User talk:Wwallacee

Welcome!

Hello, Wwallacee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

TheRingess 06:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prodding

Hey Wwallacee: just a note, prodding and AfD'ing are two different procedures. When you prod an article, you don't need to add it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -SpuriousQ 00:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spina Bifida

Thanks for the cleanup and contribution to Spina Bifida its been needing an overhaul for a while. -- Stbalbach 16:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benzodiazepine

I've reverted your edit to Benzodiazepine since it quoted too much copyright material. In addition, benzo.co.uk does not count as a reliable source. I see that you also added your own text, which appeared to be better sourced. You can retrieve that text from the history of the article. Please can you have another go at improving the history of benzos.

Wrt to the history section in other benzo pages, I think there is a lot of merit in keeping a short drug-specific history in each page. It doesn't really matter if this repeats stuff on the main benzo page. You can use

at the top of the history section to indicate where the fuller story is. Regards, Colin°^Talk 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charcot-Bouchard aneurysm

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Charcot-Bouchard aneurysm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Charcot-Bouchard aneurysm with a link to where we can find that note;
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Charcot-Bouchard aneurysm with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Charcot-Bouchard aneurysm saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Huma Abedin, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Channel ® 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual intercourse

While I am not hugely against your changes, I am against some of them, and big changes like that should be discussed on the article's talk page first before acted upon. The lead was carefully written by myself and Tallard due to wanting it to flow well, as well as wanting it to be neutral and as honest as it can be about some things (such as the history of sexual intercourse and its common/original definition followed by how the definition has expanded). I do not mind your first tweaks to the lead...and left those in. But your second change to the lead and other parts of the article is what I feel needs discussion, such as adding a third image to the lead.

The other changes? Well, I also take issue with your dividing up the Health benefits section into all these small or tiny subsections. I do not feel that such division is needed. If this article were edited often, especially by experienced editors adding in well-sourced material, I would be more positive about it, since I would feel that it would be filled in soon enough (as opposed to remaining in small or tiny subsections for a very long time).

I will take this to the Sexual intercourse talk page where I welcome you to weigh in about changes you would like to this article.Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on the talk page, I did not notice you added reputable scientific sources into the article; I apologize for reverting that. For everything else I recently stated, check the talk page (of course). Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While sources are always welcome, do note it is rarely necessary or wise to add the entire abstract. If you feel the study needs clarification, you should word it yourself and it should usually be brief. Also it's rarely necessary to describe what else the author of the study has done Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Shilav Group

A tag has been placed on Shilav Group, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Xtzou (Talk) 18:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of First Aid Kit (band)

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Reconsider ! 13:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Spero News

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Codf1977 (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that I didn't delete the article because of any bias toward or against the subject of the article: I'm only biassed in favor of deletion of articles that pass our speedy deletion criteria. I'm happy to see articles on Catholic subjects; in the last few months, I've written ten different articles about Catholic churches that I've gotten highlighted on the Main Page, and I'm currently trying to get two more up there. As for the article — it didn't explain why Spero News was important enough to have an encyclopedia article. I'll be happy to restore a copy if you'd like to work on it more; read the "userfy" link in the comment above to see how this works. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My only reason for bringing up the Catholic churches was to answer your charge of an anti-Catholic COI; I didn't mean to make it sound as if I was explaining everything that way. However, the article itself is simply too stubby: there's no demonstration that it's an important subject. I believe you when you say that it is — consequently, I've restored it and moved it to User:Wwallacee/Spero News — however, please don't move it back into mainspace until you've demonstrated its importance (and if possible) its notability. Sorry for the simplistic comment above about userfying; I didn't realise that you'd been around for quite a while, and I thought that you were a newbie. Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, the sources that you've added are mostly blogs, which we don't generally consider reliable sources. Unreliable sources and self-published sources aren't useful for proving notability, and you've not yet added any sources to the article that aren't either blogs or published by Spero News itself. By the way, simply being used as a reference lots of times doesn't guarantee notability, since we need coverage about the news source rather than coverage by it for notability reasons. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nyttend, not much more to add - does not meet WP:GNG and would not expect it to make it through a WP:AFD. Codf1977 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not think it is notable, the fact that is ref'ed in other WP articles may be a valid point, however, your claim that it is used in "The New York Times and other news outlets" needs to be sourced and you need to remove a peacock term. I have tagged the user page to help (normally I would just fix the Peacock term but as this is in your user space it's up to you.) - if you wish to revert my edit that is up to you, however as it stands I think the page would be quickly nominated for deletion again.

