Hello, Malerooster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Can you please expand on the "see talk" edit summary for your removal of my edit, which cited Scientific American, Inside Higher Ed, The Scientist and The Chicago Maroon as sources (the linked article themselves contain a dozen or so more secondary references)? You can reply here, to keep the conversation in one place. 24.12.201.87 (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It means see talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Frank_L._VanderSloot, where all discussion should take place.

The questions are:

1. Based on the claim of Synthesis, should the original version or the revised version of the LGBT Section be used in the article from henceforth—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
2. Because the original "LGBT issues" Section adversely comments on a Living Person, should that section be immediately replaced with the revised section—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
3. Should the Sources identified as faulty or not germane be eliminated from the list of References?
   GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malerooster. You have new messages at Template talk:ACE2012.
Message added 17:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Monty₈₄₅ 17:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not remove publicly available information about minors if it is properly sourced, as you did in Fred Savage. Wikipedia is not censored. Cresix (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cresix, I reverted you and commented on the article talk page. Hopefully others will chime in and we can see if any consensus forms. Unless the minors are notable in their own right, why add their exact dob, how does that improve the article? I believe, but could be wrong, that this is the de facto standard as it were for handling dobs of non notable individuals, and especially minors. I would be open to getting further clarification since I have removed the dobs of many minors and would stop if the consensus was against this. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also posted to the BLP board and would cite WP:IINFO. --Malerooster (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	On Stanley Salmons. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said regarding SchuminWeb. We rarely see our own hand in mixing the stew. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human nature, and its always alot easier commenting from the cheap seats and monday morning QBing as well :) --Malerooster (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I today was invited to Daniel Catullo's office and after meeting him I was allowed to take some photos that I am posting for his Wiki page. I was already in his area and it was no more then ten minutes but I did get photos of the awards in his mane in regard to the titles that you have tried to delete. Can you at least allow me time to get this posted, I do have a normal life...--WPPilot 05:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok, hopefully if you include reliable sources for all additions, that would really help. Can you also please link your signature to your talk or user page? At one point you mentioned that you were Daniel. Was that just a mistake? --Malerooster (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photo that is now the MAIN photo of Dan is a photo that I took today of him pointing at the award he won Jammy Award for Dave Matthews –“The Central Park Concert” –(2003-Live Music Special/DVD) (Producer) - "Music DVD of the Year" Billboard Music Awards nomination. Won a Jammy Award for “DVD of the Year”Jammy’s- 2004 Winners and a Telly Award. Is that not source enough for you yet?--WPPilot 06:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you PLEASE put it back, this is really getting silly. Dan is now a member of Wikipedia, and he is a really nice person. As I said I was able to meet him today. I suggest that you first ASK him, on HIS talk page, rather then just delete the ref as I post pictures of him pointing to the award for the ref that you are removing. Does not seem to productive to me and you are only making more work.--WPPilot 06:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(E/C)A photo? No, that would NOT be a reliable source for that material. I am seriously not trying to bust balls, but the project TRIES for higher standards. There is alot of crap out there, I know, but maybe read WP:RS and see if you could find something better? --Malerooster (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WPPilot, thats great that Dan has joined the project and that he is a really nice person, I don't doubt that. This is more about that ALL material in articles, especially bios, is properly sourced, thats all. --Malerooster (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? A picture of him standing with the award that you claim he dio not win in the office of the company that you also removed from the page, (DC3). What is wrong with you? Why on EARTH would you go ahead and remove DC 3, from the page? Clearly you are on a mission to remove data from his page, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU REMOVE DC 3? Are you claiming now that he does not own DC3? I will post your summary removals to Dans talk page and ask him to provide some clearification, as it is I saw with my own eyes the awards for the entries that you are so determined to remove from his page.--WPPilot 12:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Oi, let's calm down. Though Malerooster actually as a point with something. The award you photographed (GWR) has a different number of cameras used on it then the record says on the website. He does have a point, and now we have two 'reliable sources' competing with one another. Seriously, they should be the same, but they aren't and your own picture is proof of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate assistance. As I understand it BLP doesnt mean one can't write negative things as long as there are reliable sources. There are multiple reliable sources being scrubbed due to Holocaust denial. I can call myself the pope it doesnt make me the pope. Help. Moshe Friedman. Tellyuer1 (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha. Khazar2 recently questioned your edit on the GA review page, and I was wondering you could take a minute to respond. At the moment, his question is located at the very bottom of the page, here. Thanks for your attention. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just did, thank you for the heads up. --Malerooster (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. My edit may not be notable, but shouldn't there at least be a section titled "Views"? Proud Novice (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not since that is what this guys does, give his view. If this becomes some huge deal, it maybe could be added to his show article which he has or did have. If you feel strongly, you can also comment of the article talk page and see what others think. I am just one bird lover :) Good luck! --Malerooster (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know if you will remember but way back in December you were involved in an issue with the Stephen Leather article. The same matter seems to be being raised again by Jprw who tried to have the blog reference included at that time. I really don't know an awful lot about BLP issues or policy so feel I'm a little out of my depth with this. Should it really be possible that the same editors can just keep chipping away at the same issues every few weeks? Should this be brought up (again) at the BLP noticeboard? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I vaugely remember this. Yes, if you feel a biography is being edited against policy and could be harmful to the subject, report it to the BLP board. That is probably how I went there in the first place. A number of good editors watch and work on those articles. The project is far from a perfect science and a human touch is involved so results vary widely. Use the talk page and good luck. I'll try to stop by and chime in as well. --Malerooster (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malerooster, I'm not sure if I have to post a notice about this on your page as well or not (or even if I've done the right thing raising the matter at ANI) but: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The article is Stephen Leather. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you did this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_American&diff=538664285&oldid=538663337

Thank you.

Evildoer187 (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed in the talk page of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Malerooster (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malerooster. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Book of Leviticus.The discussion is about the topic Book of Leviticus. Thank you. - MrX 02:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Malerooster, I like the edits you've been making! To reflect them, if you felt like getting involved in discussion as to why this page should stay, that would be great - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barry_Pring

I feel the case is notable of inclusion as it is a famous true-crime story, which has gone on for 5 years, is still going on, and has impact across wide media and prominent figures.

Best, User:GrahamWPhillips GrahamWPhillips (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for this. You're absolutely right. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 01:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Malerooster (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a warning, only notifying you for the log. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- v/r - TP 01:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up since I wasn't aware of this. --Malerooster (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Malerooster, thank you for a welcome. I like birds too:-) and birds like my garden:-) I even take care of a small group of house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Already for years. Unfortunately their amount is decreasing each year, despite my efforts to help them to survive early spring and winter. I do not know where they sleep, but they spend daytime in my garden searching for food, cleaning their feathers, singing, looking around and just having a rest. I must disappoint you, but I won't edit here - I have already hands full of work on other Wikipedia and as you have already noticed, my English is not good enough to contribute here. I hope you will enjoy a piece of pie. If not chickens (also birds:-) and their eggs it wouldn't be possible to make delicious pastries. Chickens are also friendly and cute animals. I loved to feed them as a child. It always astonish me how protective the roosters are for hens, and how devoted mothers hens are for their young chickens. Greetings. Seleucidis (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Who doesn't love pie? :) --Malerooster (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your opinion on Talk:Halle Berry. I see this image better for the infobox and would like to reach a consensus, since another editor contends that this very bad image is better. Helliea (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --Malerooster (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Décolletage , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malerooster. You have new messages at Talk:Gran Omar.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— DivaKnockouts 17:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On it. --Malerooster (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, anyway? Oh, and by the way, nobody likes you, XDDDD! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoymeyahMonlin (talk • contribs) 13:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malerooster. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Evan Mandery.The discussion is about the topic Evan Mandery. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk: Jimbo Wales. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Stating that another editor is "lying" is a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said, Can't Prioryman please be blocked or banned already? How long does the community need to put up with his bull sh$t and personal attacks? Enough is enough already.[[1]]. I never said anything about "lying", but I should tone it down, and will do so. --Malerooster (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apology. The refactoring of the talk page was too confused, and it appeared that you had made the accusation. It was User:Prioryman who had made the accusation of lying. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Malerooster (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malerooster, I see you recently made some edits to the Howard Lederer article and wondered if you'd be interested in looking at revised draft of the article I've prepared? I'm looking for editors to review it for me as I have a conflict of interest (explained on the article's Talk). My aim with the draft is to bring the article up-to-date and address the few issues around Full Tilt. If you have the time to review the new draft and let me know what you think, please take a look at the draft in my user space and the full request on the Talk page where I've detailed the changes I've made. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll check it out. To be honest, my writing skills aren't that good, so I stick more to MOS and small edits ect. The most important thing is that you use reliable sources for whatever material is involved and it is written in a neutral tone. Easy said than done of course, especially if there is any controversy involved and people are taking "sides". I believe I ended up on his page after coming from the BLP board which I like to monitor and help out with. Regards, --Malerooster (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At quick glance, your draft looks pretty good. I removed the category Jewish American Writer from his Dad's article since that really isn't covered or sourced. I would remove the Jewish descent category from Howard's bio unless that can be sourced as well. Again, I am not familiar with the subject or what went down with Full tilt poker, ect. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking out the draft! I've followed your suggestion and removed the category "Americans of Jewish descent": I wasn't sure about removing that before, but if you think it's not appropriate to include without a clear source I'm happy to take it out. Also, thanks for leaving a note over on the Talk page, I appreciate your help but totally understand if you're more comfortable with having others look at the draft, too. Hopefully some more editors will come by soon. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and yes, hopefully more people will comment, since that will help improve the article. --Malerooster (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering why you removed the home towns of Tim Urban, Katie Stevens, and Aaron Kelly from lead sections of their articles. This information is certainly relevant enough to be mentioned there, so I can't tell what you based your decision on. --Jpcase (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It shouldn't go in the lead sentence/opening paragraph because where they are from is not really that notable or relevant, unless it is of course :). Maybe further into the bio unless where they are from is the reason for there notability. This is pretty "standard" per WP:MOSBIO, specifically WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. I hope this helps and of course I am open to others opinion on this. --Malerooster (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. That seems reasonable. --Jpcase (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Malerooster (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for removing the tags for transclusion from the KTVU article... Will be greatly helpful and should consensus be reached to transcode the info will have to be re-typed... Why didn't you just wait for the dust to settle before your quick removal? Again, thanks for undoing work previously completed. Signed, not-not-a-big-fan-of-rework.TRL (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creepys, sorry, I will try to fix it, but could you just do it? Forget it, i'll do it since you seem put out. --Malerooster (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I give up, can you pretty please fix my horrible mistake and slap me with a large trout??? Thanks!! --Malerooster (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for fixing... No issue... Sorry I responded a bit rough... Just don't understand the censorship that is occurring on the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 article. Was hoping that folks would decide to include. Another editor just tried to source the info straight into the article, and I think it is better in the entire context. Sorry.TRL (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was struggling with the code so I nuked it all which was not the correct path. I wouldn't call it censorship, its more the old inclusionist vs deletionist crowd. Just because something has a citation, doesn't mean it has to be included, not saying that it might be worthy of inclusion, but hate the aurgument, its sourced so it should be included, that's all. --Malerooster (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Malerooster, When you put the code back in you left out two closing curly-braces and it made the code show up on the page. I'm not a coder but I plugged away and figured it out. Now, at least, the code is behind the curtain. Cheers. Checkingfax (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sort of like the Wizard of Oz :), thanks, you saved me from a large trout slapping, carry on! --Malerooster (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been working on the State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman article and I noticed that you dropped a tag on the external links section. Would it be possible for you to drop by the talk page and give us a rough idea of your concerns with this section, so we can take a look at it and address those concerns. I'd appreciate your input on this matter, so we can improve that section accordingly. Thanks in advance for your consideration concerning this matter.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

