The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed
Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.
It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's immigration crisis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Black Kite kite (talk)13:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
at our border—hungry, thirsty, exhausted, scared and vulnerable."<ref>Statement of [Craig Fugate]] Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency U.S. Department of Homeland Security</ref><ref
Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives
Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
Would you please visit Wikipedia talk:Administrators and participate in a discussion there? I've made a proposal to grant administrative rights to any non-administrator who's elected to Arbcom, and arbitrator Newyorkbrad has asked how such a situation was handled in the early days of Arbcom, when non-admins were on the committee. Your memory would be invaluable in the "Non-administrator arbitrators" section. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Industrialisation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
]s in the [[science|scientific]] [[research]] conception and application of new technologies]], enabling the industrialisation process to continue to evolve. The industrialisation process
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tex-Mex 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:
it in heavy doses, as used in Berber cuisine}}</ref> but used in only a few central Mexican recipes).
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Santa Clara Valley 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:
and Warehouse Union]] (ILWU) backed the Cannery and Agricultural Worker's Industrial Union (CAWIU}, a communist controlled union headquartered in San Jose, which had considerable success organizing
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Silicon Valley 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:
of wartime contracts to manufacture transmitting tubes for [[Radar]] to [Eimac|Eitel-McCullough]], a San Bruno firm, which manufactured power-grid tubes for radio amateurs and aircraft radio
Fred, I saw your additions to the New Almaden article today, and I thought you might be interested in teaming up to flesh out a new article idea that has been rattling around in my brain for a few years. The topic would be mercury mining in California, with an emphasis on how the 19th century gold rush was sustained by mercury taken mainly from New Almaden but also other mines in California, and how this large amount of mercury broke the Rothschild's monopoly. Of course the poisonous results of mercury mining and its use in gold mining would be described. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santa Clara Valley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LF-ERW, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pipeline. 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.
Hello, are you familiar with the issue that it's not possible to register new accounts on communpedia?
"on, please select just the cat photos in the box below:" yet no cat photos are shown. It seems this has been an issue for a long time. Perhaps you could bring it to the attention of the relevant staff.TimIsTimisTimIsTim (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ellen Pao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LLC. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Autonomous space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segregation. 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.
When I saw the way Ellen Pao and her court case were split up I was really surprised that it was done by a simple cut&paste, so I posted this at the Help Desk and it appears that there is actually a way to split an article together with its revision history. In fact this is the way it should be done, according to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, I think.
Anyway, it looks like trying to fix the situation will be time consuming, something I am very short of, so I was just wondering if you can lend a hand,
In essence you are over-ruling arbcom sanctions and it's now being used as an excuse to leave a blocked sock unblocked. This can be grounds grounds for arbcom action against you. Please rectify the matter. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just lurking around, hopefully you don't mind, but this has to be the most apt, concise, and well-written ARBCOM statements I've seen since I've started editing here.--WaltCip (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your positive encouragement, but given LB's vindictiveness and "tit for tat" methods, that's an RfA I'd strenuously vote against. This has User tested ability of many to "take the high road", including Admins. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 09:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mainstream media, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aggregation. 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.
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helper, Utah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank you for your posts on my Talk page. I replied briefly there. The issue is the Russian experience during the Genocide. In the years 1918-1922, tens of thousands, possibly hundred of thousands of Russian Armenians were massacred in the Caucasus. It is very much a part of the Genocide as you can check here from the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia. It is an extraordinary fact that their experience has never been recorded in the article. When I supplied an impeccably cited edit on their experience Massacres after Word War I, it was immediately reverted WP:NOCONSENSUS.
Obviously I have to take seriously your Committee's strictures. Personally I think the complaints of the editor involved are trivial, but faced with the real possibility that I can't get these edits into the article obviously I must comply. As far as possible I shall ignore him, and otherwise remain entirely neutral in my dealing with him.
