User talk:Jade Ten

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, KinkyLipids, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of May 2010 Northern Sumatra earthquake

I have nominated May 2010 Northern Sumatra earthquake, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2010 Northern Sumatra earthquake. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Aditya Ex Machina 15:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timelines of the presidency of Barack Obama

First, let me thank you for all your recent improvements to the various Timelines. They are informative. User:Diiscool and I have been editing and monitoring these articles since the first term. From the beginning we have tried to keep the Timelines as bare-boned as possible, using links and references to provide the reader with a path to more information. In the past 4 years there has been very little, if any, drama created. Your recent edits are welcome. But, I want to suggest that the more information that is presented opens the door for misinterpretation of the intent to include it. The subtlety of language and how it can be manipulated by politico's is what we need to avoid. Keep in mind this is only a friendly suggestion from one collaborator to another. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno how talk pages work, so hoping this isn't just me talking to myself. Thanks for the heads up; I'm not keen on edit-bombing the timelines. I wanted to emphasize a handful of major decisions but realized the timelines are not made to be chronological summaries of Obama's presidency but rather detailed presidential itineraries or logbooks. I got what I needed now, which was a basic mental chronology of major decisions by Obama and major events that directly affected his presidency, especially with history relentlessly repeating itself, even as I type: the identical Afghanistan troop withdrawals of 2011 and 2013, the Tax Relief Acts of 2010 and 2012, the Libyan and Syrian civil wars (they even rhyme), and now this government shutdown being a repeat of the debt ceiling crisis of 2011.

PS: My last edit on the 2011 timeline was to try and square with your reason for undoing my previous edit. If the edit still doesn't seem appropriate for the timeline, I won't feel bad if it's undone as well.KinkyLipids (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick and courteous reply. As to how the talk pages work, when you add to any talk, user or article, it automatically goes to your 'watchlist". In this case, my watchlist showed that you had replied. Its usually best to keep a conversation in one place for obvious reasons. Its been a pleasure...hope we cross paths again! ```Buster Seven Talk 22:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Nice work on United States federal government shutdown of 2013. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Good work on Kitchen v. Herbert HectorMoffet (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks for your help editing Gone with the Wind. Prairiegrl (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Pillars of the Earth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

upon his death. Henry's nephew [[Stephen of Blois]] and Henry's daughter [[Empress Matilda|Maud]]) fight for the throne. Ambitious nobles and churchmen take sides, hoping to gain advantages. The

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some good work

You are doing quite a good job dealing with such a controversial topic. 70.8.177.67 (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The other editors have been great. KinkyLipids (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my talk page. I need an admin. It is obvious that there are some bad people trying to add bad things to that page. 173.153.3.126 (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] 5 families is necessary because Bundy's was one that was put in Arizona and not one of the ones in Mesquite. Otherwise, one would assume all of Leavitt's holdings would inherited by Bundy. Additionally, the "Mormon" part is necessary to establish why the group moved there and the histories all stress the Mormon faith. 70.8.248.135 (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom of the paragraph refers to the 5 families, with Bundy's line placed in Arizona. I took out the 'Mormon pioneers' part because we don't really need to know why Leavitt moved, just that he did move. KinkyLipids (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Abbott divorce is necessary because Bundy's line is from the divorced wife who moved to California. 70.8.248.135 (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the wife died in Bunkerville, and Bundy's line is from her son who married in St. George and had a daughter born in Bunkerville. KinkyLipids (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos and good work on the Bundy article! You might also enjoy this other article also. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bundy_militia Baleywik (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An American Apple pie for you!

Kudos on your excellent article editing. Baleywik (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! Thanks, KL! 173.228.54.18 (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube as a reference

I just reverted your change where you used Youtube as a source. Youtube is rarely going to be usable as a source, especially when it's not from the "official channel" of the actual producer of the video. The video you linked to, for example, probably is a copyright violation. Also, the reference really isn't youtube, it's the actual newscast that the Youtube video recorded. That's the real information we need to capture in a reference - who (or what) actually provided the information that we are referencing.