will do. --Malerooster (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a sentence from the page of Helen Thomas. The sentence was from a source that was used just 2 sentences ahead of that one. Next time, please use a citation needed tag or mention it in the Talk Page unless it is something contentious. It takes much more time to add it back in and also add another reference which is really not needed if the source is already provided earlier and it's non-contentious. If the Wikipedia guidelines say differently, feel free to let me know, but that's always been my understanding. - Maximusveritas (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do both, but yes, I could have tagged that one. It still reads a little awkwardly I think. Did she find a nun to help her or was it her actual sister, or was it her husbands sister? Removing unsourced material, even if it is not contentious is not against policy, but I will heed your advice. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: No, I didn't specifically intend to add the place of birth back, I was just trying to revert the WP:BLP violation, but neither did I realize havinig a place of birth in the lead was against some MOS section. Can you please point to the section specifically? --GRuban (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRuban, no problem, and sorry if I was gruff in my edit summary, I didn't get enough sleep :). I would refer to WP:OPENPARA. Usually we just list dob (and death) after the entries name. Hope this helps, cheers. --Malerooster (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. At User talk:Jimbo Wales you wrote I ... have to admit that I find math related articles absolutely, err, what word I am I looking for, confusing?? ... I find articles that are "controlled" by so called "experts" in their fields to be very hard to grasp and understand because they are so over the top technical. Perhaps you would like to expand on that, possibly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics? Spectral sequence (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spectral sequence. Possibly. Again, I LOVE this project, and I am in academia. A lot of folks in academia look down their noses at Wikipedia, but I think that hopefully that is changing, as well it should. Maybe I was being too harsh, but something like the distance formula, which should be d=square root of (delta x² + delta y²) seems to get really really complicated. I feel like I'm a pretty smart guy until I read one of the math articles, and my head explodes :). I'll post something similar over there, but maybe its just this ol bird :) Cheers! --Malerooster (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malerooster. I've just reviewed one of your edits at Jimmy Fallon, and it occurred to me that it might be a good idea to give you reviewer rights so that you can do that yourself next time. Would you be interested in that? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, sure, if you think that is a good idea and would help out the project, that would be fine with me. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for agreeing to help out. Could you confirm that you have read and understood the points listed at Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming a reviewer? After you've done that I'll flip the switch for you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it, and it looks good. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you are now a reviewer. Let me know if you have any questions about using your new abilities. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just tried it. I will have to study up a bit more and practice of course :). Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a wiki world that is fair and NPOV. I knows its July, but I just made my xmas wish :). Good luck all. Funny, but not funny enough for a humor barnstar, so have a humor 'food' instead. Have a good one. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 10:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malerooster. You have new messages at Ramaksoud2000's talk page.
Message added 22:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you check the reference that's being cited for his residence in Sedona, it's in Out (a gay magazine) and specifically names the guy he was in a relationship with at the time. The partner named in the article was the same name you removed from the infobox today, and his name used to be in the body text as well but appears to have been removed from there in 2012 sometime. That said, I don't know whether the name was removed by a vandal with homophobic motivations or by someone with private knowledge that Scarpelli and Belanger broke up sometime after the article was published in 2006, so I wouldn't readd Belanger's name now without a new source — but the existing one is still sufficient for describing and categorizing Scarpelli as being gay. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also just to clarify what happened last night in case there's any confusion, an existing category for Category:LGBT entertainers from the United States was deleted yesterday because it had originally been created by a banned user, but the deleting editor just stripped the old category instead of replacing it with the Category:LGBT people from the United States parent as they should have done, so what I did last night was to go back over their contribution history to readd the more general category to the articles in question.

I can't absolutely guarantee that every article that was in the "entertainers" category actually contained sufficient sourcing to support the category, because I was working with an automated tool with which I was only able to assess whether or not an article had been in Category:LGBT entertainers from the United States and not necessarily whether the category should have been there or not. So it's certainly possible that there may have been a few articles that weren't properly sourced enough that they ever should have been in LGBT categories in the first place — but it wasn't a new category in any case, but merely a functional restoration of categories that the article had already been in.

Accordingly, while I'd certainly be happy to assist if you come across any other cases where the category is problematic, any issues would need to be tracked back to whoever originally added LGBT-related categories in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I usually look in the body of the article to see if mention of sexuality is made. If it isn't, I would remove the category. If in this case, its in the "notes" and its reliable sourced, that's fine. Thank you for above explaination and yes, if I see other questionable categorization, I would appreciate your imput or others since I am very far from perfect. Cheers! --Malerooster (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. That is actually the right approach to take in many cases — especially because there are a few vandals who like to add people like Justin Bieber and Michael Jackson to LGBT people categories as a form of attack editing. When I come across an article that doesn't have satisfactory sourcing of a person's sexuality, though, if it's not obviously vandal-motivated then I do try to put in at least a quick Google search to see if there are sources out there for it before I make the judgement call to remove — but I have removed those categories from articles quite a few times myself, believe me. In a couple of cases, I've even stripped them from people who are gay but still can't be properly sourced as such — see Talk:John Baird (Canadian politician), for example. Also known as "the case that just wouldn't die"; read the archived talk page too if you want.) Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, will do. --Malerooster (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Jones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Woodlawn Cemetery (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) 12:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are mindful of problems finding details and taking out details not relevant:

For example: "minor roles of elected office and alternates", which includes officerships, for example - local community councils in England and membership of student, youth and candidate party groups in the UK in 1988-1990 and Policy committees, alternate to National Council and local branch positions in Ireland are not listed online and past members and committee do not show once replaced ... so removed election on elections and alternates.

We are streaming down from references in his published biographies (LinkedIn, International Who's Who listing and Facebook profile) looking for reference and links while keeping the issues toned to his works in Autism and Disabilities areas.

We have to be able to be fair balanced and independent, and that means cutting things down - and looking up corroborative sources - this means often getting images of past content of historical value through Wikimedia - thy have been hesitant to let through items in their personal photo albums online to which they exclusively have the rights - we can imagine covers of publications he was publisher and editor for.

