User talk:Fyddlestix

Antifeminism discussion on AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Didaev (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Have fun with that, I really don't think this is an AN/I-worthy issue. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Fyddlestix. Can you please revert the Masculism Wikipedia page back to how it was before? Why are you writing about Masculism being a male superiority movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery1818 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I am indeed an idiot. I have fixed the closure. Unfortunately it's still not going to please anyone. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: Yeah, the dispute over that article is a total shit show. A "no consensus" result is unfortunate as it likely means that the dispute will drag on for even longer, but I'm glad that that particular RFC has been put out of its misery finally. Thanks for the correction and sorry if my complaint/explanation wasn't clear at first. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't edit war

[1]. If you disagree with an edit, and it isn't an obvious BLP violation, take it to the talk page first. When someone takes the time to add info to an article, it's very rude to erase it forthright like that and that's not how we try to do things here. Cla68 (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: It's very hard to believe that someone with as many edits as you can be this confused about what is or isn't an "edit war." You added content which I did not think was acceptable, so I removed it. For you to add it back without consensus would be edit warring, but my removing it is emphatically not. See WP:BRD. You should now seek consensus on talk before once again adding this (obviously inappropriate and unacceptable) "source" back into the page. Good luck with that. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Umm... Not sure what you are accusing me of

Regarding the André Marin page, I only have one editing account. If anything in the last edit I tried to fix non-NPOV that someone else had added but didn't spend a lot of time on it. The previous format had a strong voice that took away from a neutral POV near the end of the article. I'll take a look again to see if I can figure out what is going on, but I did notice non-NPOV, and did try to fix it. It detracts from the strength and balance of the article. Unfortunatley the whole thing started out very poorly and seems to be swinging back to non-NPOV from time to time. It seemed to settle for awhile but it seems to be coming back again. I'll check it out and see what I can do. In the meantime I'd appreciate it if you could point out specific areas somehow so I'm not searching all over the place. In addition I don't appreciate your insinuation that I have as you put it, an "axe to grind" although you clearly have one to grind with me for some reason. So in the future, please try to avoid flaming so what needs to be done, CAN be done, and keep your crappy opinion to yourself. Love, CheckersBoard. <3 CheckersBoard (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@CheckersBoard: I have no particular axe to grind with you, and apologize if I gave you that impression. I agree that the Marin article needs considerable improvement and work - but I have noticed that a number of your edits, including these [2][3][4], among others, are problematic. They violate wikipedia's policies on original research, and seem unduly focused on adding negative information about Marin, while removing - or failing to mention - information that might be construed as reflecting positively on him. I urge you to review wikipedia's policies on biographies, on WP:NPOV, on original research, and on neutral point of view if you plan on making similar edits to the article in the future. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Speziale

I'm trying to get someone to repair the page under Jerry Speziale. Being someone in the court system, I have reviewed the page and see that information was removed about the case involving Lori Mambelli. Mr. spazzing out in that case was found and completely exonerated not guilty and all civil accounts. The page is making it appear as if he was involved when in fact it was clear he was not in the court transcripts and articles.

I believe that information and slanderous and making the perception that Mr. Spence yeah did something inappropriate with Mambelli. You clearly appear to have the best handle on these pages and editing and I am reaching out to see if you can change the page back to it without that information because it is damaging and a very big mischaracterization that could create liable for slanderous issues.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatricekerwin (talk • contribs)

@Beatricekerwin: As luck would have it, it looks as though the information was removed by another editor (courtesy ping for @Mdann52:) just this morning. I think his rationale for the removal was reasonable and have no plans to re-insert the content. Assuming no one else re-inserts it, does that address your concern?

