User talk:Daffydavid

Welcome

Hello, Daffydavid! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! All is One (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

RE: Protection request

Sorry, but I am not an admin an I cannot do it by myself. But you can go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (RFPP) for those request. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 08:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

I should have dropped a note earlier, please let me know if you have any other questions. Also note that WP:MEDRS has some extra discussion of paywalls for medical journals. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EWS redirect

Please read the section Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_.22fix.22_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken.Imgaril (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What next?

I thought I followed your instructions: "Content was verbatim quotes from unnamed report. Re-add report name and short summary if available. Suggest adding some info at N Schaefer page as info not found there."

1. The report name was added. 2. Only the summary at the end of the report was available. Yes it is verbatim, but it is public domain as a product of government work. 3. Information at N Schaefer page was added to reference the document.

What is the next step? Her points are not about her but CPS so they belong on the CPS page unless you suggest the report or criticism should have a page of its own, (I don't expect that to be the case, but consensus should rule).

I believe she did a good job of summarizing. For example, if you google "NCCAN 6.4" you will see heaps of links, almost all of which quote the group of statistics that:

The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported on Perpetrators of Maltreatment That report showed that out of every 10000 children, there were 160 cases of Physical Abuse in CPS/Foster care, but only 59 by biological parents; 112 cases of Sexual Abuse in CPS/Foster care, but only 13 by biological Parents; 410 cases of Neglect in CPS/Foster care, but only 241 by biological Parents; 14 cases of Medical Neglect in CPS/Foster care, but only 12 by biological Parents; and 6.4 Fatalities in CPS/Foster care, but only 1.5 by biological Parents.

Schaefer's point on this group of statistics was summarized as: "The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998 reported that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official “safety”, these children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population."

which seems like a concise summary of all those statistics to me.

I urge you to consider her summary and if any point needs to be more concise, evaluate it it separately for deletion. As you know CPS has slick PR so that very little of this is taken serious by the general population. Censorship to make CPS sound successful would propagate ignorance about its shortcomings. Given how the statistics show children's lives at stake if Schaefer is correct, this is no a small issue.

Thanks.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Lothrop

When you nominate an article for deletion, it's important to state why you think the article should be deleted. In the above AfD, you wrote the following:

WP:BIO

This is not very helpful, because it doesn't tell us what about the policy is relevant to the article. It is your responsibility to present a convincing argument as to why this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and simply pointing to a WP guideline is, on the whole, uninformative. The AfD will likely be closed early unless you state a more clear rationale. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mindy McCready

Hi. Regarding my removal of the filmography to the Mindy McCready aricle, I did so because it was my understanding that filmographies should including acting roles, not appearances on reality shows where the subject is appearing as themselves. I think those details are probably presented better in prose than a filmography. As for the music videos being in the discography section, I've really no problem with that as they are related to music. However, if you want to change it up or create a new section, I don't have a problem with that. Pinkadelica♣ 08:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QW

This edit undid some changes made by Barrett himself. It's pretty rare that he edits, but those were his edits. QW is a website which he owns, and I think it's safe to assume that his wording is accurate. He has a COI regarding that article, and if there were anything unduly promotional or otherwise wrong with his edits, then we should change them, but I haven't noticed anything like that. I'm going to revert your edit and will restore your tagging of dead links. Let me know if you have any concerns. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I defer to your experience as a senior editor. I'm just trying to improve Wikipedia and am learning as I go. Thanks for the help. --Daffydavid (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial edits rather than discussing on talk

Hi, I notice two edits you made recently that you would be better discussing on the talk pages. The edit on Andrew Wakefield appears highly dubious, and if you consider it worthy, you could take it to the talk page :) Likewise the homeopathy edit, where there has been a discussion for over three weeks on this specific item. If you have an opinion, then discuss it there rather than leaping in an making inflammatory edits - ie introducing an inflammatory word into the article which actually is not backed up by the evidence - go on, discuss, but not here :) Cjwilky (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritarian

I have removed the PROD from this article, because it was removed on 14 Mar with this edit, so cannot be replaced. If you think it should be deleted, you will have to take it to AfD. I will notify O'Dea (talk), who PRODded it, as well. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Homeopathy". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Crashdoom Talk 08:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Railway air brake