We know of webpages that montages a selection of his publications and his historical events in Star Trek Fandom, fundraising and autism disability work - problem is to deconstruct the montage on the page or revert to original jpg, png and gif rather then adobe illustrator - we think that thanks to Dropbox we will have access to source code and archive of that website during the week. While he is giving us access to the images he or he and Karen are owners of, wikimedia seem notnt let them through. Damon Matthew Wise — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspieNo1 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ah, ok. Is there a question in there or something I am suppose to respond to? The best way to improve this article, is to find as many reliable sources that make mention of the subject, and then post those links or references on the article's talk page. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kseniya Sobchak 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:

• ''Kseniya Anatolyevna Sobchak''' ({{lang-ru|Ксе́ния Анато́льевна Собча́к}}), born November 5, 1981) is a Russian TV anchor, journalist, socialite, and member of political opposition. Sobchak became

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MR, I see you've several times removed some of the See also links in Chelsea Manning. The point of the list is to give readers a quick overview, at the end of the article, of the material Manning leaked. These are all already linked elsewhere in the article, but for the reader's benefit they're repeated at the end in one list. You've several times removed some of these, but left others, which gives a misleading impression. Can we discuss it here or on the talk page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only tried to remove articles that were already linked in the body of the article. If I missed some or any, it was an oversight not trying to be misleading. No, I don't really want to discuss it here or on the talk page. You have restored it multiple times now and I am not going to remove them or argue for their removal since I don't feel as strongly as you seem to. Regards, --Malerooster (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. As I said, the point is just to give readers a quick overview so that they don't have to search through the article to find the links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Laura Dean does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave an edit summary. --Malerooster (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. However, when deleting most of an article, "clean up" doesn't really give any indication as to why you are doing so. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. --Malerooster (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ... you indicated here that you were moving material out of the lede ... but I think you forgot to move it into the body somewhere. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it into the personal life section, but you might have already seen that. --Malerooster (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malerooster. You have new messages at Talk:Gilberton, Pennsylvania.
Message added 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John from Idegon (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there, thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malerooster. In all the fracas that occured a while ago, I never apologized to you for this edit summary. I wasn't trying to accuse you of vandalism in any way. I should have thought that edit summary out better and I'm sorry if it came across the wrong way. Ishdarian 06:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed. Everybody but the instigator probably had good faith. --Malerooster (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians's 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please come, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Below the topmost template on BLPN is info regarding BLPN. It mentions that the noticeboard is for issues about biographies of living persons. Therefore you cannot have a consenus there since it is only a place to ask for advice. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we differ in our understanding of the BLP board then. I don't see where it says anything about NOT forming consensus, since that would seem to go against what the board was designed to do.--Malerooster (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is also my impression. Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't poke the banned editor on his page, in fact don't post there again. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 13:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It was actually serious advise to this user if he decides to return, which I suspect he will. Sorry if you have a problem with that but to bad. --Malerooster (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you fail to abide by Wikipedia:Banning policy#Conduct towards banned editors you yourself can be blocked. Leave him alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serious advice? That reminds me a bit of MM's "thanks" trolling and his innocent protestations afterwards. I notice you returned to the page after MM had made it clear that he took your post as an attack. It's egregious to bait blocked users who're confined to their own page. I disagree with GWH that you "can" be blocked if you continue. If you post on MilesMoney's page again, anything at all other than some obligatory notification, I will block you. Bishonen | talk 12:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Awesome. Does that make you feel better to threaten me? --Malerooster (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reread your comments and I just read all the comments quickly and lumped you in with NK when I shouldn't have. Please accept my apologies. VViking_TalkEdits 23:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Viewmont Viking. I am sure I've done the same thing more than once here :) --Malerooster (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, redundant one. If it's not too much trouble, could you tell me exactly where the discussion is that you're talking about in your last edit to Jack Chick? Thanks. (Kendrick7 and I both seem to want to know.) --71.178.50.222 (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. See talk:Jack_T._Chick#Hate_or_love_Jack_Chick.2C_he_is_obviously_anti-Catholic. This is the most recent. --Malerooster (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowhen1966

Malerooster, could you please tell me what is unsourced on my article's page? Because I didn't quite see that you've made any changes. Regards!Cowhen1966 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cowhen1966, I copy edit a lot of bios. Which article is "my article" you are talking about? I assume you are the subject of the bio and not the owner? Thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you mean Cecil Jay Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I removed wife and kids name. The names are trivial as well as unsourced. Maybe say "he is married with 4 children" or the like. --Malerooster (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanksCowhen1966 (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!

New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston, Northampton, South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page. Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk)

Hello, I'm Kkj11210. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Schoolmarm without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! KJ ^{click here} 22:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kkj11210, I commented on the article talk page, can we please continue this discussion there? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alyz Henrich may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

• as the first country to win all the [[Big Four international beauty pageants]] more than once.((fact}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Thanks greatly for your great advice/statements in your 3 sentences. Resolved everything.

The other admins/editors/users should learn from you. Their 20+ long paragraphs that you swiftly resolved in 3 sentences. You should be a senior admin.

But maybe the others like inciting/provoking problems?

I could write to your supervisor if you'd like with a commendation.

Thank you again.

Everestrecords (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Everestrecords (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the Peabody Essex Museum Edit-a-thon Spring 2014

On May 3rd, the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts will be hosting a Native American and Chinese Art edit-a-thon from 9:00-5:00 pm. You are more than welcome to attend, as there will be free food and drink, and an outing afterwards. If you are interested, please sign up here, as we would love to see you there!

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Ed Rodley's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

When you see a place of birth in the lede, feel free to move it, per our MOS. But if it is accurate and RS-supported, please don't delete RS-supported material. We should not delete material that is non-RS compliant, anymore than we would delete a word that is not spelled correctly. Both actions needlessly degrade the article. I would urge you to simply move it to a more appropriate place below the lede. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche, per MOSBIO, birth place does not belong in the lede unless it relates to the person's notability, which I expect to be pretty rare. Usually the birthplace is in the info box or family or early life section. --Malerooster (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. My fault. I've not explained myself properly.

I'm suggesting not that you keep it in the lede -- I agree with you as to what MOS says (even though that's IMHO mis-guided, as it is at odds with the weight of encyclopedias, and obviously when and where one is born logically belong together) ... but I am suggesting rather that instead of deleting the RS-supported fact from the bio, you move it, for example to -- as you indicated -- the early life section.

Otherwise that is like saying ... "MOS says we should not have mis-spellings" ... and then deleting all mis-spelled words ... rather than fixing them.

BTW -- with athletes and national politicians, for example, nationality is often especially relevant.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You explained ok. --Malerooster (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to do this I will seek appropriate remedies. Please stop deleting RS-supported appropriate material that may be better placed in the body -- instead move it to what you think is an appropriate place. What you are doing is akin to saying -- there is a typo, which is wrong, so I will just delete the entire word. That is disruptive. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche, I have actually been trying to do what you suggested but missed that one. In the future, would you mind just moving the birthplace into the body or info box if I miss it or if you see it in the birth place holder? Thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England

As you may have already heard, the Wikipedia community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows: May 21st at Northeastern University's Snell Library, in the Digital Scholarship Commons on the second floor May 22nd at Brown University's Rockefeller Library, in the Digital Scholarship Lab June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Wikipedia for the first time. If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

[2] Actually, I wrote that based on, "... you are considered by many world class musicians as one of the most complete authority figures in right hand picking education analysis and development." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I missed that. I will revert or copy edit accordingly. Sorry about that. --Malerooster (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: I am still editing the page, and I am explaining all my edits. I will be finished shortly, but now I have to go back and see what you've done. It's simply much neater if editors would wait their turns. Thanks so much. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok.--Malerooster (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Jennifer Rubin (journalist) - Cwobeel (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to stop by and say "Thank You" for your efforts in removing the unnecessary wikilink brackets. I wasn't quite sure if it was necessary to wikilink every subject every time it was mentioned, or if it was only required once. Atsme☯^Consult 23:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your'e welcome. I would read WP:OVERLINK. --Malerooster (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ps, I really like the photos you have uploaded to commons, nice stuff :) --Malerooster (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit war, but could you provide a better explanation than "because it is"? Giving birth seems to be to be a notable event in someone's life, not because it is the child's birthdate, but because it is giving birth. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will take it to the talk page. We can discuss it there. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK... you seem to be an active editor - and it's years since I last contributed, so my new log-in is barred from comments. Maybe you'll be my messenger (I won't shoot you...)

If I look at the main protective edge article on human shields... "tactic encouraged by a Hamas spokesman.[dubious – discuss][165]"

There is a fuller (translated into English) interview with the Hamas Spokesman here... from the authoritative (even if they only concentrate on following arab media) Memri Organization:

www.memritv.org/clip/en/4340.htm

With a video clip like this (eg, "The policy of people confronting the Israeli warplanes with their bare chests... we in Hamas call upon our people to adopt this poilcy"), it would seem clear that there is nothing dubious about the claim that the tactic was indeed encouraged.

...please consider updating the main article (assuming you can)

Chalastra (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chalastra, I usually don't edit Israel/Palestinian articles because they can be a pain and a real battle field, sorry for the pun, nothing funny about what is going on over there. I do more copy edit, manual of style, edits that people really shouldn't have a problem with type edits. I believe after a few days and some edits, you will be able to edit the article as well. Please be aware that you should only make one revision per day, unlike the usuall 3 that are allowed since the topic area is so contentious. Good luck, --Malerooster (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appreciate that you'd rather not get your head bitten off!

Chalastra (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iam actually pretty thick skinned, I rode the NYC subways for years, its more the frustration level of the constant edit warring and endless talk page disagreements. I give our "regular" editors a lot of credit for "working" these articles, that actually end up not too badly written considering how contentious and polarizing they are and can be. Again, keep cool and good luck if you do decide to stay and contribute at that article. --Malerooster (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malerooster. Thank you for the kind welcome and for reviewing and editing the page about Joe G. N. Garcia. Your neutral input is greatly appreciated.

It's come to my attention that the same user edited another BLP with which I have a conflict of interest: Ann Weaver Hart. He or she has added very similar language (a section called "Controversy") that presents the same issues (violates the neutral point of view tenant, poor sourcing that violates the verifiability tenant, etc.). Would you be willing to review and edit that page as well?

