to tend to attract those who don't even reach the described common sense view. Tricky - DVdm (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Students' errors and "popular culture" are given way too much weight in that article. I didn't want to endorse that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. That part is even given more than way too much weight. - DVdm (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is routinely used by groups of people to promote their own group interest. This practice is often appreciated and seen as a public service. For example, people who are interested in birds, study them, publish what they have learned, and write about what they have published in Wikipedia. Wikipedia readers appreciate what has been written and, simultaneously, Wikipedia promotes the interest of the group. I am a beneficiary of many such benign acts of self-promotion and appreciate what I am privileged to learn through the hard work and sacrifice of others, facilitated by Wikipedia. However, I am also a victim of similar acts of group self-promotion which are not benign. Such acts do harm by confusing the reader. Wikipedia contains many articles in mathematics which demonstrate this harm. General terms which should be clear, are muddled. This widespread confusion in mathematics is, in part, a consequence of the actions of people who are interested in obscuring the fact that much of what is published in mathematics is logically inconsistent. If a scholar wants to publish a work which builds upon the works of those who have gone before, then he is more easily able to publish his work. If he wants to publish a work which discredits the works of those who have gone before, then it is more difficult for him to publish his work. If a scholar wants to publish a work which discredits an established discipline, then it is virtually impossible for him to publish his work. Authorities in the discipline have little motivation to even consider the work. Even if an authority agrees with the scholar, there is little motivation for the authority to assist in any way. Regardless of the virtue of the scholar's work, authorities in the discipline are motivated to ignore the work. Authorities outside the specific concerned discipline are motivated to defer to authorities in the discipline. Academia lacks controls to deal with such situations. As the climate now stands, the public pays the price for academia's incapacity to self-discipline. However, Wikipedia does have the capacity to check group self-interest. It is designed to do so, especially with regard to commercial and political interests. Wikipedia is a relatively young organization and has not yet learned to exercise itself for the purpose of checking academic self-interest on the scale to which I refer. Yet, I am confident that it will learn to do so. My purpose in writing is to help realize that future. Kevincook13 (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources for your Taharrush jamai transliteraton claims?
Do you have sources for your contention that "taharrush gamea" is an "incorrect" or "mistaken" Romanisation of taharrush jamai? It may be nonstandard, but it is a typical Egyptian Arabic form à la eggah instead of ʻijjah or Mosireen instead of Muṣirīn. —  AjaxSmack  04:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It was discussed on the article talk page. The vowels are the issue. A couple of the academic references give the correct Egyptian form. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw the talk page discussion but that is not a reliable source. My question was whether there is a source that calls "taharrush gamea" "incorrect" or "mistaken".  It is not Wikipedia's job to add unsourced value judgments as to whether a spelling that appears in reliable sources (i.e., "taharrush gamea") is normatively correct. —  AjaxSmack   19:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Why did you bring back the promotional content on the Nathan Runkle page?
Hello! Thanks for your discussions recently. I'm just getting started on Wikipedia, so glad to learn from more experienced editors. I'm curious why you reverted my edits on this page? You left in this content:

"Since founding Mercy For Animals over a decade ago, Runkle has overseen the organization's growth into a leading national force in the prevention of cruelty to farmed animals and promotion of compassionate food choices and policies.

A nationally recognized speaker on animal advocacy, factory farming, and veganism, Runkle has presented at colleges, conferences, and many other forums from coast to coast.

Runkle works closely with MFA's diverse group of members, supporters, and employees to oversee, develop, and fulfill objectives within the organization's four areas of focus: education, legal advocacy, corporate outreach, and undercover investigations.

Runkle has worked alongside elected officials, corporate executives, heads of international organizations, professors, farmers, celebrities, and film producers to pass landmark farmed animal protection legislation, raise public awareness about vegetarianism, and implement animal welfare policy changes."

None of this is cited, and it all seems highly promotional and not WP:NPOV. Just curious for your reasoning. Empamazing (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't write any of that, and I was trying to remove some of the promotional content. You're right that there's still some POV stuff left, and I'm removing it now. In the future it's best to discuss this sort of thing on the article talk page. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I must also say it's curious that you have such a sharp eye for pro-animal-rights promotional content, given that your first three edits ever, a few days ago, were in this AfD, wherein you argued many tenuous positions, among them the proposition that this is not an advertizement. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You added that content back in after I took it out, even if you weren't the original writer of it. And I think your propositions are tenuous. That's why we're discussing them. I don't think The Dodo article is an advertisement, even if it's non-encyclopedic and very positive in tone. Wikipedia has very different standards than many media outlets. Finally, I think it was appropriate to bring up here because I felt I might be missing something obvious and wanted to ask you about it so I could learn. But I see now that I had a good point, so in hindsight, the article talk page does make sense. I didn't know that beforehand. Empamazing (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Bijeljina massacre RfC Close
Just saw your RfC close at Bijeljina massacre. I think you were correct in your conclusion. While it's easy to see how an editorial flourish might be repeated as truth in many articles, it's very hard to see how such a photograph would vanish. I contacted the BBC and Chicago Tribune, and they were unable to find further information. -Darouet (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for looking into that. I tried to find it myself and had no luck. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Annie Teriba for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Annie Teriba 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/Annie Teriba 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. Bosstopher2 (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom case
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

Thanks much
Thanks very much for the Barnstar recognizing my Quality improvement efforts on the article, Lie-to-children.