Citing stuff on Wikipedia can be tough for almost anyone, especially trying to figure out which template to use and what parameters need to be filled in. There's a pretty cool gadget available called ProveIt that can really make it easier to add references. You enable it in the Gadgets section of your preferences. Click on Preferences at the top, then the Gadgets tab. Scroll down to the Editing section and check ProveIt and it's enabled!

When you are editing an article, you'll see the ProveIt window at the bottom. Click on the up arrow to expand it and you'll see all of the existing references in the section you're editing. Click on Add Reference to add a new reference. Select the reference type, then fill out the information. Make sure the cursor in the editing window is where you want to insert the reference then click on "Insert into edit form" and it's done! The ProveIt page has some decent documentation that explains everything I just did, but in more detail. It's a really, really useful tool that makes it easier to add and update references. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. When the quote and youtube source were added, I only checked the vid to make sure the guy was quoted accurately and left it at that. When the source was accidentally removed before protection, I put it on my list of things to address later. Once I could, I restored the source. Then I saw your revert with the edit summary saying "copyright issues", and I thought "yikes". I realized that the video was just someone recording their TV screen. I looked for a better source and found a Washington Post article. I didn't even think to cite the Fox broadcast directly, which I didn't know how to do, so thanks also for the Provelt suggestion, which also reminded me that there's a bunch of gadgets and stuff in Preferences, which I completely forgot about. So, many thanks. KinkyLipids (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bundy standoff copyedit

Hi KL. I'm unsure exactly what your objections are to my replacement of the Utah Territory paragraph. I'm glad you do not object to my reversion. I'm happy for you to maintain the Utah Territory history, while you revert the readability and grammar fixes you want. I'm unclear exactly what is the issue here. Are you certain that you mean to address me, instead of some other editor with some other revision here? Possibly you could isolate here with two blockquotes and bold the difficulty you have with the paragraph. I was unable to discern anything with the wiki tools. Best, 66.225.161.37 (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the relevant part of the original paragraph with everything removed/replaced by my edit in bold:

In 1848, the United States conquered from Mexico a large expanse of land in the south-western region of the United States, known as the Mexican Cession in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The Nevada Territory which resulted from the partition of the Utah Territory, and which became in 1864 the State of. The Bunkerville Allotment is part of the State of Nevada. Since then, the United States government has continuously owned the land in Nevada. Federal rangelands in Nevada are managed principally by either Bureau of Land Management or United States Forest Service.

Here's my additions in bold:

In 1848, the United States conquered a large expanse of land from Mexico in what is now the south-western region of the United States, known as the Mexican Cession in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The Nevada Territory became a state in 1864 and later included the Bunkerville Allotment. Since then, the United States government has continuously owned land in Nevada. Federal rangelands in Nevada are managed principally by either the Bureau of Land Management or the United States Forest Service.

KinkyLipids (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I already gave you a barnstar, so now you get a stein of beer to thank you for your recent work on, and to celebrate, marriage quality in Utah and Indiana. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number of pages in The Waste Land

I should have mentioned this in my checkin for the citation you requested but I forgot about it then. Remember that Eliot added notes to the poem to justify printing it as a book. It is mentioned in the article (I think the section was "Structure". WikiParker (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notes are one-third as many pages as the poem. I have a copy of the Tao Te Ching with only a handful of lines printed in the middle of each right-hand page. Did the publisher of The Waste Land use similar thickening tricks? On my copy, the poem and notes, along with extra footnotes, total only 22 pages long. KinkyLipids (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BAMN

This edit was intended to add balance to the article by mimicking the structure of the paragraph directly above it. We have a third-party calling the TWP an "extremist group," so I added a third-party opinion of BAMN. None of this is original research, and all of it is relevant if we intend to have a neutral article. --50.46.239.77 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit did contribute to a more neutral point of view. I have restored it, but with an alternate source that refers to the Sacramento riot, otherwise it would be original research. Thank you. KinkyLipids (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --50.46.239.77 (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has come up again on the article's talk page. I would appreciate it if you could add your input, so that we can begin to resolve this dispute. Thanks. --Eightofnine (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shooting of Alton Sterling