I have spent far too much time on this article and am hoping not to make further edits unless there are further conflict of interest editing problems, so if you have concerns that weren't addressed by Mdann's edit, I suggest doing the following: first, post your concerns on the article's talk page, and then (if you do not feel that your concerns are addressed there), post a new topic on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. That is the go-to place for getting problems and issues with biographies addressed. Hope that helps, and let me know if you have any further questions. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hounding

Thank you for your concern. I wasn't sure if you saw my reply so I will also post it here: "I am not attempting to hound anyone. Hugh has added material from and a ref to (what I and other editors find to be) an inappropriate opinion piece from Mother Jones to many articles. This after not achieving consensus at the first such, perhaps doing so as to make a POINT. Hugh was warned by another editor about this. He edit warred to achieve the additions. Having seen Hugh blocked and topic banned for similar behavior in this vein I think am less tolerant of the behavior. Having said that I will confine my criticism of this content to the talk pages and allow the behavior to continue in its natural ultimate course. I find my own edits to be close to edit warring as well and will revisit the pages and self-revert any that Hugh's editing has left."

After leaving that reply to you I self-reverted at the many pages that Hugh inserted the material into. I do not want to Hound anyone. Life is too short. Thanks for your note. Truly. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: Hope my comment on Hugh's page did not come across as too snarky, or as "calling you out" or anything - you and I have been on opposite "sides" of a couple of different disputes now but I've actually always found you to be a reasonable and smart editor, which is refreshing given how stubborn and un-hearing some people (on both sides) of those same disputes have been. I've been half-watching the templates and warnings (all from the same 3-4 editors) pile up on Hugh's talk page over the past few weeks and yours was just the straw that broke the camel's back and led me to comment, I didn't mean to single you out.

Honestly I could care less about the MJ article and Hugh's edits. In fact, just between you and me, I'm happy to concede that the MJ article probably doesn't add much to those articles. But I am pretty uncomfortable with how a small circle of editors (all of whom were recently involved in a very long, very tense previous dispute with Hugh) seem to be following him around, reverting his edits, and generally poking him with a stick wherever they can. Even if there are legit issues with Hugh's behavior/edits, it just feels... wrong, to see the same 3-4 people constantly warning and reverting him. If y'all really see his edits across multiple articles as such a big problem that he needs to constantly be reverted, watched, and warned, I suggest reporting him to ANI, flagging an un-involved admin about it, or raising it on a noticeboard rather than trying to deal with it yourselves. It just looks/feels wrong to me to see someone getting followed around like that.

Anyways, like I said I've got zero interest in getting involved in this dispute, and I meant my comment over there as friendly advice rather than a warning or a reprimand, I hope it didn't come across that way. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it is greatly and warmly appreciated. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Help, -concern about your edit on the AFP page

Fyddlestix, Sorry to bother you this way. I saw that when you made this recent edit to the AFP page [[5]] you removed the synthesis tag that A. Rubin added. I'm not sure you addressed his claims but I didn't want to revert your edit and figured it was better to ask here vs on the talk page. I didn't fully follow AR's in line note so if you feel like you did address it that is fine. If not would you please add the note back in? Thanks and again, sorry to bother you on your talk page. Springee (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: It's no bother, and no need to start with a "sorry!" As I understood it, Arthur's concern was that the article seemed to claim that AFP's interest aligned completely with those of the Koch brothers, when he did not see evidence of that in the sources, and had seen evidence elsewhere that some of AFP's policy positions might not jive with the Koch's business interests. I took a while to look at the sentence and the sources again, and it seemed to me that his concern could be easily addressed by changing the wording; some of AFPs policy planks do align with the Koch brothers interests, and multiple RS state that very clearly. But to state that all of its policy positions do is over-reaching, especially since some of the RS (like Skopcol) note that AFP is willing to support & be supported by a wide range of people/positions to achieve its main goals.