Thanks again. HealthSciChris (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Headed there now....--Malerooster (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I truly appreciate your help with both of these. Communicating with you has been such a nice introduction to the Wikipedia community. I feel inspired to be more active and contribute to pages where I don't have a conflict of interest. --HealthSciChris (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome HealthSciChris and I would encourage you to contribute. Please be aware though, I am just one editor, and other editors might disagree with my actions and could revert what I have done. This project, for better or worse, works upon consensus and a lot of give and take. It has been my experience that its always best to get as many editors(unbiased if possible) involved when there is a dispute so cooler heads can prevail. Articles involving politics, contentious subjects, armed conflicts, ect are a pain in the butt, but overall, the project and most fair editors do want to do the "right" thing. "Wikipedia might not be the best at what they do, but they are the only ones who do what they do" (Stolen from Bill Graham (promoter) describing the Grateful Dead) Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the new editor readded the material and this pattern could continue. Welcome to the dark side of this project :) Again, the more neutral editors involved the better, and time will tell.....--Malerooster (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your diligence and encouragement to participate. Is it appropriate for me to add notes to the articles' talk pages as long as I disclose my COI? Any other way for me to encourage more neutral editors to participate in the discussion? Thanks again. HealthSciChris (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the talkpage is the perfect place to discuss how to improve the article and give your input concerning that, and is encouraged even if you have a disclosed COI. Also, please read about conflict of interest. I would encourage that as well since you obviously know more about the "material" than I do. Wikipedia has a TON of policies and guidelines, but at the end of the day, consensus, seems to be really important. When editors have "problems" or concerns with biographies, they can report those concerns to the BLP board. I enjoy working on articles that get reported there and bios brought there usually get good attention from neutral editors who also "patrol" that board. I see that you actually already posted there. If you need administrative help, the ANI board is the place to request intervention. --Malerooster (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HealthSciChris & Malerooster. Everything added is sourced and tons of sources are coming out every day. Vice News, CNN, Daily Beast . . . Joe Skip Garcia and Dr Ann Hart are at the epicenter of National news related to marijuana for vets suffering from PTSD, the suppression of science, and the illegal termination of a female dr who had approval from the FDA for her study. If you have an objection to the cited news then spill it, this is exactly what wikipedia if for. I can bring as many people to back up the edit as need be. We see the IP address that first undid the edit was nothing more than an IP traceable to the University of Arizona. By your name you work at the University of Arizona HealthSciChris. This is a blatant attempt at censorship. Malerooster, I appreciate your point of view. If you tell me what your objections are, I will be more than happy to comply. Remember, be careful what you wish for HealthSciChris as more news is coming out every day regarding the disgusting behavior of Garcia & Hart. Malerooster, also how does one get in touch with "editors" and do you work for Wikipedia? Thanks in advance for your hep. All I would ask, if national news if fair game for these pages where these persons are mentioned by name, then please don't let HealthSciChris or any other UofA/Conservative Activist whitewash the facts. Thanks! PathfinderE4

@PathfinderE4, please sign your posts using 4 of the ~ symbols. Its ok being new here, but please assume good faith when talking about other edits and please try not to use words like censorship or describe people's behavior as disgusting behavior, ect. Just as HealthSciChris has a conflict of interest, I could say the same about you since you have made your passion about this subject quite clear. Again, I have ZERO interest in the subject matter, and certainly do NOT work for Wikipedia, I am an unpaid volunteer like most folks here, its a hobby and its more about presenting material, especially when it comes to bios, in a certain way. Also, we are now engaged in an edit war which is never a good thing, and can result in editors being blocked. The exception to being blocked is if material is removed which doesn't comply with BLP policies which I think I am doing. I am just one editor. Have you been to the Biographies of living persons notice board? This matter is being discussed there and its the best place for this discussion rather than my talk page, just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ps, I see that the articles have been reverted by another editor, and please don't say I know him, or he is my friend, ect, its the way it works around here, for better or worse. I SUCK at writing "material", I am a math guy by trade, I do a lot of little shit and stuff that usually isn't to contentious. I really like biographies, they are interesting. I "monitor" the BLP board for BLATANT violations of our BLP policies and give my humble opinion, I add nationality to the lead sentence of bios if it hasn't already been done, crap like that. Now, I am sure there are other folks who could write something that complies with policy and might even satisfy both you and HealthSciChris, that would be the ultimate, but I am certainly not the guy. --Malerooster (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pss, guys, please go to Kimberly Yee. I edited that article per the citations provided. What do you think? --Malerooster (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Malerooster. Thank you for the welcome to Wikipedia. I been around for a bit, however, and registered the new user name to claim it because I'm planning on requesting my original username (UOJComm) be changed. I know there is a formal process for requesting a change of username so that my previous edits will show up with my new username. I'm just wondering if you have any advice / suggestions on what can make that progress smooth and quick. Thanks again! Allsetcobrajet (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Allsetcobrajet, I actually don't, sorry. I would begin the formal process and maybe ask at the help desk or the WP:Teahouse? I am sure they know a ton more than me and seem like helpful, welcoming places. Cheers and good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MR, Thanks for the welcome note. Actually, I do not plan to stick around, and I plan to end my (tiny, insignificant) ongoing donations to Wikipedia based on my experiences with the posts of late. I find the ability to doctor for personal objectives someone's biographical information, under the purported auspices of Wiki guidelines, is too easily manipulated and takes constant vigilant supervision. I'm a little surprised with all the contributors who monitor pages that there is no one monitoring the subjective expressions/repression/omissions of the monitors. There is more work to do on my posts to make them better conform to the guidelines, and I will happily continue to do that. Perhaps other contributors will also tweak this or that. But to shut down the expansion of the information--which happens to be most volatile and inflammatory at this particular moment in history--seems at odds with the mission of Wikipedia. How naive of me. There is a larger conversation, perhaps, to be had on the "proper" uses of Wikipedia, but at core, I think that truth is never a bad idea. I thought, until recently, that Wikipedia's primary mission, primary to all other values, was to present truthful, clear, rational (not hysterical), informative material about the subject matter. I had no idea that truthful information takes a back seat to the desires of vigilant "contributors" who use rules to remove information they do not like, to fulfill their own objectives. I'm pretty disillusioned, M.R.

Cheers mate, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roozee (talk • contribs) 00:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One man's truth, is another man's lie. Seriously, Wikipedia is what it is. It certainly has faults and warts, but, err, but, uggh, its hard to defend. The project is sort of like politics to a degree. If you can't beat em, join em, and can be VERY frustrating at times, when you know you are "right" and maybe even have the "truth" on your side, but consensus goes against you. Maybe try to work on some articles that you have zero interest or feelings about and see how that works? Get the hang of things. Or maybe try to make "smaller" changes? I don't know. I try to make edits that I feel nobody in their right mind could ever revert for ANY reason, but guess what, they get reverted. I try to do this for fun and not get to wrap up in it. Cheers and good luck if you do decide to stay. --Malerooster (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are attempting to do to the Paul Conrad article, but the material you claimed is unsourced is fully sourced in the article. You are welcome to take your concerns to the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reverted and asked to take your concerns to the talk page. Is there a good reason I don't see you on the talk page making a case for your edits? I'm guessing that the reason is because you are deliberately stalking me, and attempting to destabilize the article. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am there now. Also, please stop the personal attacks. --Malerooster (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're there making bizarre statements that have no basis in reality and continuing to make disruptive edits that violate our policies. This edit pretty much disqualifies you from editing this article. Again, this is the third article you've followed me to in order to disrupt. If this continues, I will bring it to ANI. Your comments and edits show that you have no interest in improving this topic. Therefore, I am formally warning you to stay away from any article I edit from now on. If you persist, I will pursue sanctions. Good day. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the personal attacks, they are not appreciated. I am trying to help improve the article in question, please use the talk page if you have a problem with any of my edits, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only personal attacks are from you, and you've been repeatedly asked to stop making them. Your "help" is neither appreciated nor needed as there is already a nominator working on the review in good faith in collaboration with me. I don't need to use the tal page to discuss your personal attacks and bad edits. You need to immediately leave this article and take it off of your watchlist. The next warning you receive will be an ANI notice. Good day. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The George M. Church article talk page, closing discussion, and follow it to the Noticeboard item that has been posted as a result of the irreconcilable difference that has arisen. It is a POV, COI, OR, VER set of issues, relating to a husband-wife faculty team that has generated about 70% of the content of the husband's article here, and about 100% of its tone and momentum. Cheers, comment at the Noticeboard if time permits. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. --Malerooster (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