The article Shooting of Alton Sterling has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 05:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, KinkyLipids. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, KinkyLipids. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump executive order about immigration

Hi Kinky. The word "mild" is accurate and objective. You removed it and instead suggested that Obama's restrictions may have been just as strict as Trump's. So, what's undoubtedly going to happen here is that the entire mention of Obama is going to be removed by anti-Trump editors (not me). If you want that to happen, then by all means leave out "mild". 🙂 Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: Thank you for your consideration. Obama's policy has been described as "extra scrutiny", so I thought that some might take issue with the adjective "mild" and replace it with something opposite yet subjective/suggestive/vague like "extra scrutiny" or "travel restrictions", and I thought I would rather change it myself to something more objective and clear to avoid people having a tug of war with adjectives. I didn't intend to make it seem like Obama's policy was as strict as Trump's, (is it strict to require visas?), and if anyone removes the entire Obama reference, that person will hopefully be in the minority (unless everyone thinks the lede is getting too long). On further thought, the word "milder" might work. Saying that an habanero pepper is "mild" would definitely be questionable, but saying it's "milder" than a ghost pepper would be accurate and objective. KinkyLipids (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milder would be great, thanks. Can you please do it? I've already maxed out on reverts at that article for today, and if you do it then it won't be counted as a revert (because you're merely editing what you already wrote). Thanks again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, KinkyLipids. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, KinkyLipids. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Politics editing

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

O3000 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions to Bernie Sanders--Thank you with some thoughts

Hi KinkyLipids, Thank you for your recent and constructive contributions to Bernie Sanders. I thought that I'd share something for you to ponder. There's so much to describe about Sanders that much of it won't fit gracefully into the main article on him. That article should primarily contain big-picture summaries of his life and career. More detailed items, like votes, are probably best included at Political positions of Bernie Sanders. I'll leave it to you to decide which of your recent contributions might find a more suitable home there. At some point, I'll host a discussion at Talk:Bernie Sanders on what to move and summarize. Keep up the good work! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HopsonRoad, thank you. I propose moving the House and Senate sections to an article titled Congressional career of Bernie Sanders if the descriptions of notable votes become too unwieldy. I would be uncomfortable with those particular votes being identified as positions, since a lawmaker can vote for a bill while taking issue with parts of it. E.g., a vote to pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act is not necessarily a position in favor of more police, prisons, and death sentences. And as would be expected, his vote for that act is nowhere to be found in the article on his political positions. KinkyLipids (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, KinkyLipids. I would support creation of such an article. Probably some discussion is warranted at "Talk:Bernie..." on how it would dovetail with "Political positions...". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS sourcing for medical topics

Here are some resources for editing medical topics and choosing high-quality WP:MEDRS reviews. --Zefr (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Medicine tutorial for new medical editors

Wikiproject Medicine resources summary

WP:MEDHOW: Useful Wikipedia tips for editing medical and general content

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them.) WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which has a button "Cite" click on it
Then click on "Automatic" or "Manual"
For Manual: Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details, then click "Insert"
For Automatic: Paste the URL or PMID/PMC and click "Generate" and if the article is available on PubMed Central, Citoid will populate a citation which can be inserted by clicking "Insert"

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was added without a new section

Let me put it more bluntly:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: I added a summary to the lede of content that was already sourced in the body, as was requested by the template at the top of the article. I generally keep in mind that there is a desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead, as per MOS:LEAD, and forgot that there is an exception for articles with controversy. Thank you for your good faith assumptions concerning my editing. KinkyLipids (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Hello, I'm Megaman en m. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Meditation, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Megaman en m (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced and re-added. It is factual, objective, and seemed to be common knowledge. The {{uw-unsourced1}} template is recommended for material that "appears to be false or an expression of opinion". Otherwise, it is not the recommendation. It is the "first warning" of the uw-unsourced multi-level warning series that is used to block editors. This is not a valid "first warning". Any "second warning" that uses this instance as justification is also not valid. KinkyLipids (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Coney Barrett