I have added a section Railway_air_brake#Working_pressures. Please check that I have got it right. Biscuittin (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple of references. The figures differ slightly from yours. Do you regard these references as reliable? Biscuittin (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs

I'm not finding the "diffs" section when I look at the history of an article. I remember seeing it before but it appears to be gone now. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure by what you mean diffs section, but if you are looking for a diff link, it can be reached by pressing on "prev" on (cur | prev) next to each revision. For more info visit WP:DIFF & HELP:PH. I have not nullified the help me template in case your question haven't been answered. Feel free to close the request if your query has been answered to. --Glaisher [talk] 10:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my edits to lac-megantic derailment, and your incomprehensible statement

hi there, your statement on my talk page is incomprehensible. it links to 'OR', 'RS' and 'BRD' all of which are broken links. please amend the broken links in your communication so that i may begin to understand it. cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.53.80 (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed WP in links I omitted on your talk page. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my talk

see my talk for a response to your contribution. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.53.80 (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autism omnibus trial

Hi, thanks for reviewing my DYK nomination and telling me it isn't ready. However, you said that I should "fix issues brought up on talk page." Given that the talk page contains nothing but a WikiProject banner, a peer review template and the DYK nomination itself, I wondered exactly what issues these might be and if you could tell me what should be fixed. Jinkinson (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Extracorporeal shockwave therapy 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:
  • US by the [[Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA) for treatment of only [[plantar fasciitis]] and [[tennis elbow]. There is an FDA study to treat recalcitrant [[diabetic]] [[wound]]s.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Need your help/guidance

I have filed a complain against several edit wars in which TheRedPenOfDoom has been involved in . I want you to take part in discussion help me to prove my point . Discussion is taking place here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Serious_Concern._Please_look_into_this_matter_.3D

Please do take part and help ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.20.19 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grooveshark Article

Hey there, I see that you posted to the Grooveshark Talk page, do you need anything further to update the article with this accurate, current information? Erinpickard (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lac-Mégantic derailment 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:
  • The Kennebec Journal, Augusta, ME Kjonline.com |date=2013-07-14 |accessdate=2013-08-11}}</ref>}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sock talk

While I can understand being frustrated with IP editor on the fluoridation article talk page(s), you really do need to lay off the talk about socks. Merely being unregistered is not enough to sustain a charge of sockpuppetry, and I know that you know that already. It is annoying – and I have little doubt that the IP is staying unregistered at least in part because it does so effectively get a rise out of you – but it isn't forbidden or even necessarily discouraged.

Calling him a sock when you don't have a reasonable and credible suspicion that he represents another registered account, an individual evading an existing block, or someone seeking to avoid scrutiny for his past edits is rude, and repeating the claim over and over again is taking you into personal attack and harrassment territory. Feel free to go after his low-quality evidence, poor understanding of policy, questionable judgement about what belongs in our articles, or his own lack of civility; but stop the unsupported sock talk. All you're accomplishing is muddying the waters about who the 'good guy' is here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he got the best of me, I'm tired and I should go to bed. Thanks for the reminder. --Daffydavid (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision using Twinkle

Hi Daffydavid, I noticed that you used Twinkle to identify one of my posts (on the Helen Caldicott article) as vandalism. You also commented on my talk page that I was not using edit summaries adequately. I assure you that my edit was not vandalism but rather a constructive change to the article and if you had read through the recent changes to the article you could see that there is a comprehensive summary of what all of my edits were. I know that vandalism is an issue on Wikipedia and that automated tools are a big help in dealing with the problem, but please make sure that you double-check what the tools are doing when you use them. It would be very off putting for a new member of the community if one of their edits was incorrectly flagged as vandalism. Would you please be able to revert the edit that you incorrectly identified?