Point of order : please read No personal attacks - I consider being accused of censoring anything to be very close to that.Codf1977 (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel so strongly, then fix the two issues above and then ask the deleting admin (Nyttend) if he is happy for it to be be moved back (see comment above) - I still don't think it is a notable subject, however I will cut it some slack and won't nominate it for Speedy delete, however if after a week I still feel it does not meet the WP:GNG, then I will nominate it under WP:AfD. Codf1977 (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wwallacee. You have new messages at Codf1977's talk page.
Message added 09:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Codf1977 (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wwallacee. You have new messages at Codf1977's talk page.
Message added 13:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Codf1977 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heidegger and Nazism

Hi,

would you be ready to translate into english this text you quoted on the talkpage of Heidegger and nazism? your comment sounds interesting. I know it's tough, but it would be so usefull ! http://parolesdesjours.free.fr/mecanique.pdf

regards Fil Filinthe (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Caucasian race 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:

people on earth. The name "Caucasian" derived from the [[South Caucasus|Southern Caucasus]] region (or what is now the country of [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]], because he considered the people of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of George Ryley Scott

The article George Ryley Scott has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 14:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref

Need further details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bible, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican. 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) 08:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Israel Visie for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Israel Visie 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/Israel Visie 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. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ancient trade routes

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Ancient trade routes, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It covers a topic on which we already have an article - Trade route. (See section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Trade route, or to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GILO A&E⇑ 13:40, 10 October 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) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Sheehy-Skeffington

Dear Wwallacee,

I`m not sure if you added to the Sheehy Skeffington entry that Bowen-Colthurst`s obit did not mention the Easter Rising. If it was you, I don`t think that the Irish Times article by Dara Redmond was the source. I think it may have been A Terrible Duty by Bryan Bacon. Thanks. CanK9 (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wwallacee,

In the article on Francis S. S., there is a sentence describing the Simon Royal Commission as the 'principal source of facts about the events leading to the death of Sheehy Skeffington.' I thought this might be a little misleading because of some shortcomings with the Commission, so I added two caveats to the sentence on the Commission's report. I wrote that the formal terms of reference of the Commission severely restricted its scope and that much of the evidence of the Commission's formal hearings, though fully reported in the Irish Times and the Irish Independent, was omitted from the Commission's report.

A few days later, a contributor named 'Apollo the Logician' deleted my cautionary notes, unfortunately without giving any reason. I sent a more detailed explanation of my concerns about the Commission's report to Apollo the Logician's 'Talk' page. I said that the Commission limited itself solely to matters directly concerned with the deaths of Skeffington, Dickson and MacIntyre and only for the period between the arrest of Skeffington and the raids on his house. I also pointed out that, more critically, the Commission did not allow any evidence on Colthurst's mental state at the time of the murders. As an example of the fuller, more accurate reporting by the newspapers, I mentioned Simon's disallowing Healy's attempt to read Colthurst's April 26 report on the shooting of O'Carroll. Finally, I asked 'Apollo' if he would give reasons for his deletion.

In response, 'Apollo' eliminated all the entries on his 'Talk' page including my comments and query.

I thought you might be interested in this matter because you appear to be the author of the original sentence on the Simon Commission. (As far as I can tell, the sentence first crops up in the extensive revision of the Sheehy Skeffington article you undertook in March 2016.)

So, may I ask how do you feel about the caveats I added on May 13? Should they be reinstated or are you comfortable with your original statement?

I look forward to hearing your views. Thanks.CanK9 (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CanK, what you describe sounds like behavior typical of a certain highly political but loutish element in the Irish Wikipedia editing force. I well remember such behavior from the controversies surrounding Scolaire. My guess is that Apollo the Logician is trying to carry out a headstrong but incredibly subtle political edit for which the motivation eludes me. I will look into this further. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, CanK, I've looked at Apollo the Logician's contributions and they back up what I just said. Most of his edits have to do with controversial Irish topics, related to the IRA; and on his talk page, prior to the recent blanking, is the mention: <<Its mostly your edit warring to the limit that I dislike, to add worthless pov minor detail - so unworthy of a wp:npov contributor. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)>>. I'm going to go ahead and put your sentence back in again. - Wwallacee (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Wwallacee, there never was any "controversy surrounding Scolaire", apart from your rush of blood to the head when I made a couple of innocuous edits to two of "your" articles (which I never touched again, by the way). In the two lengthy ANI threads that followed your meltdown, every one of the responses from neutral editors said that my editing was and always had been unproblematic. Labelling me along with Apollo The Logician as a "highly political but loutish element" is a personal attack. Please withdraw it and please do not mention my name again, anywhere, ever. Scolaire (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Knickerbockers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ANI. You are going off the deep end, you need to sit back and consider very carefully to comments of uninvolved onlookers, including admins. You have made numerous accusations of bad faith, plastered these across multiple article talk pages, failed to back them up with diffs, and, in general, you have entirely failed to abide by the law of holes. If you wish to persist in your case against Scolaire after your block expires, then do so with diffs and a calm, neutral explanation of why the edits are problematic. Or, much better, simply drop it. Content disputes should be settled by discussion on talk pages, not by throwing accusations around. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requested