Thanks for your recent helpful edits on this page. I wanted to let you know that I reverted this edit because it appeared to be nearly a direct quote, not directly attributed to the LA Times. See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. I can't read the article because I'm not a subscriber. Could you either rephrase the quote or say something like "As the Los Angeles Times stated …" at the beginning? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Adding an alert for COVID-19. --OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morning!(I presume?)

At your leisure, could you peek at changes I've proposed on Talk:White_House_COVID-19_outbreak and see if you feel any merit inclusion in the article Feoffer (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay off my talk page.

Leave me alone. I have no interest in interacting with anyone who thinks "this is silly" is fine but thinks "you missed the joke" is a personal attack. Please don't post to my talk page and please don't ping me. Feel free to report me to ANI if you think I have violated a Wikipedia policy, but posting such accusations on article talk pages is highly inappropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We were able to achieve consensus before in the October 6-7 section of the talk page of the article for the White House COVID-19 Outbreak. Then suddenly you started posting memes to attack me specifically, in violation of several policies. It was therefore appropriate to extend to you the courtesy of giving you the recommended warning messages to your talk page. You then tried to turn the tables around, arguing that the comment "this is silly" was in reference to you specifically and then you explicitly attacked me again.

Per WP:UP#OWN and WP:NOBAN, you cannot ban someone from your user talk page. If I have good reason to post on your talk page, such as when you violate the WP:PERSONALATTACKS policy again, I will post on your talk page to give you the recommended courtesy of warning you before you get blocked. —KinkyLipids (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are indeed free to request editors to stay off their talk page per WP:NOBAN, and generally this should be respected. We had an ANI case where an editor refused to stay off an editor's user talk and got partial blocked. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I’ve generally respected his request. He has so far not been as disruptive as before, so there has been no need to give him further warnings. Thanks. —KinkyLipids (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at ANI sought

A complaint against me has be filed for being incivi to Guy. After he called me stupid, said I didn't deserve to edit here, and told my edits suck. In response, I cited the essay Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. That citation is now being used to suggest I'm too incivil to edit wikipedia.

I'm proud of my editing here. I've kept a focus on constructive edits, have tried hard no to restore any changes that were supported by more than one individual, and have tried hard to exhibit civility. I don't know that other have shown me the same courtesy. Anything insights you could provide to ANI would be most welcome. Feoffer (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Feoffer: All essays, including the one being used against you, are subordinate to guidelines, which are themselves subordinate to policies. I try to always cite policy, sometimes word-for-word. Whether or not other editors stonewall and become unresponsive is another issue.

I've disagreed with you at times and have reminded you as well about policy, but I appreciate your creation of the White House COVID-19 outbreak article and many of your contributions to it, and I appreciate that you are now trying hard (perhaps too hard) to be civil.

Could you provide links to where Guy Mason (I'm not sure what gender this editor is) called you stupid and said you didn't deserve to edit here? I saw the other comment they made, and they have also personally attacked me multiple times now and deleted my comments on the article talk page, for which I posted my own ANI thread. —KinkyLipids (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy wrote: What part of "Take it to talk" are you having trouble understanding?. This was very hurtful and made me feel I was being labelled stupid. I tried very hard to make only constructive edits and to respect existing objections. I was then told "If you can't grasp a simple concept like "at least one person objects to my edits. I need to go to the talk page and post 'I want to change the lead in the following way' " you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia". This again suggested I'm stupid, but now it added insult to injury: I shouldn't be editing wikipedia. ?!?!?

