User talk:Leprof 7272

Preparing for departure

This is setting context for all notes that might appear in the interim. (Le Prof)

Scabeba posting

Please do not edit my edits on the buddy rich page...I am his daughter and know a lot more about him than you. Leave it alone!!!

Posting traced to Scabeba, and cordial reply left; attribution of edits to me was mistaken. (Le Prof)

Thanks for your note

I appreciate your kindness and wish you well on your retirement. I highly recommend it! I retired last October and have resisted making "plans" because I just want to let this next chapter open on its own. My husband and son are both physicists working on the ATLAS experiment at CERN that announced the Higgs Boson last July. Like you, they both have sought opportunities to explain scientific subjects to the general public, but it's a steep climb. Best, Grand'mere Eugene — Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You :)

Thank you for all your advice. I will be sure to follow up on EVERYTHING. It's a great start for me to finally get some usable guidance.Lgkkitkat (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for

Le Prof, Thank you for the compliments on my userpage art and hometown! Here's hoping that you're having a better day today and thank you for the kind words! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 09:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

An invitation to look at a couple links, suggesting

that with a little looking, even close to you (@Doc James), you'd see we are on the same side of the secondary referencing principle. See here, in your Talk, for our shared conviction on secondary sources… [1]. And here for guidance given new editors on the same, [2] and [3] and affirmation for how I do it (see also Barnstar above it); And then for the articles I am working on, see [4] (this section only, vis-a-vis referencing), and [5] (note no refs. in lede, because all material mirrored and ref'd in main body), and for an article in process (6 of 13 secondary, remaining primaries take from secondaries, and no bare URLs, etc., [6]. And see here for an invited analysis of referencing at an article: [7], at request of another editor, followed by 30 day wait since not my area of expertise, then by posting of tags. I could go on forever. This is not something we disagree about. I am sad we had to have this falling out over this apparent issue. Le PRof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear that we agree on the importance of secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Substituted alcohols

I just started Substituted alcohols but It needs improvement from a chemist (see Talk:Substituted_alcohols). I also started Alcohol (drugs) recently, and Alternative psychoactive alcohol use long time ago. --David Hedlund (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

My Talk page

has not received any new messages from you, can you please quote the text for me as I cannot find anything from you by searching for "28 June" and "19 June". --David Hedlund (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Carpanone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phenolic

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Polycyclic compound may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Polycyclic compound 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:

• for [[red tide]]s. The R group at right refers to one of several possible four-carbon side chains (see main [[Brevetoxin]] article.]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane

Hey Leprof, could you please fill out this form so I can process your request for Cochrane access? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Apology

You stepped into a mine field. I blew up. I'm sorry. This was an extraordinarily difficult interaction and the person involved exhibited some of the worst behavior I have encountered as an editor. We spent thousands of words debating a single sentence in which Bob was clearly defying consensus by every means in his disposal without any regard for the rules whatsoever. I'm not capable of discussing this issue rationally, so it will be a lot easier for me if we don't rehash that episode. If you can accept that I'll appreciate it. Formerly 98 (talk)

Response made at editor's talk page. All good. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Paracetamol and asthma

Hi Le Prof, I agree with your assessment that the important thing regarding the paracetamol article is getting the content accurate [8]. Considering request to stay off the editor in question’s talk page [9], I’ll discuss content related concerns here. [Content already appearing here, [10].], deleted. Le Prof.] On the behavioral issues raised, I disagree with many of the statements made regarding me personally, but one good thing about WP is everything is documented. Here are all the relevant discussions, if you are at all interested in any of that: [11], [12], [13]. To tell you the truth, the edits on the paracetamol article were actually my first edits ever on WP, and I was surprised by what I encountered from the editor in question and a few others. His statement that I was blocked is accurate. I was reverted then later blocked by an involved admin and stated reason was “copyright violation”, but then I was still reverted when significantly reworded to remove any hint of copyright violation, so this was confusing for a new editor. I was disappointed by the editor in question’s lack of response to your statement regarding refraining from threatening discipline action/sanctions during important debates. I was driven away from that debate and the article by his threat, and I was almost driven away from WP entirely by earlier fiasco. I’m still interested in improving the paracetamol article, but honestly, I’m concerned regarding associated threats and concerned that attempts to improve article would result in a non-productive time sink, and unfortunately my time on WP is limited. Thanks again for addressing this concern with the editor who made the threat. Regards.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion redirected to article talk pages, and personal response made at this editor's Talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Alcohol and health