I do think my edit fixed the issue that Arthur identified - he also "thanked" me for the edit, which to me suggests that he is ok with the revised wording (and thus the removal of the note). If I'm wrong about that, or if people still think there's a synth issue there (I don't), then it can be raised on the article talk page. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

OK! I understand your changes now and agree that would address the problem. Given all that is going on I figured it was better to ask first vs edit first and then find that I was working from a false impression. Springee (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that! Fyddlestix (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

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 Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

Template:Z33 --slakr^\ talk / 03:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

James Robison (singer)

Just so you know, I reinstated the CSD tag on the article because the creator's talk page shows that s/he keeps posting the same article under slightly different names; in addition, it looks like it was copypasted from somewhere (complete with reference numbers in brackets). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert:, thanks - appreciate it! I only removed the "no context" tag cause the criteria no longer applied, was going to revisit later and see if it still needed tagging - glad you beat me to it! Fyddlestix (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Messy Article of Living Person

Just wanted to thank Fyddlestix for the response (Living Persons article, Andre Marin), I think I understand better now and appreciate it. I admit, for some entries I became a bit rushed, lazy and impatient (eep) sorry. I wanted to skip editing the article but kept coming back because it bothers me to leave it; I don't like that unfinished feeling.

On the upside I did find a source that was neutral on a controversial and seeming non-POV entry by another editor, but was hesitant to go ahead with it, it meant deleting someone elses entry and I don't think wiki likes that, neg points! But I think it needs to be added.

In addition, there is another problem, don't know if you have encounterd this anywhere before, but there were quotes inserted from a video that had been published on YouTube; I saw the video, and one question entered in the article (by another editor) was supposedly from the video, but was never even asked. I saw the video myself and I'm almost positive the quotation is false. But I'm also worried I may just not have heard it. I don't want to encourage anyone to numb their minds by watching this long 30 min video (it's very dry stuff), but I don't think it belongs in the article at all. I have my doubts.

Sorry to bother you, just wondering if anyone has any ideas how to go about this one? It seems pretty tricky. I want to see if I can figure this out in case I come across this problem again somewhere else. Thanks for your help, I appreciate it! Hope I don't take up too much of your time - Love, Checkersboard :) CheckersBoard (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@CheckersBoard: Thanks for the note, I'm glad I didn't put you off editing the article altogether, and I apologize again if I sounded brusque originally. Re: the video, if you can't find the quote in the cited source, and kind find it in any other source (did you try googling the quote?) then it should probably be removed. If anyone objects they can always re-insert it with a proper source, but we shouldn't leave something that fails verification in the article, especially if it's presented as a quote. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Sorry to bother you again but could probably use your help. The information I was previously concerned about was already removed, and more. It made it pretty clear the article really isn't fit for wiki. I had a tag/stubbed the page for deletion with the intention of having career postings listed/merged with the appropriate articles. So for example for the Ontario Ombudsman page a section can be listed for Mr. Marin with brief notes about relevent, actionable items and other previous and future ombudspersons can be treated similarly to keep the article fluid, organized and balanced rather than dominated by one single individual.

Problem is out of the blue someone removed the tag, twice. It states explicitly not to remove the tag. More games. Time to get the articles organized and end this pointless political drama. It would help the development of the other articles as well. How to I make sure the tag can't be removed until there is further discussion among editors about the prospect of deleting the page? Information can be moved elsewhere to other articles without causing any complications or drama. Sorry, hope this is finished soon enough, want to get this done. The New Zealand Ombudsman article is good example of what I had hoped the one I was working on could emulate. Thanks.

@Checkers Board:, the user who removed the speedy tags (@GB fan:) is a wikipedia administrator - what they've been trying to tell you is that the page is not eligible for speedy deletion because Marin is notable. You should stop reading the tags, they're just going to be removed again. You can take the article to articles for deletion but I doubt you'll get far, since Marin is, again, a notable person. Wiki is almost certainly going to have/keep an article on him, so if you have issues with the page you should bring them up on the article talk page and/or try to fix then through normal editing. Fyddlestix (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

:@Fyddlestix: Thanks, sorry for the late reply, for some reason I missed your message. It's very helpful, still learning. The article is nicely organized again, someone obviously worked on it. Can't wait to leave it for good. Am I allowed to say that? I really do appreciate your time and help.