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wwallacee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see comment below

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblock provided. Scolaire's evaluation below is correct. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was involved in a controversy posted on the Administrators' noticeboard. I was asked by administrators to provide evidence of my contention that user Scolaire had been making disruptive edits. I supplied such evidence, including evidence of accusations of disruptive editing made by other users against Scolaire. However, with no administrators yet having commented on my evidence, I was blocked by user JzG, who also immediately closed the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion. JzG says he blocked my own account due to disruptive editing, but I contest this. The edit in question, was a post to another editor's Talk page in order to solicit corroborating evidence for my contention about user Scolaire. I had been requested by several administators to supply such evidence. I believe that my account should be unblocked and more importantly that the relevant Administator's noticeboard discussion should be unblocked so as to allow open discussion of what has happened. I request that administrators other than JzG review this case. - Wwallacee (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. User JzG signs his name "Guy", but this signature links to a Talk page for a user JzG; however there appears to be no user JzG as such - when I attempt to access that user page I find the message: "This page has been deleted", etc. But there is nonetheless a Talk page for user JzG, which can be found here. -Wwallacee (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact you were asked for diffs but did not provide them, you provided links to articles in which independent admins (including me) saw no evidence of any problem with Scolaire's edits. It looks very much as if you still don't get it - for several values of it, since it is not that hard to work out what's going on with my user and talk pages, my sig links to my talk page after all. I recommend you read WP:NOTTHEM. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, but you still don't know what's going on. The links you posted here were not "evidence of accusations of disruptive editing made by other users against me", they linked to robust talk page discussions of the kind you should have engaged in instead of calling me an "a-hole" and throwing out accusations of "personal censorship" and "political bias". The diff to Partition of Ireland was of the kind that Guy described as "the important and necessary job of rolling back" unsourced POV content added by anonymous editors, except in this case the anonymous editor was the sockpuppet of a notorious banned editor. The good people at ANI rightly ignored this "evidence". The fact is you have no case against me. Several people at ANI looked at my edits when you first asked them to and confirmed that they were all good edits. You haven't explained what form this "disruptive editing" takes: it was explained to you right at the start that removal of content is a perfectly valid edit. You haven't ever attempted to articulate what my "political bias" is, presumably because after trawling through months of my edits you have failed to find any pattern suggestive of bias. There is no justification whatever for continuing "to solicit corroborating evidence for your contention about me". It constitutes harassment. It is very upsetting to me and disruptive to the project. If you don't say now that you are going to call off this destructive campaign, I will have to ask the admins to extend your block, because I don't feel safe editing Wikipedia with this hanging over me. Scolaire (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my request that administrators other than JzG (aka Guy) review this case. User Scolaire is not an administrator. Before I can reply to the above comments, the Administrators' noticeboard discussion will need to be reopened. That is where the above comments belong, and where they can be properly contextualized and replied to. Scolaire's overemotional claim to "feeling unsafe" should not be allowed to shut down a valid complaint against him. -Wwallacee (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no complaint against me. There was a complaint against you at ANI. It was upheld. You were blocked (not on foot of the original complaint but because you failed to stop when you were advised to) and the thread was closed. It's not going to be reopened so as to let you resume your harassment of me. There will be an admin along in due course to review your unblock request, and he or she will see that you have learned nothing from this experience and that you intend to continue your disruption. Scolaire (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't review the case, I merely commented in response to your request. Admins don't review their own blocks. You keep making these schoolboy errors, are you this careless with content? Guy (Help!) 14:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only people being schoolboyish right now are the two of you. Scolaire, your inability to handle criticism, and your combative shutting down of critics, both myself and others, is neither democratic nor in the best interest of Wikipedia. And JzG, shame on you for your lack of impartiality as an administrator. -Wwallacee (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing egregious personalisation of a dispute spammed across multiple pages is not shutting down critics, it's controlling abuse. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's a cluocracy. I advise you to urgently invest time in acquiring one. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I have often disagreed with Scolaire on many topics for years on Wikipedia I have to say I find Wwallacee's claims to be baffling and not characteristic of Scolaire. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To anybody reading this after April 2016

After the block on my User account expired, I opened an incident report against Scolaire on the Administrator's Noticeboard, in which I provided extensive examples of Scolaire's disruptive and coercive behavior. The archive for that report can be found here or here. -- Wwallacee (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Wwallacee, Thank you for your thoughtful and conscientious editing of articles on Irish history.CanK9 (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Error in date

My apologies. I made a mistake in a March 31 Talk entry on Francis Sheehy Skeffington.