Hello, Leprof! I'm trying to remember: were you one of the people who dealt with the alcohol related articles created by David Hedlund? I can't remember who all contributed to fixing the "Alcohol (drug)" and similar articles, and I can't go back and look because the page has been deleted so its talk page is gone. But if you are interested in dealing with those poorly-written anti-alcohol articles of his, I just discovered another one: Alcohol and health. It was called to my attention by a new addition someone added (which is also problematic). But then I noticed the section "Pregnancy and alcohol" which is horrible: it cites a single study instead of a review article, and mis-states the results of the one study it cites. Then I looked at the general tenor of the article, noticed its strong anti-alcohol bias and partial incoherence, and smelled David Hedlund. Sure enough, turns out he contributed most of the content. If this area interests you, I'd appreciate it if you would take a look and maybe discuss on the article's talk page. My question: Can the article be fixed, or would it be better to simply merge any salvageable content to some other article? Also, who else should I contact about this? Thanks for any thoughts. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Thank you for your interest in our user study. Please email me at credivisstudy@gmail.com. Wkmaster (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marine sandglass, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Columbus and Chronometer. 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) 13:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Bruce Rauner

I want to apolgize for the edit tonight. I have not been on here editing for a few months and its 1 in the morning so half awake, but i did it because i was worried and from my view that it was becoming bias and vandlism, (again maybe because im half awake) I revert it to that version so that it would be a clean start if u can understand. Anyway, it was all in good faith and in no way did i meen for all this to happened. I sincarally apolgize for all the trouble that was cause tonight. and i ask for forgiveness. Nhajivandi (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Western culture

Thank you for your edit at Western culture. Generally, it's best to follow WP:NOCITE when dealing with unsourced material that you believe is doubtful, especially in an article that is largely unsourced. Actually, I'm surprised that the information was controversial at all, but I guess everyone has an opinion. I put a {{cn}} tag on the claim about equality of women as happening during the Medieval period -- I'm pretty sure that's not true; that movement didn't really get going until the 19th century. Anyway, good luck with your sourcing project on the article. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply from Georginho

Hello Le Prof, please see a reply to your message in my talk page. Thanks. Georginho (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply from George_M._Church

Hello Le Prof, please see my reply to your message in my Talk:George_M._Church talk page. I'd greatly appreciate your help in fixing this. George Church (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and requests for dates and secondary sources. I've suggested a few on the talk page. George Church (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

George, this is a good venue to place brief notes, to keep it out of the general bulk of commentary at the article talk page. As for edit suggestions, keep appending them there, with citations as simple content bullets (without templates or other html markup)—in the two "existing" or "new" categories. I will then keep facilitating their review and addition. Please, though,have patience: the rush to work in response to your initial effort was intentional, in good faith, and its pace cannot be maintained. Further work will come as life permits. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You have a great deal of integrity

...unlike certain other people. I didn't realize until now, how bad it was. --FeralOink (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thank you very much. I will soon move this to a selected accolades area on my User page. Thankfully, those most important in this NPOV and COI situation have been amenable to reason, and we are making good progress. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Checking in

Hello, Leprof 7272. You have new messages at Marketdiamond's talk page.
Message added 4:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just so you know

I'm gathering together evidence against against DePiep if he gets taken to ANI as it seems there are some WP:CIR and WP:THERAPY problems here. I'm hopefully someone with a hat there can tell him to start being more mindful of keeping a civil tongue and assuming good faith. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5775 14:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I can also be short/curt in dialog. My bottom line is that the discourse be reasonable, aimed at expertise, and largely impersonal. See also the following: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#I_would_ask_general_attention and Talk:Oxygen#Discharge_tube_prose_edited_strongly. Cheers.

No worries, if I may though, it's best to try and keep your cool in situations like this and allow the other person to dig their hole if you feel they are refusing to be reasonable. I'm not sure you could bring a claim of ownership against them, but civility wise, DePiep is in deep. I don't know about alchemist, though I'm unfortunately having a lot of trouble understanding everything he's written (and I can understand some pretty bad English). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5775 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

New message

Hello, Leprof 7272. You have new messages at Marketdiamond's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent edit of an AN3 archive file

[User removing content because discussion long over.]