Nomination of Chicago-style politics (meme) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chicago-style politics (meme) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago-style politics (meme) 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. You did some recent edits on the related Chicago-style_politics article. This one is a recent fork from the earlier article. Springee (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chicago-style politics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Democratic Party, Republican Party and 2008 Presidential Election (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) 11:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

146.185.31.215

You don't know me but I saw the content you removed at Venus Palermo. Your reasons were completely valid so I reverted User:146.185.31.215 when they restored the content. Apparently, they are going to continue edit-warring and posting irrational edit summaries over it. There are multiple warnings on their talk page. Czoal (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Czoal:, thanks for helping with this! I saw your post at ANI as well. It looks like the IP was the same person as this user, who has claimed to be the article subject's mother in the past. No wonder they were so invested... Fyddlestix (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome. By the way, I asked on the help desk last night about adding a COI template to the Palermo article because 146's overall editing behavior seemed to indicate a very close connection to Palermo. I posted that before I found out at ANI today who the IP really is. It's amazing how all the pieces fell into place...with the article being protected, Maggie then immediately making the same edits as 146, then you finding the edit summary where Maggie said she was Palermo's mother. Anyway, no one has replied at the help desk about the COI template. I just asked at ANI since finding out all the new info from you and NeilN. Czoal (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

An admin has placed COI templates at the top of Venus Palermo and its talk page. Czoal (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete tag at Incels

Your speedy delete and my effort to improve the article. Instead of slapping a speedy delete tag on an article, please research it a little and see if it is a viable topic. Based on those articles I found with about 30 seconds of Google searching, it appears that this topic name is valid. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Unclear/newbie issues

Hi, I thought I was helping out an article "Women are wonderful" effect, but there is this continual resistance to improvement from one subject editors. This article began with only two links and every time I increase those links some one subject editor reverses it. I do think there is too much weight given to this article and should instead be used as an example in ambivalent sexism. I believe most of these one subject editors occur whenever the article gets linked to Reddit and don't bother to check the links for accuracy, they just show up with a bias which oddly comes across as against women. Any ideas for what I ought to be doing here would be appreciated here since I believe this article has been sorely neglected and poorly researched/sourced for years. Unless I just discovered the reasons why that happened! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@MurderByDeadcopy: Just looking at it now. Looks like a good candidate to be merged into Ambivalent sexism, it looks like both articles address more or less the same topic and use many of the same sources. Working on a merge proposal now but it may take me some time to put it together. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Am getting accused of all kinds of odd things by Flyer22 atm which I do not understand. Guess they just assume one makes an account wiki and just automatically understands everything! Not a total lost, I learned to "ping" today. (fyi - I've bungled attempting a merge so I just didn't save it!) MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 02:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, I added a bunch of links to Microaggression theory and since I noticed that your awesome at improving links (not creating big red errors like me!) thought that maybe you'd look it over when you have a chance. It's not high priority. Thanks! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 02:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

MurderByDeadcopy, you are not getting "accused all kinds of odd things by" me. I was simply clear that I do not believe that you are a complete WP:Newbie. I am entitled to that belief, and I will certainly be sticking to it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Mind your toes!

Hi Fyddlestix - apologies if I step on your toes over at Beta Uprising! I'm just trying to help stamp it out while your report on RPP is seen to. Cheers. samtar ^(msg) 18:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: Not at all! Actually I'm glad there's someone else watching to help keep on top of it, much appreciated! Fyddlestix (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

HughD

I've largely been away from Wikipedia for the past few weeks. I appreciate your take a step back comment. If you notice, I did avoid any edits involving HughD for a full month even though Scoobydunk's ANI against me came to nothing. My edits to related pages since are ones related to the MJ article and the Chicago article. Note that the warning section in question was not started by me and I didn't add to the discussion. I added the warning to Hugh's talk page so he would have the chance to self revert. If you think I am wrong to feel he violated his topic ban that is fine. As I said, I don't think the link was overly strong but it was established by Hugh's own edits and comes right on the heals of a warning. Incidentally, since you mentioned stepping back, HughD has me quoted on his home page. The last quote of the Survey section is to an edit of mine. It seems a bit provocative but perhaps that's just my misreading. Springee (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: Actually I hadn't noticed that you'd taken a month off butting heads with HughD, apologies for that! I'm sorry if you feel my comment intruded - but it really does seem to me that both of you (and NB, I'm saying both of you) need to just avoid each other for a while. I can't imagine that the little dance you've been doing around each other is fun for either of you...