welcome birds and bios
Thank you, bird liker, for taking care of biographies of living persons, for restoring, for welcoming new users including yourself, for bird song plans and Why leave? - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thank you. I know that volume is never an indicator of quality, but am I always impressed by folks like yourself who have like 80,000+(?) edits to the project. For all the current, and past, drama about civility, paid editing, sexism, yadda, yadda, the project really is an amazing place. I can't prove it, of course, but I think the ratio is 90:10 "good", its just that "bad" gets more attention and is "funner" or more interesting to watch and be involved with, sort of like rubber necking when one sees a car accident or train wreck. Cheers!! --Malerooster (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, 90:10, tell Alan that. The last time he left I asked if I should add him to our sad list. (Link under "Precious and missed") - Every good one gone makes it harder to stay. I took the liberty to stay: red category on my user page, I was tempted to go a few times but don't want to do it because of other people ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its some type of "burnout" or "this place has changed" or "good ol days" syndrome. I am in the "teaching" business, late life change, and I can't tell you how many "older" teachers I talk to who are absolutely miserable and hate their students compared to "new" teachers who have so much passion and love for their profession and kids. Who knows? certainly not me :) --Malerooster (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to learn from him, admiring this and that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a math guy, so I really struggle with insightful articulation here. I always enjoy reading other editors posts who so elegantly and thoughtfully say what I am thinking but I find so difficult to write. --Malerooster (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 933rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool and thank you :) --Malerooster (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five years ago, you were recipient no. 933 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I sympathise with your removal of the link/section on the Indhu Rubasingham page. Rightly or wrongly I added it as there is currently a thrice daily edit on both 'her' page and the Tricycle Theatre page concerning an 'unfolding' controversy. By adding the link I hoped that the edits might at least be confined to the theatre's page until such time as the story has more fully evolved. All the edits are from 'anon' editors and all are to a greater or lesser extent imflammatory and partisan in their approach. In the situation I'm not sure whether my or your approach is correct. ps what other kind of rooster is there ? Pincrete (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Correct" is a very hard thing to figure out in this project :). I usually err on the side of removing "material", since it can always be added once consensus forms, especially if it involves a BLP. I always like to wait and see how these things play out since we are not the news and there isn't a rush, even though some people like to. The more people involved the better, and no problem either way. Yeah, my son thinks my handle is hilarious :) Cheers. --Malerooster (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wholly with your overall assessment (and your son!), the purely practical problem is that contentious edits on these two pages are, at the moment, a twice daily event (all from anon IPs, mostly different). Do you happen to know HOW to put a block (for a few weeks, on all anon editors seems appropriate)? Whilst a few 'admin-ny' editors are obviously watching the page, I seem to be the only one actually involved with it at present.Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the IPs don't use the talk page and aren't interesting in forming consensus, and the consensus is for NOT including material, there are multiple "report boards" where syops will eventually jump in. Those boards are 3rr, page protection, ANI. I can take another look and also link to these boards later. I need to fold laundry and deal with life, but will be back later. I wouldn't get too worked up and certainly do not edit war, ie revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, you could get blocked and its not worth it. I find that if folks are "watching", they will jump in and assist. Keep using the talk page and explain your reasoning. Good luck and cheers! --Malerooster (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately 'consensus' at the moment is me & thee! Yes some editors have 'jumped in', including yourself to clean up blatant PoV, so I haven't had to over-revert. Any assistance that you or Wikipedia can offer will prevent me wasting time on this. 'Dealing with life?', I think I remember what that is! Ta!Pincrete (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MANY THANKS, your info above led me to the right place to request semi-protection of both pages (which I have now done). Hope you got the laundry folded!Pincrete (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notification to inform you that a discussion has been added to the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute you may be involved in. Muffinator (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Direct link: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism

I've forgotten where I read it specifically, but the only reason this store is notable is its stauts as largest furniture store in the United States. Every source in existence has some variation of this theme. Once the store achieved the status 20 years ago, I didn't think it was necessry to source it again, but someone could have broken their record. I don't think so. I can't access my sources right now, but two I can access refer to "largest furniture showroom in the world." That's even better but I'm not sure it says the same thing. In any case, it's the largest store in the U.S. where a person can walk in and look at furniture and buy it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok.--Malerooster (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have any thoughts on what the best thing to do is? I'll look at some of the sources Thursday. I could have yesterday but forgot.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to strong. I would want to have a citation that says specifally that it is the largest furniture store in the United States. Are we talking by sales volume, showroom floor size, # of employees, ect?? The safest and simplilest is just to say "one of the....", but that is lazy I guess. I have serious real life things that need to be tended too over the next two/three weeks so I am going on a wikibreak :) Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll look tomorrow. I really should have looked for some specifics, but the sources don't usually get that detailed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found something. Wouldn't you know it. It's an article that criticizes the store. Plus it's eight years old. But criticism is required if it's sourced, and I went ahead and included this criticism in a section devoted to that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for requesting closure. The basic problem appears to be well-meaning but very bad advice at WP:DRN. The issues were taken to WP:DRN, where the volunteer editor said that the issues involved both content and conduct (which was correct), and said to take the content issues to requests for mediation and the conduct issues to WP:ANI. The latter was well-meaning but bad advice, because, although there are conduct issues, none of the contentious editors have put together diffs or made a specific case. (Also, it isn't, in my opinion, a good case for formal mediation, but that is another question.) There are conduct issues, but they aren't formulated for admin action yet. (I don't think that they will ever be dealt with at WP:ANI anyway. I have the feeling that the case will eventually go to arbitration, but that is my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ANI "discussion" was 99% content related and debate back and forth. IF there are conduct issues, and I am certainly not saying there aren't any, they need to be spelled out clearly with differences included, not an easy task. Cheers and good luck, --Malerooster (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who has recently edited Joni Ernst, you are invited to comment on this RFC. Your participation will be appreciated. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my changes on the talk page? I wa restoring another editors comments that were inappropriately removed.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 00:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One, you didn't explain your revision. Two, the other editor removed comments that were he felt were using the talk page as a forum. --Malerooster (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're edit warring to remove that particular comment from the talk page, especially since it relates to a conversation that doesn't seem to be ongoing. Do you think it's more disruptive to leave the comment or to continue to remove it? I'd remind you that "[c]autiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." Dyrnych (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same could be asked of people adding it back. Have you asked them? --Malerooster (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not, since the relevant standard applies to removing other editors' comments. Dyrnych (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't remove the comment originally, I just reverted somebody who added it back without an edit summary. I would still be curious why people would insist on added something back against policy. --Malerooster (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I understand that you didn't remove the comment initially, but you've now removed the comment three additional times (counting your first) over the objections of the original commenter and an additional editor (Two_kinds_of_pork). Considering that this comment is at least arguably on topic, that the talk page contains many more egregious examples of off-topic comments, and that "[you should] be sure to err on the side of caution" when editing others' off-topic comments, I think it's a bit excessive to keep deleting the comment rather than just letting it go. I'm not terribly invested in the comment remaining on the page, but I don't think that your actions are helpful. Dyrnych (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and the people who want this comment included action's are? Many wrongs don't make a small right. --Malerooster (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, but you're also missing the point. You're the person REMOVING the comment. That puts you in a completely different regime than people RESTORING the comment. Dyrnych (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dyrnych, editors have every right to remove comments that are off topic and borderline BLP, period. Like all that is Wikipedia, editors will disagree. --Malerooster (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop please? Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Since you can't? Its because of editors like yourself, Wikipedia is fucked.--Malerooster (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)ps, stay off my talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

It is considered uncivil to delete whole sections of material from a prodded article. I'm asking you not to do that again, because it makes the task of evaluating its deletion extremely difficult. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link to where it is considered "uncivil"? I will not edit the article for now. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "rm per seealso"? -- -- -- 04:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please answer on this page only. Not on my talkpage. -- -- -- 04:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the link I removed was already linked in the article, so per wp:seealso, I removed(rm) it. --Malerooster (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. -- -- -- 03:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making changes to the date format on Audie Murphy. Military dates are in use. — Maile (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, such dates should be followed by a comma, unless followed by other punctuation (such as at the end of a sentence). See WP:Copyedit, section "Common mistakes to fix", subsection "Punctuation", bullet point 2.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've never done this please forgive any etiquette errors.

  The piece on homosexuality in ancient Rome contains the Latin word infimalia (sp?). While infamous is an accurate translation the current connotations give the wrong impression. The literal translation is "well known." Infamous today generaly canotes a shadiness that the original would not gain until later . Perhaps a parenthetical clarification, or footnote may be in order. 
  My Latin is rusty but that bit has remain in the decades since I learned it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonhawk1959 (talk • contribs) 

Since the filing party didn't bother to notify [3]. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Sean Hannity". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 June 2015.

The request for formal mediation concerning Sean Hannity, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...to the see also section.[4] Am I to assume that once again, you have not read the article you are editing? Otherwise, how can you possibly explain your edit? Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed, in the Donald Trump TALK section that Trump's desire to wait until 'we know what the hell is going on' was appealing to the 6th grade mentality of many voters." I think you're confusing that with Barack Obama's mindless mantra "Hope and change.'Will you kindly apologize to the wikipedia community, and the public at large - already well aware of the left wing bias inherent in it's editors, for making such a gratuitously unsavory and contemptible comment about citizens of the United State of America. Thank you. 76.112.63.254 (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