Discussion regarding the proper response to an editor deleting unsourced material in a BLP article

[User removing content because discussion unproductive.]

Kittens for you!

...because sometimes one kitty is just not enough! :) --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You are so very kind, and Madam LeProf is endeared to you for the gesture. Smiles. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your citations! Now create an account or the kitten gets it! PureRED (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Explaining

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, responded at your Talk page, and all is (as said there), understood. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chemical substance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Purification (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) 09:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Pyrrhotite and non-stoichiometric compound

I've removed the tags from those articles. As stated on the talk pages: the articles are not contradictory. The pyrrhotite article discusses the basics without using the term non-stoichiometric in the crystal structure section. If you want to add to that section, please do - improvement always welcome. But the contradictory tags were not accurate -- so removed. Vsmith (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Avoid Widefox

Nothing more to be said. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

I (finally) just read your reply concerning the B.bergdorfi(sp?) article. Your message really gave me pause, and I appreciate your patience in pointing out my errors. Feel free to critique any of my other edits, it will only make the encyclopedia better. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Methylene (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) 09:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

List of cosmic microwave background experiments

Hi, I have been working on bringing List of cosmic microwave background experiments up to date. Since you added various improvement templates a couple of months ago, I thought you might be interested in helping, or discussing inclusion criteria on the talk page. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent help

I appreciate your support and editing help on PBC Foundation and your kind comments. Did you intend the last post on Talk:PBC Foundation to be there? I have lttle time or enthusiasm at present but will see if I can manage further comments. Now -- would you like to help me in part of my day job and write a biomedical grant -- that is probably just as frustrating! Jrfw51 (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your edits and advice. A battle lost. Once the professional "dogs" get their teeth into you and your less-than-perfect creation, there is no hope for a part-timer like me and a charity for a disease I expect they have never heard of. I will look out in the upcoming months for further evidence of the greater-than-other notability they demanded and may revisit the entry then. Do you have any enthusiasm to suggest a full overhaul of other health charity pages to bring them up to the standard we had created? Jrfw51 (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:New International Encyclopedia

Thanks for pointing out the editor error in the Template:New International Encyclopedia

I have fixed it. Here is the diff so you can see how it was done.

It may take a time to propagate through usage on some pages, but if you want to hurry up the process for a particular article, make a dummy edit on the page (edit the page make no changes and save it) no change will occur in the edit history but the templates used in the page will be refreshed.

-- PBS (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Repairs at Revenant

Please take your discussion to Talk. Consensus first seems to be the best route for the many numerous issues you have raised. Talk page first. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

that you left on my Talk page concerning DocJames. In my defense note that I did end my message to him by wishing him "Best regards all the same." And Best Regards to You, as well. Motsebboh (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for all your work on the Jennifer Pritzker article! TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yvonne Connolly Martin

Check out the new article at Yvonne Connolly Martin and feel free to expand or correct. - Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Chirality (chemistry)

Are you going to be writing the "Methods and practices" section in this article? H Padleckas (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

And it would be good idea to write drafts of the other sections that you found lacking. You are an ideal author. Feel free to cut a lot of the material. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@H Padleckas:@Smokefoot: Alas, I am not the best to write fully, and alone on these basic articles. I will always contribute to outlines, and write on bullet points in outlines, in the areas where I have expert knowledge and experience. But the person for this is a secondary school instructor, or a small team of college educators (e.g., one organic, one inorganic, one analytical, etc.). The key point of my earlier edits, was that simplistic, most basic textbook-derived statements, when filtered by the inexperienced, often come out simply wrong (example being focusing on axial chirality with spiro compounds, when Eliel et al. list at least three kinds observed).

Moreover, I am more and more parting company at articles where tags are not accepted. The policies and guidelines allow them, yet I am routinely reverted and accused of bombing, when placing an article tag, and then noting which are the offending sections with section tags/and or marking sentences needing checking. Now, I am fully aware that this disturbs the appearance of articles. But so what, if the article is badly in need of attention? We here are far too devoted to appearance, and deny the utility—as is used in professional document preparation—of allowing working documents to have placeholders indicating where attention and work are needed. And I have no further time, case by case, to argue this point.

Bottom line, based on my own research and experience, tags are honest, they are useful to readers (as I have queried), and they streamline followup work of all editors, down the road as time permits. The only down side is they make articles look awful. Well, I am more than willing to engage individual questioned edits, to remove and change as others suggest. But the carte blanche reversion represent a fundamental difference in values, and respect for our readership. (After learning about tags, one class was overwhelmed at the value they add in knowing whether to trust material, and asked me why they do not appear in all cases where there are problems. What was I to say?)