I trust you will assist me in getting the Russian experience recorded in the article. The fact is there is no dissent about the details. Just a determimnation it seems to leave their experience out of the article. c1cada (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user received more than just one warning regarding the insults, and he continued to do so. And even after a report at ANI, and the subsequent formal warnings that followed, the user says: As far as possible I shall ignore him, and otherwise remain entirely neutral in my dealing with him. How is there no appropriate action not taken in this regard? Really, how many warnings is it going to take for this user to not insult me publicly? Might I also add that the user hasn't even removed those personal attacks from the talk page. Everyone who visits that talk page is going to see all that libelous remarks about me. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fred. Just a quick question — I thought Wikinfo was supposed to have migrated to Wikia, but I cannot find it there. What happened? I hope it hasn't gone under; much as I love Wikipedia, I appreciated the alternative viewpoints that Wikinfo made available. Please let me know! Thanks. David Cannon (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to H-1B visa, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfeise (talk • contribs) 16:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Jfeise. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to H-1B visa seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as H-1B visa are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The normal way is to seek consensus, and not just post the same biased stuff on the talk page. A Wikipedia Admin should know that. jfeise (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. When will you begin discussing the issues? rather than simply reverting. For example, what does our neutral point of view policy require with respect to notable points of view. Not deletion, but inclusion. User:Fred BauderTalk19:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you stop misrepresenting what I did. I moved your changes to the criticism section where they belong. It was you who then went on a rampage. jfeise (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disney is a big deal. So is a bi-partisan congressional request for an investigation. Even an article in The New York Times is a big deal. Burying in a "criticism" section is not due weight. User:Fred BauderTalk20:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is a big deal. This kind of stuff has happened before with other high-profile companies, e.g., MS, Intel, and that is all in the criticism section. It belongs in the criticism section. jfeise (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that happens only rarely, is not systemic to the H1, and because of that doesn't justify an elevated mentioning. If it did, then all the other situations, the huge majority of situations, where the H-1B is used as intended would also have to be mentioned at the same level. The way you added it made the whole article appear anti-H1, i.e., a specific POV. I think that was the wrong way to go about it. This belongs in the criticism section. jfeise (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you will read Wikipedia:NPOV carefully, it advises against a criticism section. Here's a question: What are H-1B visas used for and by who? The research I've done today shows that a substantial fraction is used for outsourcing rather than to meet labor shortages in skilled occupations. Not only does it not belong buried in a confusing criticism section, it probably belongs in the lede. User:Fred BauderTalk20:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your research is rather flawed. The abuses are small. The majority of H-1Bs are to fill positions in skilled occupations. You just don't read about it much because that's not news. So, you see the few abuses, and falsely conclude that it is widespread. It isn't, as anybody who actually watches the space can tell you. You fell for the reporting bias. There are provisions in the laws to prevent salary dumping. That alone makes outsourcing rather useless, unless it is outsourcing to a foreign country. I suggest you do real research about the H1 instead of just blindly believing the misrepresentations from the anti-H1 crowd. jfeise (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My research shows that the NYT's article was ground breaking, see this link. It WAS "not news" NOW it is. The Department of Labor says, no, there is nothing in the laws. At Southern California Edison the firm saved about 40% on wages by outsourcing. There is no crowd, more a flash mob. The Dallas Morning News' and The New York Times agree about, basically, nothing. User:Fred BauderTalk22:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
The Wikipedia Library
Call for Volunteers
The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Long-acting reversible contraception, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irregular bleeding. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wyoming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Teton County. 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.