Thanks. 37.48.81.44 (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to decline your request. Caldicott is a physician, omitting this from the lede would be incorrect as it is mentioned in more detail in the body. Also you were at WP:3RR, you should have and still should heed WP:BRD if you think your edit is correct. --Daffydavid (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daffydavid, thank you for responding to my request. I would like you to reconsider your response though. The reason that I asked for you to revert your edit was because you flagged my changes as vandalism and said that I wasn't using edit summaries. Neither of these was or is true. In your response you also say that I was at 3RR, which is also not true. As such, it is only polite if you revert your edit to at least acknowledge these facts. From that point please feel free to make any changes to improve the content of the article as you see fit, just as you would with any other Wikipedia page. 37.48.81.44 (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While you may assert that your edits were not vandalism, you were on your way to WP:3RR and I could just have easily used a disruptive editing or 3rr warning tag when I made the revert. Also my edit summary does not identify vandalism , the editor who reverted you prior to me identified the edit as vandalism. So you are barking up the wrong tree on that one. No one is going to hold an edit summary against you. Also from the language you use in your comments I'm inclined to believe you are not in fact a new editor but rather one who is just using a new IP address. Regardless of the edit summary the revert is correct as the lede of the article summarizes the content of the article. As I stated earlier, when you were reverted the 1st time you should have followed WP:BRD and taken the edit to the talk page, which is what you should be doing instead of using my talk page. See you there. --Daffydavid (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "water fluoridation". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 06:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.151.40 (talk) [reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bryce Dallas Howard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"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:
  • ndash}}Howard was born in [[Los Angeles, California]], the daughter of [[writer]] Cheryl Alley{nee Crew) and [[actor]]-[[Film director|director]] [[Ron Howard]], on March&nbsp;2,&nbsp;1981.<ref

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danica McKellar

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UCS is what I was trying to convey in my edit summary. Trying to improve Wikipedia by adding refs will get you a lot further instead of being a pendant. But I guess it's easier for you to link policies on my page than doing just that. Do try and have a nice day. --Daffydavid (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Had you phrased your edit summary as a suggestion rather than a command ("you should have looked for a ref"), I would have ignored it. And I will assume that your referring to someone as a piece of jewelry is no worse than my telling someone to stop trying to be a wikiboss. Do try and have a nice day. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You read it as a command, it was meant as a suggestion and obviously I meant pedant although pendant is much funnier, but I'm tired of this conversation anyway. --Daffydavid (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be having trouble expressing yourself clearly. Your comment was clearly a command. Ah . . . instead of referring to someone as a piece of jewelry, you're a self-appointed wikiboss engaging in name-calling. That makes a lot more sense. I'm tired of the conversation too, so if you'll stop replying I'll have nothing to respond to. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to give you points for being amusing but deduct them for comprehension. You chose to read it has a command so the issue is on your side not mine. Also you should read WP:POTKETTLE. As far as telling me to stop writing on my own page.... well you see how far that has gotten you so far. --Daffydavid (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase you, it's "easier for you to link" an essay than to face the fact that the policies I linked in my first post are ones that you have chosen to ignore. You interpret the phrase "should have" as a "suggestion" rather than a command. So let me make a suggestion: You should have used the few neurons you have in your brain to actually click the links I provided and try your best to understand the policies. I suppose now it's time for you to drag out the old standbys: WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. But remember, my comments are mere suggestions, not commands. As for how far I have gotten in "telling you to stop writing on you own page" . . . well, let me refresh my memory and see who first complained of being tired of the conversation . . . ah, it was you. So I guess you've had a change of heart. By all means, it's your talk page, so feel free to babble all you want. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Irony is clearly lost on you and yes, do actually read the links you provided. Like I said in my previous summary - all the time in the world. --Daffydavid (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Irony", one of the most misunderstood and misused words in the English language. I can't lose something that never existed in the first place. And by the way, yes I have read the links; I read them long before you made your first edit on Wikipedia. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you really should use all your brilliance to improve Wikipedia rather than being what you have accused me of being. Also, since it has been that many years since you read the links now would be a good time to refresh your memory since it appears you have forgotten what they say. It is also possible you have just chosen to ignore them but that can't be it since you are so much smarter than the rest of us lowly peons and you are incapable of making mistakes or being unclear. --Daffydavid (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us do our little part to "improve Wikipedia". My most recent project has been to remind daffy wikibosses about policies they have ignored. But it seems to be a hopeless cause. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, POTKETTLE. --Daffydavid (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're repeating yourself (yawn). And you didn't even link it correctly. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you still keep replying.--Daffydavid (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hey, I don't know what "OR pic" means on your Nutritarian revert. I seem to be out of touch with the jargon! Let me know when you have a chance so I can keep learning. Thank you! jengod (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube on Wikipedia