Bottom line, I will give little more time of my life to fighting devotion to clean looking articles that have major, major problems. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sicario

Just a neutral note that you might want to join the discussion at Talk:Sicario (2015 film) regarding the original-research tag in one section.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Intrinsic factor

The tags at intrinsic factor accomplished what they intended to; they called attention of experienced, expert editors to the article, and led to change. [Often, the extent to which at-odds differ, is that some editors seem to believe that once they have visited an article, sufficient expertise has been brought to bear—and that no other experts need look. I see this as simple, personal hubris. In no sane universe is a job done with a single editor's attention (nor should one win the highest prizes of at ones' entry into an endeavour, so much for the sane universe theory).] Moreover, my affixing tags is never the sole task I involve myself in, at an article. I always put in considerable time, on the content of the article, often hours. It is simply my conviction, not universally shared by others, that it is near to criminal to leave problematic articles appearing superficially fine. This is a dishonesty expressed toward our readers, especially the youngest, and those least experienced in differentiating content of quality from that which lacks it. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

See status of Partition coefficient. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Article versus section and inline tags

There is no prohibition to having both section tags as well as article tags (and inline tags, for that matter). Each serves a different purpose (noting that the following description is not necessarily complete):

• Article tags, to call general attention to the article's need for editor effort, and to warn readers, especially young student readers, that there are issues with the article that they are about to read (as an educator, a purpose I find critically important to the encyclopedia's improvement and proper perception);
• Section tags, to point editors to the principle places in the article needing editor effort, that would allow removal of the article tag. Article tags can remain, if there are a plethora of inline tags, distributed broadly through the article, and not concentrated in one section. In such a case, a section tag is unnecessary. But if such needs are concentrated in one a section, a section's tagging hones other editors in on that section's need for attention (and, avoiding repetition of editorial review, thus saving editor time). Section tags also, if combined with other broad issues with a section, can signal a bold editor to move the section to Talk, and remove it from the main article space (i.e., section tags regarding sourcing—my main contribution—can have an important additive effect in conjunction with other tags, that can lead to outcomes in future editing that are positive for the encyclopedia). As well, a section tag can make clear to a reader linking directly in to a section that the section has quality issues, see prose above under article tags;
• Inline citation tags, to serve two clear purposes, one akin to those mentioned above, and one distinct: as above, to call reader and editor attention to a specific sentence needing attention. In addition, however, inline citation tags, in conjunction with appearing inline citations, can be the result of a careful line by line analysis of the text of a paragraph against appearing sources, and thus differentiate the text into two formal subsets—those sentences with content that has been sourced and verified, and those sentences still needing attention (i.e., that is, sentences not supported by the end-of-parageraph or other citation, and therefore still in violation of WP:VERIFY).

Hence, as I have elsewhere argued at greater length—where I have analogized the discernment just stated to the different types of notes used in multi-author documents in review, in corporate document-control settings—all three tags are, for different reasons, distinctly informative and reasonably non-redundant (depending on how they are applied), and properly applied, make the degree to which attention is needed at an article clear, and further clarify where attention is and is not needed. The proper combined use of tags, therefore, allows both clearest, most direct communication with our readers, as well as prioritization of limited editor time to do further work on the articles in question.

Otherwise, any specific discussion of what I have done, at a specific article, is encouraged, as is follow-on combining of tags—the latter generally being appreciated if I have not done it already. If I have not done it, it is often because the tag content sometimes is critical to reader perception or editor follow-up. Sometimes non-combined tags, though less sightly, constitute the better tool to move an article toward quality. (And as I have repeatedly said, appearance is not my concern; rather, encyclopedic quality, and a properly informed readership, are.) Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

[Keeping this as a closed section, except for specific WP policy/guideline-driven comments about this mini-essay content. Cheers, Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)]

April Fools? Nope! Welcome to the Women Scientists worldwide online edit-a-thon during Year of Science

Join us!
	Women Scientists - worldwide online edit-a-thon - a Year of Science initiative Hosts: Women in Red, Women Scientists Sponsor: WikiEdu April-December 2016 #wikiwomeninred #yearofscience #contentgap