Is this really Wikipedia's workplace culture??? I've done nothing but offer good work, thousands of edits, free of charge; Now because of a few bad apples I'm being belittled for my efforts here? Feoffer (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Feoffer: I added these policy violations to the ANI discussion on Guy Macon's behavior. They were definitely making personal comments that were uncivil, aggressive, snide, and belittling, which violate many aspects of multiple policies, as I explained on ANI. There is no excuse for it. —KinkyLipids (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Feoffer: I just noticed that you posted about this edit in my ANI thread, but my thread was closed and is no longer being looked at. —KinkyLipids (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White house covid, amid secrecy removed?

The "amid secrecy" text in the headings has been removed -- you might consider restoring "Hicks diagnosed amid secrecy" and "Trump diagnosed amid secrecy", while also restoring the npov-dispute tags. Feoffer (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Feoffer: Honestly I think it's too much effort for too little gain, sorry. And I have more of a problem with the neutrality tags than I do with the absence of secrecy being noted in the headings. I've explained why there's no actual WP:DUE issue with noting the secrecy in the headings, but other editors have stonewalled the discussion, and outside editors are likely to WP:DRIVEBYTAG. Maybe TheMusicExperimental would be more interested. —KinkyLipids (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NFT history wildly wrong, please help

Hi Jade. I see that you've made some edits to the "NFT" article and would like to provide a new reliable source article for an important part of the history. Now that the article is protected, I was hoping you could help with these edits.

First, "colored coins" are fungible. Each "card" in the early trading card games has many copies and they are all the same. Thus they are NOT "non-fungible" tokens. Counterparty did, indeed, enable single-unit, non-divisible tokens which could be considered NFTs, but without metadata explicitly stating an asset claim. Here is one example: OLGA, minted 7 years ago (2014-06-12T18:26:11Z GMT) which the creator says was a gift to his girlfriend, Olga. Again, the Counterparty-based trading cards were minted with hundreds of units each.

Second, the line about Anil Dash should mention Namecoin as the underlying blockchain. Counterparty did not allow for metadata explicitly stating an asset claim. Namecoin does. What makes Anil Dash's NFT special is the claim to a specific artwork is embedded in the chain itself and tradeable as a "pointer" NFT. In this sense, it is no different than the beeple NFT or other such modern NFTs.

Third, the first pixel/artwork-on-chain (i.e. non-pointer) NFT project ever was Etheria which is referenced at the end of this Techcrunch article about Cryptopunks. It was launched in 2015, less than 3 months after Ethereum itself, presented at Ethereum's first developer conference, and was interacted with by the small Ethereum community at the time. Cryptopunks keep claiming they were the "first NFT" but the Techcrunch article and the blockchain itself disprove this assertion.

Etheria v1.0 contains the first on-chain artworks ever and the first blockchain UGC. Etheria (v1.1+) is notable for being exchange-tradeable before NFT exchanges even existed. No RS for these claims yet, though the blockchain history is raw, uncut truth and all of this can be verified on Etherscan.

Anyway, thank you for your attention to this hot topic.

Mineral (nutrient)

I restored lithium to the table, with new text, and replaced the flawed ref with two refs I believe support inclusion in the table. David notMD (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello-In reviewing articles

I moved your article Jennifer Plumb to Draft:Jennifer Plumb. The person does not yet pass WP:NPOL, and this will give you time to develop a biography. Bruxton (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of CollegeSource

The article CollegeSource has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has been tagged for months without improvement. Searches turned up some mentions, but not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Jennifer Plumb

Hello, Jade Ten. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jennifer Plumb, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Jennifer Plumb

Hello, Jade Ten. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jennifer Plumb".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Your addition to List of largest empires has been removed or altered, as it appears to closely paraphrase a copyrighted source. Limited close paraphrasing or quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases which are not attributed to their source may constitute copyright violation or plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Such content cannot be hosted here for legal reasons; please do not post it on any page, even if you plan to fix it later. You may use external websites or printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. TompaDompa (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Your edit to Counterman v. Colorado has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of May 2010 Northern Sumatra earthquake for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article May 2010 Northern Sumatra earthquake 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2010 Northern Sumatra earthquake (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Dawnseeker2000 01:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]