Thanks for uploading File:ChineseBullMarket.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uber (company)
I think your edit inadvertently duplicates information about David Plouffe. I'd, you know, normally just edit the article myself but I'm feeling lazy and I'm not sure which section it should be removed from. --Yamla (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi. Could you please go back to my talk page and sign the part of the recent message(s) that you posted. I'll then decide how best to address your query. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
St. Paul's School
In case you haven't seen this [2]; I responded with this [3]. The predicted and expected edit warring commenced with this [4]. I find it highly unorthodox that the reasoning for removing the content is this: "Rmv all non-encylopedic content + other cleanup per assessment by WikiProject Schools coordinator"; and this: "This has been thoroughly reviewed by project coordinator and I agree with all of it. It's not encylopedic. To restore any of it, get consensus on the TP." No discussion on the article talk page, no consensus sought -- just blanket removal, as if it was mandated. I have left this message at the talk page of Admin/editor the edit warring and point-making editor is referring to as the one (allegedly) making the unilateral decision. Very strange circumstances, indeed. Can't say I've ever seen anything like it in Wikipedia previously. -- WV ● ✉✓19:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Winkelivi, you violated your warning from the administrator about following editors around the project. I've been there for a few weeks. Your first edit was today. You also posted on my talk page (with a bogus warning) when you were told to stay off it. Finally, canvassing from specific editors you think will support you is another no-no. You have been warned repeatedly by administrators about your disruptive behavior with so many editors.[5][6][7] If you feel some of the content should be restored, then follow the proper process and get consensus on the article's talk page. But it's interesting that you've made zero edits to the article prior to today. Lootbrewed (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a "bogus warning", it was entirely valid. Removing a huge amount of content without consensus on the article talk page and then reverting again after it is restored is disruptive editing. Further, the article was on my watchlist. If you notice, prior to reverting your blanking of content, I reverted similar content removal by two different IPs (likely the same editor) because of their attempt to whitewash the article. The "proper process", if talk page consensus hasn't been attempted/obtained first, is to discuss at the talk page per WP:BRD when reverted as you were. You have chosen, instead, to take it upon yourself to remove content you don't like based on a discussion on another editor's talk page and then edit war over it. That's not within policy guidelines - your reasoning for removal is not only unorthodox, it's invalid. Your attempt at forum shopping is also not appropriate (going to the talk pages of admins to complain about me). For whatever reason, you seem intent on bending the "rules" here to suit your wants. I suspect if you continue on this path, well, you know the rest. -- WV ● ✉✓19:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Educate yourself on what disruptive editing is. And you watchlisted the article after you saw I was editing it. Now, about the content... I was the first edtior to revert content, and you then reverted my revert. Obviously, if I sought a thorough review of feedback from a WikiProject School coordinator (and administrator), Tedder, long before I made any changes, it was clearly done with very pure intentions to get proper guidance and improve the article. Otherwise, I would have just made the edits unilaterally with no input. Also, the entire matter was made clear on the article's talk page with the admin's assessment included at his request. If an editor sees content that doesn't belong, he can remove it if it's in line with WP's policies or guidelines. If someone else disagrees, they can take it to the talk page and try to reach consensus. Apparently, you think you know more about the article's content than the coordinator who oversees all of the school articles. I'm sorry, but you don't. So everything was above board. On the other hand, you followed me to the article, posted on my talk page after being told not to, and canvassed the one editor with whom you knew I was having contentious discussions about some article content. I believe your inappropriate behavior (again) will be clear to any administrator who reviews this matter. Lootbrewed (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"you watchlisted the article after you saw I was editing it" Your evidence for this is what, precisely? "I was the first edtior to revert content, and you then reverted my revert." Look again at the edit history for today. You are incorrect. Obviously, another editor also recognizes that your removal of content was unorthodox, to say the least. It's time to discuss at the article talk page and do this the right way, not on the talk pages of other editors. -- WV ● ✉✓20:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually made the one and only edit I made on the page to get the 10,000 characters worth of crap on the rape incident out. Grudgingly, a bit should be in the article. Oppose completely having the boy's name. For the most part, I am actually in agreement with a lot of Lootbrew's cuts. The rape part is where I see no consensus. And I agree with Fred in that there are cuts to be made, but dozens of cuts in numerous areas only leads to a disastrous mess on the talk page like what is there now. My best thought would be to reset the article back to before all this started, restart the