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Look

look Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Seen. But irrelevant to cladograms, and to the issues raised. But thanks, it was a fun diversion. Cheers. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

The following addition to my Talk page was just found, as it was added, not as a separate section, but as an addendum to an unrelated section, above. It is moved here, in part to keep the whole of this matter in a single place, but also to help explain why the initial communication of the matter was missed by yours truly [signed Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)]:

Extended content

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC) @NinjaRobotPirate:, @Liz:, @KrakatoaKatie: — I cannot find the ANI to which you refer. Could you please re-insert it here? Katie, my edits are never flyby, and always involve hours of work, and are aimed at warning readers about serious problems that remain at articles. They are generally placed only after I have spent long periods reviewing, repairing, and enhancing available sources. If you wish to peremptorily ban, and if it is in your power, I cannot stop you. But I am doing a service here, prompted (not by editors), but by student readers and users of the encyclopedia—one of whom recently said to me, "I have never found anything lacking in a Wikipedia article," so clever and careful we are about hiding the true status of things here. Rsvp here? cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Hi, Leprof. Please respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Leprof 7272. This is kind of important. An administrator has indicated that she is considering blocking you for disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Leprof 7272, I'd like to echo NinjaRobotPirate's words and urge you to come to ANI and explain your unique approach to tagging articles, sections and sentences in articles (WP:TAGBOMBING). A number of editors have issues with your conduct and without a BRIEF explanation on your part, your behavior will be judged to be disruptive. Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC) And I'm one of them. You're making the articles completely unreadable and it has to stop. If you add another tag to another article without explaining yourself at ANI, I'll block you myself and it won't be for 24 hours. Katietalk 14:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC) You can find the archived discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#Leprof 7272. Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Although there was no archive box surrounding it, responding in the middle of an ANI archive as you did here is bad form, because editors are no longer watching the discussion and it gives you the last word by default and for the record, so to speak. Liz, should we unarchive that section and bring it back with his response included? I'd like to keep the discussion in one place. Katietalk 00:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Thank you, I clearly did not know this. Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC) KrakatoaKatie, I see two options here: a) we can unarchive this ANI discussion and allow Leprof 7272 to respond (and allow other editors to respond as well) or b) Leprof7272 can stop adding comments to an archived page and we can let this discussion remain, unresolved, in the archive. Leprof7272, if I were you, I'd carefully read over the complaints the editors who posted had about your editing behavior and change it to avoid these problems. Take this seriously as I know you've had complaints filed against you at ANI before and this one could have easily resulted in a sanction. This choice would require you to accept the discussion "as is" without trying to add in your comments and, remember, you can not alter content that has been placed in any archived page, it will be viewed as disruptive editing. Liz Read! Talk! 10:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC) @Liz:, @KrakatoaKatie:, I'm going to block this editor if he edits/reverts the archive one more time. Leprof, de-archiving is an option; what you're doing right now is highly disruptive if only because you give the other commenters no chance to respond. That I have to explain this is somewhat baffling. Anyway, you've been warned--here and on the page of your IP. BTW, don't edit when logged out please. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC) @Liz:, @KrakatoaKatie: Please, explain to me what I am to do here. I am being threatened at my Talk page, with sanctions for not having responded to an ANI that is now archived. Where am I to respond to this? Thankfully, at this edit history, there is this record, so you can see my responses. What is the next step? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Le Prof. First, you cannot vanish for such a long time that an ANI thread gets archived, and then come back here and freak out and demand attention to What You Want Right Now. Second, people made very clear offers above to unarchive the thread so that you could respond. So if that is what you really want, write here and ask for the thread to be unarchived if you want. You would be way, way smarter to a) hold your breath and just read the ANI thread; b) absorb what people said; c) stop doing what people were complaining about, and d) thank who ever you pray to you that you dodged a bullet. (it was archived without action) If you insist on having the thread re-opened and "defending" yourself there, the likely outcome will be a good long block. So think carefully about asking it to be opened again. But again, if you want to argue, ask here for it to be unarchived. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC) @KrakatoaKatie: please unarchive the ANI thread, I think there are at least seven editors, including myself, who have all experienced the same thing with Leprof 7272. The fact that Leprof waited so long that the thread auto-archived shouldn't stop them being open to appropriate punishment (if deemed necessary). XyZAn (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC) I would say that is pretty unhelpful XyZan. ANI is for "incidents" and there are no longer active ones as far as I know; it is unlikely you will be able to generate any interest in doing anything at this point. Please reconsider.Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC) I agree with Jytdog. At this point the matter is stale. If the disruption resumes, however, start a new thread there and link to the archived thread. But only if the tagbombing starts up again or there's a different issue. Katietalk 17:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Points duly noted - @Jytdog:, @KrakatoaKatie:. I'd rather hope that Leprof just modifies their behaviour, somewhat, than raise another ANI. XyZAn (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Constructive continuation of earlier tag-related discussion