huh? I think you are mistaking me for another editor.--Malerooster (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information on the crash can be easily found. Just look at the talk page. Also, if you could, could you add the sources? I can't as apparently, I'm at 3RR already, and according to the editor putting tons of tags on there, adding sources and remove the tag is considered a revert. If you can't, no biggie. I'll do it tomorrow. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok. --Malerooster (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I did it. Thank you. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Malerooster! Thank you very much for creating a talk page for me! I am very new here thus I appreciate your help. I am working now on a 6 years old article that was not properly sourced, I am improving it, but I have almost no one who would help me a bit to control what I am doing. I found more than 40 new sources, I built them into the article, and now I am kindly asking you, would you take a glance to my work? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme My other problem is that this tag "Find sources: "Zoltán Deme" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images" proved to be useless for reaching the sources of the 1960-1980 decades, especially the sources of the past communist countries in East Europe where most of the libraries very poorly digitized. For example "Scholar" gives 1 citation, though just with 10 minutes research I got immediately 20 citations! [[5]] page 65 [[6]] p.2 [[7]] p.23 [[8]] p.1 [[9]] p.289 [[10]] p.5 [[11]] p.2 [[12]] p.353 [[13]] p.35 [[14]] p.1 [[15]] p.46 [[16]] p.75 [[17]] p.63 [[18]] p.84 [[19]] p.64 [[20]] p.1 [[21]] p.48 [[22]] p.317 [[23]] p.196 [[24]] p.101. (Plus I got many items, as "required reading" in the universities, like [[25]] p.1 [[26]] p.1 [[27]] p.48 [[28]] and so on). For other example, Books, Google Books gives 3 items, while this site (and others) show the pictures and data of more than 20 items! [[29]] [[30]] [[31]] This misleads almost everyone, presents the subject non-notable with only one citation and three books, thus, I had to go over this problem and collect printed material. Would you kindly investigate the refreshed article, is my work now sufficient? I saw your contributions and you seem to me an expert of biographic works with erudition, would you please help me a little bit? If you would have any advice, any proposal, any suggestion please let me know. Sincerely yours, Norbert (a Hungarian). 89.133.187.29 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 89.133.187.29/Norbert, I am not sure that I can help since I don't do a lot of wok with establishing notability of subjects of biographies. I would listen to the advice given at the article for deletion page. Good luck, --Malerooster (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply and for your time! Be sure please, that I understand you and fully agree. Have nice days, nice weekend, and good health. Yours sincerely, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why you removed his birthplace from the lead of the article? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't go in the lede unless its the reason for the person's notability. --Malerooster (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is foolish, your basically saying it shouldn't be there unless their birthday is the reason they're notable, that doesn't make any sense at all. Xboxmanwar (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not birthday but place of birth and its only for the first sentence/lede. Please see WP:BLPLEAD. --Malerooster (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really make a difference if you remove the location that thousands of articles already have? I'd suguest just leaving it like that, it doesn't do anything, never mind that guideline, the removal of the location isn't necessary. Xboxmanwar (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a rude way to write to another editor. Malerooster is correct, per MOS:BIRTHPLACE. Good eye and thanks Malerooster, I should have known when I wrote that article. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes it does. The MOS is there for a reason so articles can be improved and maintain consistency, we don't just ignore them. No worries @Magnolia, and thanks for linking to the correct MOS, cheers. --Malerooster (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being rude Magnolia677, I was expressing my concern over it and MOS:BIRTHPLACE says you should, doesn't say you need, which means it isn't necessary, as for Malerooster, it still doesn't change anything, the article was already consistent as it already was, didn't need to be removed. Xboxmanwar (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Donald Trump, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 14:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MorbidEntree, please read WP:TPO. "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, banning" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Ah, sorry about that. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 14:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that your edit of Dennis L. Montgomery did not have an WP:Edit summary. Can you please explain why you made that change? —BarrelProof (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Never mind. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you missed the prominent edit notice on Donald Trump, but I suggest you self-revert. The article is subject to 1RR.- MrX 01:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Malerooster reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - MrX 13:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond at the noticeboard. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NeilN, I just did. --Malerooster (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this refers to the article Donald Trump. The DS restriction is prominently posted at the top of the edit page. It says "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." You violated these restrictions when when you reverted (removed an edit) three times within 24 hours. Word to the wise. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comments, which referred very carefully and specifically to points in the article, were all clearly and impeccably sourced, and the word “alleged” (i.e. by the former president of Mexico) was clearly stated. Ergo, the squeals of BLP violation were just crying wolf. I’ll let your meddling with my comments stand, as any more back and forth would only serve as a distraction from discussing the merits or otherwise of the article to which I linked. Also of course, several years' observation of users like you at political talk pages has taught me that tangling with them there rarely ends well for either party. Writegeist (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, your words were NOT impeccably sourced. They were a summation in your own words of the article, and its not necessary to post them on the talk page. People can click the link and read the article. What I love about this project is there is a history to go back and look at. Users like me? Classic deflection of your own agenda. --Malerooster (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Writegeist (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad I made you laugh :)...cheers!--Malerooster (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're doing the same thing, over the same material, over at Trump World Tower.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page there. --Malerooster (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

are you Trump supporter? by --Sunuraju (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the section See also. It really didn't make sense. --Gciriani (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Malerooster (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete this? Thanks! WSDavitt (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the Melania Trump smear campaign is ^[1]

Where does it say "smear campaign"? Maybe I missed it. --Malerooster (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malerooster, please moderate your language and your attitude at the article and talk page for Donald Trump. You have been guilty of abusive edit summaries [32], dismissal of edits under discussion as "horseshit" without any actual discussion or justification, [33] [34][35][36] and calling other editors "idiots".[37] This has got to stop. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I will. Thank you.--Malerooster (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --SI 20:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to pile on, but I will add my voice to that of others urging you to tone it down. Habitual uncivil commentary or edit summaries can be seen as disruptive. Thanks in advance. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malerooster. 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]

You have repeatedly removed part of another editor's comment at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 that you deem offensive to Bernie Sanders, and you have persisted despite being reverted 6 times by several editors. Please drop it; the next step is WP:ANEW. — JFG ^talk 15:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Malerooster reported by User:JFG (Result: ). Thank you. — JFG ^talk 15:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave edit summaries like that. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I was just saying two wrongs don't make a right, not needed. --Malerooster (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You may make no more than one revert every 24 hours to a page within the post-1932 American Politics topic area for a period of 1 month.

You have been sanctioned due to repeated edit warring

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. slakr^\ talk / 22:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this article. --2600:8805:A001:C900:38D9:8760:3AF7:F734 (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thought you might like to take a look at this SPI I tried to launch last week about an IP vandal you seem to have encountered a few times: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/62.49.119.18/Archive. It's clearly the same person, with two different overlapping MOs. I collected as many of the IPs as I could to try to bring to Admin attention that this user needs more than unique 31 hour blocks with each "new" account, as longer blocks only come up if by happenstance multiple complaints had been lodged on same IP. Feel free to add to this list or use it however you like, as you had already given the welcome/warning to many of these IPs' talk pages, and probably know how to recognize their work. JesseRafe (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JesseRafe. --Malerooster (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why you just unlinked School voucher? It seems like a pretty standard link to me, helps define something that readers might not understand. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carptrash, I believe it is already linked in the article above it, so no need to link it again. --Malerooster (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. Carptrash (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malerooster! Could you please remove your personal attack at the Donald Trump talk page? Yes, yes I know - you didn't QUITE call him a straight-out liar, you just suggested he might be. But that kind of talk is inflammatory and likely to lead to escalation; it's inappropriate for a Wikipedia talk page. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --MelanieN (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Malerooster (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, once you are reverted, you must discuss before re-reverting. The discussion is ongoing. You don't get to decide "Well, that statement is relatively new, I'll assume that I can decide how old is old enough and force my own opinion on the article". The statement that is present is the result of a *LONG* previous discussion. Your opinion by itself does not suffice to overturn that. The RFC might well, but that is looking like it is trending to keep it. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 20:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about forcing one's opinion. You are really showing signs of ownership of this article, too bad. We should default to the most stable version of the article and then see if there is consensus for adding material, not the other way around. --Malerooster (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion with a consensus. This was the result of a long series of edit wars over adding and removing that. There is an RFC in progress to revisit that discussion. I don't see *anything* in WP:BRD which says "The change has only been present for 1742 hours, so I'm feelfree to revert regardless of a previous discussion". All I can say is an RFC is in progress, you don't have the authority to arbitrarily change the article while it is in progress. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you do? Save me your bullshit. --Malerooster (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm preserving status quo ante while the RFC is in progress. My personal opinion is that Deflategate is bullshit, but every time it was removed from the lede, it was added back in, often in a form that violated WP:BLP. At least the statement in place right now does not violate BLP standards. I do want to preserve that aspect. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the status quo ante was NOT having it in the lede. Your personal opinion is of no interest to me and keeping it in the lede because it keeps getting readded in an improper fasion is weak.--Malerooster (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I replied to your comment on Talk:Adrian Lamo. I'm a dual national. Being Colombian is consequently as relevant as being American. If you have one, you have to have the other, unless you're saying one country is less relevant. Per WP:BLP & WP:SELFPUB, this[38] should serve as sufficient background to establish an uncontroversial fact that's not a conflict of interest.

Cheers & wikilove,

—Adrian Lamo ·· 01:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if that's sufficient or a proper reliable source for this in the lede. --Malerooster (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This and this should help establish it, as the case and my related actions have been covered heavily in certain Colombian media. In a previously-linked article, it ledes: "Esta es la historia de Adrián Lamo, el pirata cibernético de origen colombiano que reveló a las autoridades estadounidenses quién filtró la información a WikiLeaks." (emphasis mine.) Semana is a prominent magazine, and according to Wikipdia itself:

>> "Semana, which has won several international prizes and has more than a million readers, is considered required reading for Colombia's political, economic, and cultural elite. “In the history of journalism in Colombia,” reads a profile of López by a Colombian writer, “there is a 'before Semana' and an 'after Semana,' because, in effect, before May 1982 such a thing didn't exist....the press in this country was an extensionof the political parties.” The same profile notes that “at least 80 percent of all the political scandals that have occurred in Colombia in the last 30 years have been exposed by Semana.” The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Economist have all called Semana the best magazine in Latin America. <<

I believe that qualifies it as a reliable source, and if its journalistic fact-checking finds that I am also Colombian, the ball is now in your court to ascertao otherwise, rightly or wrongly, rather than vice-versa.

v/r,

— Adrian Lamo ·· 22:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going on a break. --Malerooster (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malerooster, please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Sean Hannity#Lead section. You have accused other editors of "agenda pushing" five different times in that one thread (Snoogans three times and Volunteer Marek twice). You also did it in other discussions such as the RFC survey. You know better than this. VM properly described your behavior as personal attacks, i.e., "discussing other editors". As you know, I have called you out on this before - looks like in November ("Please change your attitude") and January ("Talk:Donald Trump") at this talk page. You have got to get the message and cut it out. Please limit your comments from now on to the merits of the issue at hand. --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A spade is still a spade and these type of editors should be called out. --Malerooster (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it looks like he is being called out. --Malerooster (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you explained your reverts at Federalism in more detail. Also, you're currently at your third revert for today. I presume you are aware of WP:3RR. clpo13_(talk) 16:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clpo13, I answered at the talk page. What do you think of this newly added material? The article is in very poor shape, imho, but thats an aside. Thank you for the 3rr warning as well, I will not edit for now.--Malerooster (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

We are students writing an article on Alex Mercado as part of our class Academic Discourse and Writing at Tec de Monterrey. Since you are an experienced Wikipedian and have an interest in these kinds of topics, we would like to know if you could take a few moments to take a look at the article and give us feedback. Thank you for your time. --Alex Persan (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex Persan, Sure I'll take a look this weekend. In the meantime, please read WP:MOSBIO and WP:BDD. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Gaslighting". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 April 2017.