discussions on the talk page and hack them out one at a time, starting with blp issues like the rape incident first. Post notices at project New Hampshire and project schools to get wider input. Good luck. John from Idegon (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's policy addressing the inclusion/omission of a defendant's name I can't see any good reason for leaving it out. His name is already all over the internet and the case has been reported on widely in the mainstream media and various other reliable sources. My objection to the content would be any hint of sensationalism or tabloid journalism. But to just gut the section based on the discussion between a couple of editors at talk pages other than the article talk page is not just unorthodox, it's against policy and certainly not in line with how consensus is reached. But yes, hack out the issues on the talk page and go to project New Hampshire and project schools - these are all good suggestions. -- WV ● ✉✓21:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy about excluding defendant's name other than, if that is the only important thing that happened in their life, we ought not create an article about them, but integrate information about them into any article about the incident. However, as as he is just into young adulthood, my preference would be to not use his name, simply to refer to him as an older student. Our scapegoating responsibilities are limited; "if it bleeds, it leads" is not our motto. User:Fred BauderTalk22:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Fred, what I meant was that Winkelvi had zero involvement in the article before today and obviously knew from the edit history that I'd been editing it for a few weeks. His run-ins with me over the past few weeks are now infamous on the project, so it's puzzling that he chose to start editing St. Paul's when he knew I was very involved with it and he had no involvement. And in terms of me saying I was the first to revert content, I was referring to all the content I removed, which was of course done long after I received the detailed input from the coordinator. I realize that another editor tried to remove other content (about the trial), but that's obviously not content I was going to remove, nor did remove. And the revert of that removal of course was appropriate because the content is encylopedic and well sourced. The content I removed, however, is not enyclopedic (and is mostly unsourced and probably original research anyway). So my point is that I was the original reverter of the content I removed. By the way, although Tedder felt all of the socialization content added should not be included, I felt it was interesting and noteworthy enough to leave the heart of it in there. I'm sure you saw that. Lootbrewed (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming number of edits to remove inappropriate content from an article are not discussed ahead of time. They are typically discussed after another editor objects; not reverted back. As you know, I clearly felt that a lot of the content in the article was essentially "junk" (and I believe you did too, at least in part). So rather than removing any content on my own, I chose to ask for input from the best "experts" I could find, the WikiProject Schools coordinators. You even noted it on the talk page, which I had intended to do after I received a response. So this was by no means a covert mission on my part. If the coordiantor had told me I was way off base and that the content was fine, I wouldn't have removed anything and that would have been the end of the issue. But the fact that the coordinator gave feedback that was almost precisely in line with what I was thinking was the confirmation I needed to proceed. So, clearly, I wasn't looking to simply remove content without finding out first if my hunches were reasonable. I was trying to do the right thing. Lootbrewed (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked him an honest question and wanted an honest answer because it seems he is seeing something I'm not. You claim I am following you, but here you are following me and seemingly unable to stop commenting where I comment. My question to him has nothing to do with you, therefore, I suggest you mind your business and I will mind mine. -- WV ● ✉✓22:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking you what you see that is an indication I have gone "too far" today. I'm asking for specifics so I can learn from whatever mistakes I've made here that you have seen. Bringing up past transgressions/errors where you weren't involved isn't helpful nor is it answering my question. I'm asking because I genuinely want to know - I'm not good at reading between the lines, that's why I asked to begin with. -- WV ● ✉✓23:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are engaged in a pattern of behavior that is not sustainable, whether I was involved with it or not. Keep in mind that I am an administrator and a former arbitrator. Continuing to act in an extremely aggressive way will not work. You need to focus on editing, not quarreling. User:Fred BauderTalk00:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are an adminsitrator. I appreciate your honesty. The specifics in your response are helpful. Thank you, -- WV ● ✉✓00:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This thread was never meant to be about you. From here on out, unless I see something that is a blatant violation of policy on your part, you can expect me to not respond to your shit-stirring or mention you at all. You want to be left alone, right? You want to not have contact with me, right? Then either afford me the same or stop bitching about me. -- WV ● ✉✓23:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Fred Bauder. You have new messages at Talk:Success Academy Charter Schools. Message added 00:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