To continue this is in a constructive way, @NinjaRobotPirate:, @Liz:, @KrakatoaKatie: @Jytdog: here are examples of recent editorial visits:

Extended content

Hay. No changes made. Article found in reasonable shape, and any attention to small discrepancies would have been flyby. [As PubServ, I support some individuals at rural high schools, as I was raised with this background.] Conditioner (farming). Editing from 50.129.227.141. edit summary, Talk, diff. Critical legal studies. Editing from Leprof_7272. edit summary, Talk, diff. To be added. To be added. [I will add others as I have time, feel free to stop back periodically.] Please feel free to pick one, and give specific feedback to indicate what I have done—per specific policies, please—that is prohibited (versus not to another's tastes), and more importantly, to address specifically, how the edits were not consistent in moving the article, and the encyclopedia, in the direction of becoming a more reputable venue for real learning. Reading my earlier posts at Katie's Talk page might also be of interest, as they address the differences between the utility of inline, versus section, versus article tags. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Hi, Le prof. I saw you pinged me here. I don't see any policy violations at Conditioner (farming). If it were me, I would not have included {{expert needed}}, as it seems potentially redundant to {{Unsourced}}. I understand why you added it, though. I looked at Katie's user talk page, and I didn't see any comments from you. I think you might have meant User talk:Drmies/Archive 100#Drmies, please note… But if I can help you, I will try. We have worked well together in the past, and I wouldn't want to see you get blocked. You might consider the Tea House if you have questions about Wikipedia and want constructive, friendly feedback. I contribute there sometimes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC) @NinjaRobotPirate: No hurry on this, but I indeed misdirected you. Here are links to relevant mini-essay-type entries I have made, which explain my view (which, after the first will rapidly become redundant, alongside my user page): look here, and here and here (a summary I wrote today, and earlier notes at a Talk page). But seriously, no hurry, take care of your important matters first. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Thanks here, for feedback, Ninja, and the honesty, and will answer more fully, elsewhere. (Ellipsis marks a matter that I will speak to you directly about.) Warmest regards. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Julian (meteorologist) has been accepted

The following was posted long ago at User talk:Leprof7272 (note mis-spacing) by User:Chris troutman:

Paul Julian (meteorologist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Chris Troutman (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Just importing it here for housekeeping. DMacks (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vonnie Quinn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Keene (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) 09:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cracking (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) 09:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Wachowskis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gadfly and Mark Miller (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) 09:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Leprof 7272. 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)

A note about AFC notes

I saw a few of your AFC draft comments and thought I'd mention something. MOS violations and small editorial issues are never a reason to decline a draft (I'm specifically referring to the opening bits of this post). If the only thing negative about a draft is the formatting (lack of headers, style, etc), then fix it yourself and accept the draft (or just accept it, it's up to you). New editors frequently don't know every formatting trick, so it's acceptable for thing to not be perfect. Declines should be for content reasons (promotion, lack of references, notability, etc). Let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and welcome to AFCH. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, just as a note, I assume you weren't planning on accepting your own draft. I'm not saying that you would have, or that you should; I tell this to every new AFC reviewer who has personal drafts in the Draft space. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion relevant to AFC (and this discussion) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants#LeProf. Primefac (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing Concerns

Some concerns have been noted about your reviewing. In particular, you changed the instructions for reviewing. The instructions for reviewing are the result of consensus. Do not change them unilaterally without discussion, even if you think that those changes will help to work off the backlog. Your changes have been reverted, but raise questions as to whether you understand the review process. Also, specific questions have been raised, in particular about tagging. Please address the concerns before doing any more reviewing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion taken up at the appropriate reviewing pages. Cheers, and thanks for drawing me there, Robert. All respect. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Editing while logged out