Hey, just wanted to leave a (friendly and hopefully informative!) note regarding your edit where you removed two YouTube links from a reference (!) with the comment "No youtube on Wikipedia". FYI, that's not a Wikipedia policy; in fact YT (and remember, we're only talking about links, not embedded video or such) can be used (see WP:YOUTUBE) with the usual caveats (e.g. avoid copyright violations). Neither of those links were WP:COPYVIO, so unless you are online and inclined to self-revert your edit soon I will be restoring them as I want to work on that ref a bit more. -- Limulus (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review of the policy you are correct but they should remain out of the article anyway. The Youtube links you are including show Caldicott at a rally. A reference for this line in the article would mention her appearance in the movie which the one right after her name does do. The article is not about Caldicott at the rally so including them here would be off topic. If you want to add them at her page I would have no objection to that.--Daffydavid (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The opening of the movie (have you seen it?) incorporates (basically the same) video of Caldicott from that specific rally, not i.e. clips from random speeches she gave, which is why I think they are perfectly on-topic for the article on the movie. But while the movie is not freely viewable online without copyvio, the YT vids are. Further, the YT vids are longer, so more fully in context. Curiously, I don't see any good reason that either of those two should be used in her page, since (other than being in the movie) they aren't particularly notable or different from what she's said elsewhere at other times. -- Limulus (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have seen the movie. Without specific mention of the movie in the Youtube video it amounts to WP:OR. Further, while you advocate for their inclusion based on the fact that they are "longer, so more fully in context", the point being referenced is that she was questioned and appeared in the movie, not that she appeared at the rally. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not original research at all! What are you claiming is "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist"? The two YT clips are footage from the same event at the same time as was used in the film; this demonstrates WP:VERIFICATION.-- Limulus (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that you've made a second edit, removing more of the ref with the comment "remove ref that has nothing to do with the movie, off topic ref about Wasserman appearing at a rally". As you (apparently should) know, the movie incorporates footage of Wasserman from the same event and it's used right at the beginning of the film, right after the Caldicott clip! It is not off-topic at all. -- Limulus (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have gone ahead and restored the material to the page without waiting for my reply. This is a violation of WP:BRD for the first removal. You are interpreting the Wikipedia policies to fit your argument and ignoring the parts that disagree with your interpretation. Let's begin, - I pointed out that your references are verifying something the sentence does not say " the point being referenced is that she was questioned and appeared in the movie, not that she appeared at the rally". This is still the case. So a big fail for WP:VERIFICATION. You deflected my claim that "the Youtube video amounts to WP:OR" by quoting - What are you claiming is "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist"? I never quoted that part to you. From WP:OR - Sources must support the material clearly and directly. If you would have read further in the policy WP:VERIFICATION you would have seen Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it, which is why your asking "(have you seen it?)" and the comment "As you (apparently should) know" is completely irrelevant (seeWP:VNT"verifiability, not truth"). Does the Youtube video(s) verify that Caldicott appeared in the movie? Does the ref for Wasserman verify he was in the movie? The answer to both is a resounding NO. For these reasons I will remove the references again. I want to be clear here, the references do not belong in the article as they have failed WP:VERIFICATION. You will note that the reference I did leave in does verify the fact that Caldicott appears in the movie. I shall move this entire conversation to the article page so everyone can see it. (With a title change to make the topic of discussion obvious to all) --Daffydavid (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Thank you for defending me/my motives at the Homeopathy talk page. I've got quite a thick skin when it comes to accusations of bad faith, so I wouldn't have brought AGF up myself (at least not at this stage - BonjourMM appears to be a genuine newbie), but it's probably better to guide newbies to the relevant policies as soon as problems arise. Cheers, --Six words (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkton

Hello,

I left a message on the talk page for yorkton. It appears you may have missed them. What sort of evidence are you looking for regarding the area codes? As a note the wikipedia page regarding Area codes 306 and 639 lists Yorkton as one of the communities affected. Further the reference to the NANPA letter has a map and a list of communities. Can we agree on this or can I provide further information.

I'm not attempting to be disruptive I my edits, only improve a long neglected article. Ive invested tonnes of time on researching my edits. Please at least take time to read my provided references for them.

