You are contributing to the education of the masses. ;) I know it can be frustrating to have your edits undone or changed, but it happens to everyone. You're doing a good job with the edits to Scientific notation and the redirect of Normalised notation, so don't get discouraged.
If you ever need anything, let me know or ask at the help desk.
Hello, FuzzyCatPotato. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Michel Chossudovsky, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:
avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. I'm not trying to be nasty about it, but that's not how we roll on this wiki. Edit warring is not allowed, and if there's a disagreement we take it to the talk page or Requests for Comment, especially when one or more parties have a conflict of interest. In the spirit of an open mind, imagine of someone from Conservapedia started linking to that website in articles. How would you feel about that? That's the problem with COI editing. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day.18:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that the troll is from the same site as FuzzyCatPotato, though he hasn't been active there in years. To clarify, he was a respected member there in good standing, not a "wandal" as they call it. When he was community banned here, the other members there all stood by his side, saying that his ban wasn't fair, and saying derogatory things about me and other Wikipedians. This troll from his site must make FuzzyCatPotato proud of his mothership. Beyond that, congratulations to the troll for creating drama. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day.12:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will also point out that the aforementioned troll left the site long before FCP joined. You're blatantly attempting to poison the well here, PCHS. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Spamming". I am shaking in my boots. Your recent contribs consist entirely of gleefully removing links to RationalWiki. In the section above, you call RationalWiki my "mothership". I am sure you are nothing but an impartial observer, @PCHS-NJROTC:. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I remove the links to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, and because community consensus supports my position on the matter per WP:RS and WP:ELNO. Those rules exist for a reason, and considering your position within the organization that owns Rational-Wiki, it is highly inappropriate for you to be adding links to the site per WP:SPAMMER. You have been involved in past discussions where the community has agreed that links to your site do not belong on Wikipedia, you proceeded to add another link to your site after that incident, and your snarky I am shaking in my boots reply is, in my opinion, disrespectful of this community. Please read WP:COI. I don't believe you are here in bad faith, but if you wish to improve the encyclopedia, you need to follow the guidelines and respect community consensus or the community will have to take steps to stop you from disrupting (blocking, topic bans, etc), and nobody wants to have to escalate to that. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day.03:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I take that as a personal attack since my membership on other wikis is irrelevant to the fact that you are a board member at R-W repeatedly posting links to your own wiki in violation of WP:ELNO, especially considering I do not do the same with links to Conservapedia, and I'm going to very nicely ask you cease what I am considering incivility. I'm not quick to jump to conclusions per WP:AGF, but I took a closer look at your edits, and I'm beginning to believe you are here more to promote Rational-Wiki than to build an encyclopedia. You are more than welcome to be part of this community, but when I edit Wikipedia, I do so with Wikipedia's policies and best interest in mind, and I suggest you either do the same or stick to your own wiki. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day.11:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In email, PCHS-NJROTC writes:
Redacted*
Respectfully, I find it hard to believe that you seriously consider 2 external links added over 1 year to a nonprofit website to be "advertising".
There are serious issues with Wikipedia articles being controlled by their subjects -- the articles on almost any software read like advertisements.
But I am not Microsoft. I have no financial incentive to glorify RationalWiki. (Hell, I've consistently pushed to add negative content to the RationalWiki article.) I think your concern is misplaced. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EMAILPOST. As you can see, there's no official policy, but it's generally frowned upon, and WP:ArbCom has suggested suppression of such posts (and I'm debating in my head whether I want to trouble an oversighter to suppress it or not). This is not Rational-Wiki, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies if you wish to be a part of our community. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day.02:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I am going to ask you, if you are not here to promote Rational-Wiki, why are most of your edits related to Rational-Wiki, including to add links to its articles? If you are here to build an encyclopedia, why not just create quality content in our articles instead of linking to Rational-Wiki? I think your actions are disruptive, and I have been kind not to take this to WP:COIN, WP:ANI, or some other drama board, but if you continue acting like this, I'm not going to have a choice. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day.02:50, 9 August 2017 (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 that 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.
superseded by File:RationalWiki Main Page.png. "Filemover" declined rename request because they believed the date was an integral part of the filename. This is obviously nonsense which could result in countless redundant files - lots of files get updated on a regular basis and a date in the filename becomes confusing/unworkable/redundant. Anyway, this file is no longer useful.
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
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 this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! PCHS-NJROTC(Messages)Have a blessed day.22:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Holodomor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Davies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Holodomor into Holodomor in modern politics. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