You really should try to make sure you're always logged in when you're editing. While it's not specifically prohibited (see WP:LOGOUT) it makes it less likely someone will think you're trying to avoid detection with your edits (and also makes it easier to point to specific edits that you have made). Primefac (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Point taken. I always make clear who I am, regardless of being logged in or not. As you say, what I am doing is not prohibited, and since I go out of my way to make clear there is no sock puppetry, I am not in violation of policies or guidelines. That said, within a discussion with other editors, I will try always to remain logged in, so as to not confuse. Otherwise, if we lived in a more perfect world, I would be glad to speak to you at length why IP editing at times is inevitable here, and can be thoroughly sensible in given situations. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: A Prairie Home Companion with Chris Thile has been accepted

A Prairie Home Companion with Chris Thile, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

Hi, because you are editing in a bit of a hot spot:

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.

Regards,  Sandstein  20:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sro23 (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Jahn-Teller page

Dear Le Prof, thanks for your message to Ppzjld. I am part of the community of users who remade the JT webpage with her. While we agree that there may be many ways to improve that entry, we feel the page in its current state is much better than the previous version. We are willing to discuss the content and, in time, add extra references. We would however like to point out that citation is much better now than in the version before we added our edits as we have added a large selection of the most important articles, reviews and books on the subject. We think that threatening with going to a previous version is deleterious to everyone. In order to open the discussion, is your criticism of the complete article or is it directed particularly to certain sections, like Jahn-Teller effect#The JT Hamiltonian? If so this can be solved easily without any harsh measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P garcia fernandez (talk • contribs) 13:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Meroë

I don't see evidence of plagiarism. Lack of sourcing alone isn't enough, esp. when it concerns older content. Please be specific. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Original Keetoowah Society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Oneida

Red Sticks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arms

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Cristina Vee

Looks like YOU seem you're the one who's "bias" on not having Facebook posts and Tweets allowed on the voice actors pages, including the Cristina Vee page. I mean really, what is wrong with having Facebook posts and Tweets on the pages, don't you realize that every online article in the web and end credits from a video game or a certain TV show (mostly an English dub version of an anime) may not credit or better yet even mention the voice actors and the roles they play in, that why the tweets and Facebook post were placed here!!!!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

AnimeDisneylover95 (and Leprof), it might be worth reading through WP:SELFSOURCE, which gives the very narrow and specific criteria for when FB and Twitter can be used as a reference. In the future, if someone removes a source that you may think is valid (or adds one you think is invalid), take it to the talk page and discuss it, or go to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Edit warring over something silly like this is just a good way to get blocked. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Wait you lost me on what you said on edit warring, who's edit warring?!??!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

AnimeDisneylover95, no one is edit warring (yet). However, I've seen it play out too many times when person A thinks that they are right, and person B thinks that they are right. I simply meant that discussion should happen before things get out of hand, a.k.a. BRD. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Need a critique

Hi!

I liked your reasoned comments on Talk:Introduction to general relativity and was wondering if you could offer some critique of the rewrite that I did over the weekend to the lede and Introduction of Spacetime.

I started with this undeniably dreadful version and converted the "Explanation" section into something that I hope that a High School student should understand. This is a reasonably well-watched article, and since nobody has reverted any of my edits (except nitpicking details of how to format my references), I presume that I haven't committed any gross errors. :-)

Given the awful starting point, it's hard for me not to have improved the article (or at least, its Introduction) tremendously. But writers in general are poor judges of their own work. What I need is some advice on how to take this from "better than what I started with" to being actually a good Introduction, and in what directions that I should take this work in the future. (I'm well aware, by the way, that I don't yet have enough in the way of references. I'm working on it...)

Thanks!
Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've managed to solicit the critiques that I needed to improve my Introduction. Thanks anyway! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Odd userpage box

I see you keep updating {{User Wikipedian for}} to the current date. Seems unusual that you, a user who has been here since 2012 would claim to have been here for only a few days. DMacks (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Born again Wikipedian? Just curious. We may need to create a new WP:USERBOX ;-) . Boghog (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Tagging, a last effort

Hi Leprof

I have spent the last hour preparing an ANI case, to seek a TBAN to stop you from placing tags in articles. I am sharing the case with you here first. If I post this at ANI, I have little doubt that the community will place a topic ban on tagging. They might take that further.

You do some good work here, and I would rather avoid this kind of drama. Would you please simply agree to stop tagging articles?