I provided a reference with an official map and list of overlay communities today and again without providing any justification for it you reverted the change.

The bullying is unacceptable. From both sides, lead by example if you'd like to discuss things.

If you have a link showing officially that Yorkton is not affected by the overlay then I will relent.

I'm sure that simply looking at the changes I've made to improve the references and content are more than evidence enough of my intent to improve this article and not vandalize or disrupt it.

I've created several articles for the area and would like to share more of my knowledge with others.

At this time I changed the area code link to the actual wikipedia page vs the old 306 redirect page and used only the title of that page to describe the area codes without using any fancy formatting or added or changed text on the Yorkton page. There are a list of communities on the Wikipedia page for Area codes 306 and 639. I've added the link to the NANPA official map and communities to that area page instead of the Yorkton page to keep things cleaner there. How does this sound to you?

Techgod (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Marine 3: Homefront, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maple Ridge. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ric O'Barry 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:
  • '''Richard "Ric" O'Barry''' (born Richard Barry O'Feldman<ref name="smile1988">{{Cite book | last = O'Barry | first = Richard |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Water Fluoridation Controversy

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Water fluoridation controversy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. It is advised you also read about WP:GAMING Bigbaby23 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trolled. Response left at users talk page.--Daffydavid (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ONDP Article

Reverting bad faith edits by an anonymous editor and asking them to discuss those controversial edits on the talk page is not disruptive. Keeping correct and sourced information in an article is not disruptive. As far as MOS:FORLANG, In the case of ONDP, it is "closely associated with a non-English language", being French - the language of a large number of speakers in Ontario. We are not in Québec, where the second language is repressed and legislated against, Ontario recognizes bilingualism, and does not limit it's use. Ontario sets a minimum of what services and where they must be provided in French, not a maximum and limitations, there is no issue on including both official names of the organization, especially when sourced.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shaken baby syndrome. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. IjonTichy (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to troll on his own page.--Daffydavid (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

I don't know if you're aware, but you keep reverting the article to the version of a blocked sockpuppeteer, which includes blanking sources and inserting 'citation needed' tags when the articles is referenced. If you don't like news articles, you must realize, it's the news coverage that got this article it's notability in the first place, so you may as well delete those. All the citation put in there meet wp:rs, so I suggest you either leave it or take it to dispute resolution. Thankyou.--Taeyebaar (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is your evidence [1]. I think you should have raised the issues of the refs in the talk page before reverting it to the version of the sockpuppet by blanking out reliably sourced content and then adding {citation needed} tags (????)--Taeyebaar (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sean Stephens (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self promotion

I rewrote the entire page because whoever wrote the first one has no clue about me. I am not attempting self promotion just accuracy and details that complete the entry. If you are going to have a Wikipedia entry, why not make it complete? Alvin J Law (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is accurate or not is irrelevant on Wikipedia. What is relevant is what is verifiable, if you can provide references that are published by reliable sources then by all means add it back in. At the same time, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a repository of everything. It must be notable. So not every award by every organization is going to meet this criteria. The organization itself must be notable and then the particular award must be notable. Hope this helps. Oh, and the self promotion reference is about the link to your own website you added at the end.--Daffydavid (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Law, I'm the one who originally wrote the article, though others have revised it somewhat in the last nine years. I'm sorry that you feel I have no clue about you, but I did the best I could given the sources available to me at the time. If there is anything factually incorrect about the current article, then of course we'd like to correct it as soon as possible. However, as I explained to you on your talk page, the additional material you are contributing doesn't have the tone and referencing expected of a neutrally worded encyclopedia article. I'm happy to help you get as much of the information as possible back into the article, though this depends partly on you providing reliable sources attesting to its veracity, and accepting that it may need to be reworded to fit the style of a reference work. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton report

I have declined your request for speedy deletion for this article. As the criteria states, it is used for "a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event". A report is none of these. You may have more success proposing deletion or starting a full deletion discussion, but I personally would recommend either a) finding sources that support the report, or failing that b) change the article to a redirect to Animal People. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Daffydavid. 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]

Joel Fuhrman

We might add him to Category:Quacks Rathfelder (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably appropriate. --Daffydavid (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Daffydavid. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Daffydavid. 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]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]