What part of 'See also' did you refer to when you deleted the section saying 'rm per seealso'? Thanks. Optimale ^Gu 14:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Optimale, just the part about editorial judgement. It seems like this see also could become a list, which should probably be avoided. I am in no way married to my edit, so if you want to revert, I wouldn't mind or revert it again. Maybe include a brief mention of why they are related. Would these entries be included in the body of the article if the article was well written? Not sure. Cheers! --Malerooster (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malerooster. Hope you're having a good week. Just a friendly suggestion, if I may. I know there are differences of opinion in the community about where to draw the line on posting welcome templates, but I wonder if you'd consider not rolling out the welcome mat for IP-hopping long-term vandals who are here only to disrupt the project and whose edits all warrant revision deletion. The wording of the template you used thanked the user for their contributions and says you hope they'll decide to stay. I know it's boilerplate, but really—there are some people who should receive no thanks and who absolutely should not stay. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rivertorch, sure, I hear you. I usually add the template just so I can "geotrack" them more easily and then they also have a talkpage. Yes, we don't want to "welcome" and hope trolls stay :). Full disclosure, I am a HUGE fan of constructive IPs and do think they sometimes get the short end of the stick. If I had my way, I would probably prefer to be an IP but do understand the realities of how they are treated. Thank you for your note and I will not add the template to IPs if I see they have been unhelpful. Cheers! --Malerooster (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your very constructive reply. I hasten to add that it's all about the behavior and not about whether they have an account: I also disapprove of welcoming unconstructive registered users, and I love constructive IP editors. Because IPs may not immediately realize they're at a disadvantage here, some years ago I rewrote Template:AnonymousWelcome, which remains an alternative to some of the more commonly used welcome templates. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 12:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an AE request regarding your reverts at that article. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Malerooster Geogene (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your copy edit help at the new article I wrote, The Plot to Hack America ! Sagecandor (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday July 16 New England Wiknic (also on Facebook) 1–5pm - come by any time! Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia banner! We hope to see you there! --Phoebe (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hello, MR! I hope all in going well! I noticed you are using ce for a lot of your edits. If this is supposed to be shorthand for "copy editing," I think the preferred abbreviation is c/e; but it would be really nice if you would write something like "Copy editing, mostly fixing verb tenses but also some misspellings." The big problem is that many of your recent edits have been good ones, but they are definitely not copy edits; they are more substantive, such as removing the places of birth of some people from the lead paragraph. I agree that most often the birthplaces don't belong there, but it would be better for my poor old, broken-down constitution if you would type something like "Minor fact that doesn't belong in the lead." It would be helpful to spell out what you are doing more than just "Copy edit." Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, fair enough. --Malerooster (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malerooster. 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]

I saw you removed the mentioning of Kurdish o Tino Sanandaji. I think this discussion is interesting as he is from Kurdistan, which wants independence from Iran, and that he himself identifies as a Kurd and nothing else. He has however lived roughly 20 years in Sweden and 10 years in USA. Can you take a look at the current version I wrote?

Also it would be interestig to hear your inout as a third party on the discussiob on the talk pages around templates. I am not getting along with the other user there. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out. --Malerooster (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For this :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lol, fair enough :) --Malerooster (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my mistake and take full responsibility for my actions[39] as I noted in the AN/I. Thank you for your advice and I will not make that mistake again. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you're welcome, --Malerooster (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ijeoma Oluo have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the template and RVV, when I was editing per WP:MOSBIO. --Malerooster (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread the pattern in your edits. I was on my way back here to revert myself. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought it was curious since you have been on the project forever and have a bazillion edits ;).--Malerooster (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement that you be sanctioned for repeated attempts to censor reports of the child sex trafficking convictions of two of Donald Trump's campaign chairs at Talk:Donald Trump. 185.13.106.114 (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as IPs can't file AE requests. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:NeilN. I wasn't going to remove the discussion again since another regular editor reverted me again and the "material" was confirmed today. --Malerooster (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because I believe it was a good faith discussion about content. I understand removing it since it didn't have sources, but I have since added sources to the talk page.- MrX 🖋 19:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough and no worries. --Malerooster (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with your disruptive edits, Not every closure needs a "nac" template ..... Please focus your time and energy on better things like the encyclopedia and its articles, Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 00:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe take your own advice? --Malerooster (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one warring over it, No worries you just focus on a poxy template and leave the rest of the site to us adults!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. --Malerooster (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malerooster, this is to invite you to a discussion at Talk:Political positions of Bernie Sanders#Standard for describing a "position". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your updates on the McHenry page. Much appreciated. Andersongrip (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you are welcome. --Malerooster (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged to this (now removed) thread, I will just note that WP:CONSENSUS applies to talk pages as well as to articles. It looks to me as if the material you keep removing has been restored by three different people. That suggests that your belief it should be removed is against consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and how about that: no sooner did I post this than another user showed up to delete the material you object to. So consensus is no longer clear. However, I would suggest that you limit your removals to the four you have already done. --MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN—cannot this be said without name-calling? We are called upon to express ourselves. But that means verbally. Bus stop (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. User:Mandruss, you are hereby cautioned not to insult other editors - in edit summaries or anyplace else. --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: - I'm surprised you bought into that. If one reads what I said, I didn't insult anybody but rather complimented multiple editors (if being called a non-idiot can be called a compliment). If Bus stop chooses to read something into my words that wasn't there, that's Bus stop's problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Come off it, User:Mandruss. That is weasel talk. When you say to someone that the view opposite to theirs is held by "non-idiots", it's pretty clear what you are saying. Just don't mention "idiots" in your edit summaries, OK? I can't believe a long-time editor like you even needs to be told this. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Nope. It wouldn't be weasel talk to do that, it would be downright dishonest. I'm not that guy, and I'm not wearing your criticism. I say what I mean and I mean exactly what I say and no more. If I wanted to call someone an idiot, which I never will, I would call them an idiot. I'm sorry if other editors behave differently, so much so that one automatically sees such sneakiness in one's words. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't express myself clearly. I often do not. Let me try that again. Calling someone a "blowhard" constitutes name-calling. Do you disagree, MelanieN? Bus stop (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. But name-calling is not clear BLP vio, especially when relevant to the discussion, so you can't remove it without talk page consensus. For some reason people who want to remove that don't actually want to seek that consensus. Maybe because they know they won't get it? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss—I think you were simply endorsing an administrator's findings. I linked to your revert of my edit because it was convenient to do so and doing so conveniently displayed my edit as well. Now, I have to go to the convenience store. Bus stop (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pursue this issue further, please take it to the article talk page where more editors can weigh in. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss—we are a quintessentially verbal project. It is not that we are not capable of saying bad things about living people on article Talk pages so much as we should use verbal means, not cartoon means. The single word "blowhard" with a line through it is tantamount to non-verbal imagery. Bus stop (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes is an admin; your {{nac}} tag on her recent ANI close is incorrect. nwatra (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi nwatra, thanks for pointing that out. I removed the nac tag from the ANI close. Its weird, when I hoover over Lourdes' name, it doesn't show that she is an admin(yet). Maybe it takes a few weeks for your mop to arrive :), cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) See Special:PermaLink/827692653 and Special:UserRights/Lourdes. It appears the current databases do not currently have Lourdes as an admin. There seems to be considerable confusion on the subject. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am wondering if we should mention this. Would it be libellous?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to mention exactly and where is it going in the article? Is that a RS? Bring an exact proposal up on the subject's talkpage and I might comment there. --Malerooster (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the same argument on the Daily Beast website, although it is in an opinion piece that we can't cite. There was an article in Foreign Affairs last week about her following orders too, but not negative. We probably need more RS. Perhaps we could add a short paragraphs about "following orders", but we probably need more RS first.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zigzig20s, not trying to be a dick, but there is no "we". I really don't have an interest in this article other than reverting something that seemed controversial in the lead. If you want to add something, go for it. I would start on the talk page first and see what others think and include exact text of what you want added and provide sources. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you reverted was referenced and I considered undoing your revert... Reverting it seemed controversial. Anyway, have a nice day!Zigzig20s (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for noticing my editing/creating Old Iron County Courthouse article, and for your edit which seems to imply that the building is used by a local history museum. I generally don't like to see unsupported info added to an article though this assertion should be non-controversial. But I have evolved to strongly dislike assertions about "now" and "currently" in obscure articles that are not going to be updated. Anyhow, I would be very happy for the article to include coverage about the museum and to include an external link to its webpage, etc. However, this "about" page about the museum (do I have the right one?) is mentioning a number of buildings and a "museum park" but not mentioning a courthouse. What in fact is any relationship to the courthouse building? --Doncram (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. Hmm, I see that webpage I found seems to be about a different Iron County Historical Museum in Caspian, Michigan. All the more reason that there should be more clear information in this article about any same-named museum in Wisconsin. Do you have any proper webpage for it or other coverage that would help; I do see this facebook page with a comment posted from 2017. Do you actually know that it exists in 2018? --Doncram (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Greg Gianforte. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this rises to a level of "attack", but ok, thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree--that "do you need help understanding" is like ... well I don't want to do it in simile, but it's really condescending. BTW I've had some issues with that user myself, and I'm not looking to have an argument with you, but maybe you just didn't realize how that can come across. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if you reconsider that comment on the talk page, maybe you'll also reconsider the last comment you made there. After that, feel free to remove the last three: yours, mine, yours. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I truly feel that the editor who I responded to struggles with understanding our policies and guidelines. That being said, I guess I could have responding "better". --Malerooster (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, done, thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Malerooster. 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]