Re: the quote, have you tried asking Hugh to remove it? Fyddlestix (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, while I might not agree with all of your edits, you are respectful and clearly working in good faith. I didn't mean to suggest you intruded. It does seem like HughD is backing away from some of our earlier topics in common. I don't agree with the way his spins things but so be it. I have now formally asked him to remove the quote. He made a trivial edit to the quote above mine but did not remove the quote in question. Springee (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Massacre of the Acqui Division

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Massacre of the Acqui Division. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you offer an opinion

Fyddlestix, you and I have typically been on opposite sides of various content debates but I've always found it easy to respect your POV and arguments even when I didn't agree with them. To that end I wanted to ask your opinion on a discussion I've been engaged in regarding the relative weight that should be given two competing theories regarding the political realignment of the South. The question was posted to the NORN so here is the link to the discussion. [6] Thanks for any input you might have. Springee (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured you would offer a balanced opinion. Incidentally I received a nastygram for asking for your input but I'm not overly surprised [7] Springee (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Was just typing a note here to let you know I'd replied - sorry it took me a couple of days, I've been busy with other (much more important) stuff than wikipedia! Fyddlestix (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind if we discuss this article off the talk page? I normally would not do this but I find Scoobydunk's bludgeoning style to be very abrasive and would prefer to discuss this here with you since you seem to have a far better understanding of the literature than most.Springee (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate your input on the question I posted in the talk section. Your level headed disagreement has been refreshing and I think quite helpful. Springee (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not going to agree with all of your edits but thanks for taking on the Southern Strategy. I think the article is seriously lacking in many areas and one of the worst is probably general readability. I'm happy to see someone put an honest effort into cleanup rather than an effort into white/black washing or even trying to grasp at status quo. I have some of my own views on things that should be changed but I'm really interested to see what you do with it. Thanks again. Springee (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: Thanks, I made a start but it will take some time. I know we disagree somewhat on how much weight to give Lassiter (and how to frame his argument). I'm happy to discuss on the talk page, but the pace of my edits/replies will likely be slow. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I was generally very pleased with the recent edits. The post 1970 sections really struck me as pet article dumping grounds. No coherent narrative, a few examples of articles that are just accusations phrased to read more like proven facts in the voice of WP.

Speaking of the post 1970 evolution part. Really, that seems like it shouldn't be part of the Southern Strategy article at all. That isn't to say it shouldn't be in an article but the Southern Strategy was a distinct thing. Lassiter actually says it was only used 4 times and I assume he mean 4 times at the national level and targeting Southern white voters. He also noted that it never worked. The post 1970 sections, if we accept the accusation as true, are an example of using appeals to racism to win votes. There is probably a good place for those but it doesn't really speak to this thing that historians called the Southern Strategy any more than the VW designed and built Bugatti Veyron is an example of the work of Ettore Bugatti's car company. In both cases a historic name was attached to a modern thing to create a mental association with something from the past (positive in one case, negative in the other). My point to this is I really think this would be a more encyclopedic article if the story was cut off at the end of the 1970s and the newer accusations were moved to a different and more appropriate article. Just floating that idea. I'm not sure I would be able to convince many of the people who seem to like the article as is and I think are grading it from edits they perceive as whitewashing (that is not saying they aren't acting in good faith).