Most appreciated,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case request
Longstanding POV and behaviour dispute at veganism, a case request in which you are involved, has been declined as unready for arbitration at this time. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  21:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sup m8
Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Brustopher (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting
Just a quick word of advice on punching the "revert" button: if there are any intervening edits, don't do it that way. Instead, you'll need to remove the problematic stuff manually (WP software doesn't have the intelligence to sort out edit conflicts). Archon 2488 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I restored your nbsp's. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. NeatGrey (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Your edits to Tulsa race riot has been undone because we cannot accept the original research and false information that was added, which conflicts with referenced information already in the article. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —Prhartcom ♥ 14:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This was an edit to the lede, which does not need redundant references. As the article makes clear, the police chief "deputized hundreds of white men and commandeered gun shops to arm them" and the National Guard arrested over 6,000 blacks during the attack. RS's describe their actions as facilitating the looting and burning and another source summarizes an official report as saying that "The report notes that city officials, law enforcement, the National Guard, and everyday white citizens were primarily to blame for the wide-scale and brutal violence, death, and destruction against blacks." The lede should reflect this. In the future, please respond on the article talk page. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Content about health in Wikipedia
So Sammy, here is the deal. This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That means get we get the whole spectrum of editors. In topics about health:
 * people who are everyday doctors (not celebrity doctors, who fall into a different bucket)
 * people who are scientists
 * people who are kind of interested in medicine, health, etc
 * people who are really strong believers in X thing about health or medicine (more on on this in a bit)
 * people who come here to try to advertise stuff related to health (often directly paid to help some company or person make money and this ranges from drugs to medical devices to dietary supplements to specific companies and people, including celebrity doctors)

The "really strong believers" cover a very wide range of things. We get people who:
 * believe that some drug or device or dietary supplement or intervention of some kind saved their life/transformed their life etc. and just want to write about how awesome it is, relentlessly
 * believe that some drug or device or dietary supplement or intervention has harmed them and come here to add all kinds of negative information about it, relentlessly.
 * believe in really crazy stuff that is unfortunately pretty widespread (eg vaccines cause autism)
 * believe in really crazy stuff (like magnetic bracelets can cure cancer) (see WP:Lunatic charlatans - really - please read that if you never have)
 * believe strongly in some diet/lifestyle (eg Paleolithic lifestyle or Atkins Diet or Veganism - we get all kinds from rabid cavemen meat eaters to ferocious vegans)

That is just some of it. As a result, we have policies and guidelines and norms that we apply to everything. We need to be able to give consistent answers, based on consistent reasoning, to all those people above -- all of whom want to add NPOV-violating content of one kind or another to Wikipedia -- some of whom are relentless. The meat fan and the vegan; the accupuncturist and the drug salesman. All of them.

When it comes to extreme claims about health, the mainstream medical and scientific literature often doesn't even discuss them specifically. There are too many, and there is often really nothing scientific to say about a lot of this stuff. This is specifically discussed in WP:PARITY. We absolutely need PARITY to address the broad range of stuff that people bring to Wikipedia.

Please think about the objections you keep raising at the Greger article, in light of the whole scope of stuff I have laid out above. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have thought about it, and there is indeed a lot of merit in your position. I even suggested clarifying this in the BLP policy, where we could work out a guideline for the use of some skeptic blogs in BLPs. I'm also aware of some pseudoscience promoters whose biographies necessarily include such information, and the only sources available are such. I earlier referencedCarver Mead as an example of this.
 * However, there is currently no such exception to BLPSPS, and I worry about the current de facto norm, wherein their use depends solely on Wikipedians' perception of who is a crank. This is particularly concerning in the case of Greger, since the criticism is not included to refute a pseudoscientific claim as allowed by WP:PARITY; no such claim is present. As I've repeatedly stated, I am skeptical of Hall's criticism because I believe she misrepresents Greger, but regard that of Schwarz, another prominent skeptic, as accurate. It has never been my position that there is nothing problematic in Greger's work.
 * Currently, there's nothing in PARITY or anywhere else that allows the use of these sources in BLPs. However I have not gone around removing them from articles on quacks, largely because of WP:IAR - I think they serve an important purpose. I don't think that about the Greger article.
 * I wonder if you,, and would consider a discussion of how to modify BLPSPS and RS to account for the current status quo wherein some use of sources like SBM is acceptable, even in BLPs. This could be a more productive alternative to continuing to argue in circles about this one case. Pinging  and  also. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an interaction ban between DrChrissy and me that I strictly follow, so I am out of here. I hope the discussion goes well. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the interaction ban. Since DrChrissy hasn't posted here, I think he shouldn't and you would certainly not be in violation of it if you continued the discussion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved a !vote
Hi Sammy, I moved a !vote of yours. I'm 99.5% certain you had it in the wrong place and thus it might get ignored when the discussion is closed. Diff is here:. Sorry if I did get that wrong. Hobit (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
Bishonen &#124; talk 19:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC).

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)