Look for {{Use dmy dates}} or {{Use mdy dates}} templates at the top of articles. – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List_of_unlawfully_killed_transgender_people, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Removing the day of the week for incidents listed has no purpose and doesn't help. Gwenhope (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gwenhope, I started a discussion on the articles talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malerooster. Thank you for your message on my talk page. I don’t know what I did to offend him, but with his comments about me and his accusatory question on my talk page, I would definitely prefer not to interact with Snooganssnoogans if at all possible. I appreciate you letting me know that I’m within my rights not to engage with him. O.Goethe (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Malerooster (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I’m sorry to bother you, but it seems like Snooganssnoogans is accusing me of being a “sockpuppet” of someone he apparently doesn’t like. I’ve never heard of that other editor and most of my own edits were minor changes to grammar and fixing vandalism... so I’m not sure how he’s drawing the connection. Does this mean he’s trying to get me kicked off Wikipedia? Since it seems like Snooganssnoogans is a very experienced and respected editor, I have to assume he will succeed. I just don’t want to cause trouble for anyone. O.Goethe (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent interaction with Scjessey (hatting edit war and this) was disruptive and inappropriate, and you've already been warned about this exact behavior. You need to stop focusing on other editors and start focusing on collaborating with those you disagree with, otherwise my next edit on your talk page will be to place a topic ban. ~Awilley (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, how was the edit you linked to in the least disruptive or inappropriate? It was completely appropriate and measured. I agree that SOMETHING needs to be in the lead about the covid pandemic. Do you suppoort Scjessey opining about the AG in a forum like way? --Malerooster (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)ps, I know Scjessey said he struck his opining to make me happy, but it really was the right thing to do regardless of my emotions. --Malerooster (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you asked for it. I gave you a final warning to stop focusing on other editors and your reply focused on Scjessey. But first let me answer your question about how the comments were disruptive/inappropriate. Here are the ones I found inappropriate. I've added diffs to the earlier inappropriate comments that you were warned about previously to illustrate the similarity.

• Except you added your biased crap analysis of the AG, and added stuff about your mental state which wasn't needed. [40] (focuses on other editors, definitely not "appropriate and measured", bolding mine)
• ps, just own it for once Scjessey, geesh. [41] (focuses on other editors)
• No. You don't get to spew your opinion and violate BLP on talk pages under the guise of responding to a discussion. Got it? [42] (inappropriate parts bolded by me)
• MrX, we know how influenced you are by your bias, but remember, a lot of Americans saw it very differently than you, just saying. [43] (focuses on other editors)
• Scjessey, you really need to stop spewing your hate speech, it is so ugly and beyond ignorant, even you your ilk. [44] (really?)
• Scjessey, the only thing "unhinged" is your continued use of this talk page to spew your admitted bias. This is not a forum for that. [45] (ditto)

Do you see the problem? I spot checked some other talk pages you've recently edited and didn't spot anything significant there, so I'll keep the topic ban limited to Donald Trump for now. Following is the official template ~Awilley (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from Donald Trump, broadly construed, for a period of 3 months.

You have been sanctioned for making personal comments about other editors instead of focusing on content

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~Awilley (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, "broadly construed" means that you may not edit pages or content about Trump anywhere on the project, so please be careful. ~Awilley (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know that the blatant sockpuppet you were encouraging[46] has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. You should reconsider how you approach collaboration on this encyclopedia when you attack regular editors as paranoids who have "lost touch with reality" and have "multiple shifts per day" (another insinuation from you that I'm a WP:PAID editor) while you encourage blatant socks not to be "intimated" or "deterred" from editing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malerooster.

Male as in malevolent or malefactor? ---Dagme (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Male as in male. --Malerooster (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the adversarial relationship you have with Snooganssnoogans, it's not a good idea to follow them around unnecessarily to articles you've never edited before.

• [47]
• [48]
• [49]

Your edits may be well intentioned and constructive, but following someone around like that is seen as a form of WP:Hounding. ~Awilley (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Awilley, but you are mistaken, this is not hounding. --Malerooster (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Awilley, these edits today entail more WP:HOUNDING, despite repeated warnings against it over extended periods: [50][51] This editor is not going to stop. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now also going to the talk pages of editors I revert, sending them welcome notices[52]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have access to edit the restricted page of Marina Abramovic? Very interesting and curious to know any details you can provide about the most recent edit that was made to her page. Thanks in advance! 2600:6C51:4C3F:87F5:3C44:50F7:6739:646A (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bloated See also section, is that what you are talking about? --Malerooster (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Not sure where to take this, but Ip is adding “political ideologies” to cats and articles inappropriately] Doug Weller talk 14:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to BDFutbol, Martinez has dual-nationality: Germany & Spain. https://www.bdfutbol.com/en/j/j26246.html --Rupert Ratbags (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a reliable source? Malerooster (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Shrugs shoukders*!!! I honestly don't know!! Rupert Ratbags (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I added it to the article. I actually don't edit footballers bios because there is a whole crowd who are much more knowledgeable than me. Also, they usually handle ethnicity pretty well, because in this case, it can have something to do with the subject's notability and what country they can play for, ect. Again, If it is a complex case, then special discussion is critical. Look at somebody like Albert Einstein. His ethniicty, and how it is handled in the lead sentence has been an issue forever here. --Malerooster (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)ps, alot of times these bios go with joe smoe is an xxxx-born xzy. Nicole Kidman is another that has had alot of attention. I try to only change the ones that are very clear cut or are listed on the BLP board. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You explicitly state on the talk page that you do not support edit warring over the present dispute, yet when you were reverted just now your response was to revert the revert [53]. That's indeed edit warring. I respectfully ask you to self-revert. Best regards, Generalrelative (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have blanket-deleted all coverage of the Trump dinner from the article three times within the last 24 hours [54] [55][56]. In the talk page discussion, you are the only editor arguing that it should not be mentioned in the article at all. Also, WP:BRD does not work the way you seem to think it does - it was you who took the bold action of entirely removing content authored by several other editors and backed by multiple reliable sources. HaeB (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HaeB, thank you for the heads up. I believe the "material" in question was added boldly, which is fine. I have reverted it and I am trying discuss on the talk page, hence BRD. Anyways, if the consensus is for inclusion, fine, but lets draft something on the talk page and get agreement. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second revert at the Candace Owens article today, which violates the 1RR restriction. Please self revert. –dlthewave ☎ 23:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will now, thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your nastiness:

Valjean, you are clearly biased and your editing and comments here reflects that. You should not be editing articles that you have a bias against. This goes directly aginst NPOV, a pillar. --Malerooster (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take your partisanship elsewhere. You live in a glass house. Read your words and then look in the mirror. Your contribution history shows a path of whitewashing far-right extremism, and editors like you don't last long. I suggest you be more careful.

Personal attacks like yours help nothing. BTW, I've been here since about forever and helped to write the NPOV policy. You really don't begin to understand it yet. You would benefit from reading my essay on how to deal with biased sources in an NPOV manner: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mad bro? Sorry the truth hurts. --Malerooster (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful. Keep looking in the mirror and see what we all see. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mouse in your pocket doesn't count. Seriously Valjean, post a rewrite of the lead on the talk page, provide some/list of citations, and lets move on, ok? --Malerooster (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit violates the restriction.

It is also a violation of BRD, IOW you are editwarring. Your BOLD deletion had been REVERTED, yet you restored your deletion of longstanding consensus content. Your partisan war to defend and whitewash far-right extremism must stop. It's really bad behavior. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Doug Weller as he was the one who notified you of the DS sanctions and may be aware of your long history of edit warring and partisan tendentious editing.

You need an AP2 topic ban. This constant disruptive behavior must stop. We have better things to do. In spite of all the warnings above, you persist. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "material" in question was boldly added to the lead recently and then removed and then added back. It is being discussed on the talk page and I am open to doing a rewrite of the lead. You obviously don't see how hypocritical you are being by attacking me either, but its ok, I been bullied by far better than you. --Malerooster (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see this was your second violation. Also, it was User:Generalrelative who notified you to no avail. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Doug Weller talk 19:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."