Extended content

This is not a happy thing. Le Prof can bring a lot of value and improves articles, but keeps tag-bombing articles like this: diff series April 13 dif series April 7 diff series April 3 - 6 diff series April 4 diff series April 4 diff series April 3 diff series March 31 diff series March 31 dif March 29 diff series Feb 11 diff series in April 2016 including many all caps editing comments I get it (I do!) that there are parts of WP that are really bad, but tag-bombing this way is not OK. Leprof has been asked to stop doing this many, many times (Leprof selectively removes or overwrites stuff from their talk page, as you can see in its history). The list below is just some of the discussions people have tried to have with Leprof over this. The list starts with recent and goes backward in time -- start from bottom if you want chron order. January 2017: Noted here at ANI Dec 2016: asked to back off tagging here at their talk page Nov 2016: warned on their talk page here Nov 2016 complaint about overtagging at Peptide synthesis and generally tagbombing at their talk page here edited other editors' comment and replied here, then removed here May 2016 complaint about overtagging Sophie's Choice at their talk page here, removed here April 2016: noted here at ANI; extensive related discussion at their Talk page here, a great deal of that about LeProf edit warring over his edits to the archived ANI discussion (oy) April 2016, complaint about overtagging at Chromosome conformation capture at their talk [age here, removed here April 2016: complaint about overtagging generally at their talk page that had been removed, re-added here, defiant replies added inline here, overwritten by LeProf here, request to stop overtagging in response, here April 2016: complaint at their talk page here about Merlin Mann tagging, removed by LeProf here April 2016: complaints at their talk page about tagging/editing of Scum of the Earth Church here, removed by LeProf here March 2016 complaints about tagging of Intrinsic factor at their talk page here, overwritten w response by LeProf here; March 2016: complaint at their talk page here on March 25 about Acetone peroxide, with follow up here about Villa Baviera; other editor's comments edited, section header changed, and response by LeProf here then later completely overwritten here March 2016: complaint about inline all caps tagging here, removed here Feb 2016: response to editing tagging at Chirality by 2 editors here; responded to by LeProf here in mid-March, with justification of his tagging practices yet noting I am routinely reverted and accused of bombing January 2016: overtagging at Abbvie noted here, removed by LeProf here in March October 2015: two editors warn about over-tagging here. removed by leprof here during March 2016 discussions above July 2015: complaint about overtagging at their talk page here was part of the problem in [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive838#Requesting_backup|this ANI thread] from 2014

-- Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• I could take this series of diffs as a "no, i will not stop", but I would prefer a yes or no before I escalate this to ANI. Would you please reply? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Jytdog, they've been asked this before, in multiple locations, to no effect. I gave up pursuing the matter, but I'm glad you're sticking with it. I say file and let the chips fall where they may. This last diff can be used as their reply to this thread. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  I hear you but there is no deadline and I would like to give them a chance to respond. I can file it tomorrow as well as today - the diffs aren't going away. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'm just expecting them to either not respond or give you six paragraphs that ultimately boil down to "this is how I do things". Primefac (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Or not edit for a while. This is what happened back in March 2016, and when they came back the ANI was over. (the ANI was closed as LeProf was not around to respond and not causing more trouble, so there was no ongoing disruption to address). Am looking for a reply and engagement so that if I need to bring this to the community everybody knows that LeProf was given ample opportunity to reply already. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ihi

Could you write in disscus of art, what You see too most wrong in article ihi? It is true, Newari girls have 3 weddings, it is old and common situation. Indu (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

SHOUTING, bolding, and attention banners

As with excessive, inappropriate use of attention banners, this edit is also suboptimal. The proper way to handle your concerns is with a normal sentence case explanation on the article's talk page. As a followup on Jytdog's concerns above, do you agree to stop adding attention banners to articles? Boghog (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, looks like they're not interesting in talking to you. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

ugh. i have too much drama going on now. But OK it is time to post at ANI. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI

As as I said I would do above...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Topic banned

Per community consensus at the administrators' noticeboard ([14]), you are banned from tagging articles with cleanup banners. This includes adding, removing, or editing any cleanup banner on any article. Violations of this ban will lead to you being blocked from editing. In addition, the multiple accounts policy forbids editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny, and as it is apparent that you have continued editing while logged out after having been warned to stop, I have blocked the IP 73.210.155.96 that you have been using to edit. If you have questions about these actions you may ask here and/or appeal at the administrators' noticeboard. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)