The 1965 Penticton Herald obituary of Bowen-Colthurst says he had lived in Naramata for 17 years so he would have presumably moved from Sooke to Naramata in 1948, not 1942. So you may want to amend Reference #36 in the article accordingly.CanK9 (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thank you. - Wwallacee (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bowen-Colthurst

I have just finished James Taylor's book Guilty but Insane-J C Bowen-Colthurst- Villain or Victim. It has a wealth of detail and I think it is very even-handed. Essential reading for anyone interested in Colthurst and his times. A really fine work.CanK9 (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recommendation CanK. - Wwallacee (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Publication

added links pointing to Booklet, Tract, Flyer and Leaflet

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

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. 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) 02:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

In case you missed it, I posted here asking you to withdraw your personal attacks on me, and not to talk about me in future. Scolaire (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding repeated personal attacks. The thread is Wwallacee continuing unprovoked personal attacks. --Scolaire (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Wwallacee, I warned you yesterday to drop the stick about your accusations against User:Scolaire. You didn't, but repeated the same – completely baseless – accuasations against him several times more. I told you you'd be blocked if you continued, so now you are blocked. One week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wwallacee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In his post to AN/I, the blocking administrator, Future Perfect at Sunrise, gave as his reason the following: "I gave Wwallacee a final warning to drop the stick yesterday [1], but he instead chose to repeat the same accusations [2][3]." Moreover, in his note to me on this page explaining the block, Future Perfect characterized my accusations as "completely baseless". I appeal to other administrators to review the above account, and therefore the block. The "accusations" I am blocked for are found in replies I made on ANI to queries by other editors, who asked for evidence of my complaint against user Scolaire. In my replies, I gave supporting evidence and reiterated my arguments. My accusations were not completely baseless, and in fact (as my evidence shows) Scolaire has a long past history of harassing other editors. I believe that Scolaire's attempt to have me shut down over a trifle, was an example of this pattern of behavior. Scolaire's act against me made me feel threatened, and I felt it was grounds for a complaint against him for harassment, which I duly made. To back up my complaint I provided supporting evidence from Scolaire's past history with other users. I don't see how this can be considered objectionable. ANI exists to field complaints, and an accusation against another editor, especially when backed up by evidence, should not be construed as a "personal attack", whereas this is what Future Perfect seems to be blocking me for. Moreover, in his "final warning to drop the stick", Future Perfect wrote: "I have seen no sign at all that Scolaire did anything wrong here, but quite a few signs that you, Wwallacee, did things wrong. You provoked this whole mess, for no tangible reason whatsoever." This statement shows that Future Perfect misunderstood the history of the incident, because the "mess" was not provoked by me but by user Scolaire. Scolaire initiated a complaint on ANI where he asked for me to be indefinitely blocked, over a comment I made on my own talk page, addressed to another editor, and where Scolaire's name was mentioned only indirectly - as a way of recalling a whole complex of past events. As user Power~enwiki rightly commented on ANI, "This complaint [by Scolaire] appears to be resulting from an edit by User:Wwallacee on his own talk page. I think User:Scolaire probably needs tougher skin. [...] This has already been on ANI according to the complaint, and the only new edits discussed are on WWallacee's talk page."

Decline reason:

The block is sound, and you seriously need to drop this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A page you started (Henry Church) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Henry Church, Wwallacee!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've made several changes to the article you wrote.

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Wwallacee. 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]

September 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Narragansett people. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Wwallacee. 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]

Proposed deletion of Harold Mars

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

No evidence, or claim, of notability. Sourced by a newspaper article which can't be verified ("harold+mars"+site%3Aprovidencejournal.com) and by his son's obituary.

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. Cabayi (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Harold Mars for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harold Mars 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/Harold Mars 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. Cabayi (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

Doug Weller talk 14:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covid-19 community sanctions

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 14:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Primidone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congener.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anemoi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:48, 2 November 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) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poolbeg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liffey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Dear Wwallacee, I'd like to greatly amplify the section on the death of Richard O'Carroll, which I think you wrote. The rewrite would replace what you wrote. Is this ok with you? CanK9 (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Dear Wwallacee, Haven't heard back from you yet but I would like to proceed. I'm hoping that my contribution will be along the lines you were anticipating when you wrote the original material. Thanks for that contribution which people can build on.CanK9 (talk) 05:19, 24 February 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) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheehy Skeffington article

Dear Wwallacee, Regarding your recent change from 'properly' to 'accurately', I had chosen 'properly' because I thought that the varying reasons Richard Ellmann's had given for Sheehy Skeffington's murder were completely wrong. Not a big deal and thanks for your overall contributions. CanK9 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (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) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]