BTW, I also think that much of the Lassiter and related scholarship stuff should be moved to the Solid South or Southern Realignment articles. Most of the scholarly work focuses on why voters changed their views (civil rights backlash, suburban strategy etc), not a subset of messages delivered by one party (Southern Strategy). They are related but not the same. This would better focus the content on the real examples of the application of the strategy rather than just a news reporter making a claim of coded racism (something that certainly was not limited to the South). Sorry to be long winded but I think you are going really good work. Springee (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

New Companies delsort category

Hi Fyddlestix: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 16 October 2015 for companies, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

New Disability delsort category

Hi: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 19 October 2015 for Disability-related articles, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disability. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-communist mass killings

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anti-communist mass killings. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Robert Lewy

Good morning

I've tried Revdel and the OTROS routes without any answer. Here is what I sent| Gentlepersons This article has several errors which are hard to disprove externally with third party sources but should be corrected. 1. I did never assist in suing breast implant manufacturers as stated in first line . On the contrary, I was a court appointed expert for a class action to which manufacturers were a party.Article should IMHO mention existence of class action and my role. This excludes any participation in private opt-out direct suits. Further down, I did not give expert testimony whatsoever in assisting lawyers to get "vast awards." I only physically examined patients sent to me by the court and issued reports. 2, use of term "alleged" in mid article implies I had some ulterior or legal goal. I only did peer reviewe research . The editors overall may have editorialized on top of the NYT article without sources, adopting it's unbalanced tone toward the court experts and again failing to mention the importance of the class action under Judge Poynter of Atlanta. Mssrs Kolatea and Meier do this a few times a year for to NYT usually some medical expose.3. Most of my cited work is about heart disease and aspirin. Please check Researchgate and mention this and reference it. Otherwise the article is misleading about my scientific work by omission.i am also a Google Scholar.

I hope you can address some of these points with the goal of fairness and accuracy. I have an article covering the whole history of establishment of the class. Should I copy it here. Its rather long. Thank you very much Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kingseason: I'm sorry, I don't have the time to deal with this article further right now. I suggest you raise your concerns at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, that is the best place to take concerns like this. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

I deleted an obvious personal attack. Can you explain why you reverted my deletion. Are you seeing something in the policy that I am not seeing? "Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. " and this section "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." Have not reverted again will await your explanation.Charlotte135 (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Southern Strategy intro question

Fyddlestix, I wanted to ask you about this edit you made to the article into [8]. Specifically, you added the claim (supported by a source), "This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South". I agree this statement is a good paraphrasing of the source. However, that statement seems to be in conflict with other sources. Feldman for instance summarizes the bottom up view differently.

Lassiter, and others since, have argued strongly against what they term the "white backlash" narrative of the South becoming Republican in reaction to national Democratic identification with civil rights and racial liberalism. The "suburban school," as it may now be called, stressed a "suburban strategy" versus what it deems a "southern strategy" - and insists that post-World Ward II white southern suburbanites were relatively "color-blind" in their approach to politics. The argument goes on to reject the notion of a distinctive South as well as to downplay - and even at times dismiss - the role of race in motivating white southerners to leave the Democratic Party for hte GOP. Race was just not something they cared a whole lot about - this better-educated, upwardly mobile, suburban elite.

The above seems to conflict with the notion that Lassiter argues that racial backlash was central. I know that Lassiter argues that many of the suburbanites were insensitive to the issues and by simply walking away they were trying to wash their hands of the issue. We can also certainly argue that issues related to race were often behind the reasons for movign to and later defending the suburbs. In any case, I think that particular quote, as presented, tends to narrow the difference between the two narratives a bit too much. I guess it depends on what you consider "backlash". Does moving to the suburbs to avoid school busing count as "backlash" or simply looking out for self interest?

Anyway, that summary has bothered since it was added but I would rather talk with you about it vs just edit. I'm here because I don't like the hostile talk page environment. I find if VERY frustrating when I try to discuss a concern and my requests for dialog are stonewalled. The last edits I made could have occurred with no fuss if the other editor had simply suggested what might make him happy rather than fight every change until even he couldn't justify objecting because I all but quoted the source. Sorry, that's off subject but I wish the that article talk page was actual discussion vs a battle ground. Springee (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)