User talk:TeeVeeed

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hello, TeeVeeed. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Lunashy (Lunashy (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Re:Logo reducing

You don't need to do anything. A bot will come along and resize the logo and remove the reduce tag when it's done. We hope (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

OH! Thank-you. Also, I would prefer to use the other license (promotional) if possible because that was more in-line with the permission that was granted when I downloaded the graphic. Is there a way to change that or should I wait 'till the bot comes-along? HousewifeHater 02:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me go back and take care of that also. BTW--the only time to worry that something's going to disappear is when a notice says something about the image being deleted or being deleted in X number of days unless you take care of (fill in the blank). ;-)We hope (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A done deal! :-) We hope (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Muuy Thank-You! Yeah that is exactly what I was worried about because I thought that I saw something that said that the clock was ticking-something about "48 hours"...maybe that has something to do with the bot that re-sizes?? Also-I want to make sure that I use the graphic/and license correctly because I would like to start cleaning-up some of the other Real Housewives pages HousewifeHater 02:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

These Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion are the ones that say something serious is up. The bot usually does the resizing within those 48 hours. ;-) We hope (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

TY♥ HousewifeHater 03:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 00:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for block evasion, while blocked as an IP. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TeeVeeed (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

bully and abuse by admin(s)HousewifeHater 22:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC

Decline reason:

No valid reason given to unblock. I see no evidence of admin abuse.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC))

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• See User talk:68.37.29.229 for details of original block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Real Housewives of New Jersey.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Real Housewives of New Jersey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Senator2029 ‖ Talk 19:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atlantic City, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imitation of Life (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) 14:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jessie Wiseman.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 01:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TeeVeeed. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page.
Message added 03:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 03:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Your recent editing history at The Great Gatsby (2013 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that I will take it to IRC thank-youTeeVeeed (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I definitely agree with you that it's an Australian film. I'm not even sure how it's even an American film; it's only tie is that the distributor is American. But I'm not sure how much that really matters. It's clear the other editor is having no interest in discussing the matter.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

TY-I didn't even start it, trying to follow procedure but instead getting pulled into warring. Plus I resent the additional clarifications and cites that I added being "poofed"-like that.TeeVeeed (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The other editor finally responded on the talk page that the film was distributed by Warner Bro. But there is also a link to "Baz"-"Boz"? (a producer?) in a secondary source titled, "Baz/Boz says GG is "Australian". If there is some policy involved with countries and movies, that would be different, but the financial assistance provided, (and probably the controversy surrounding that)-should probably be included.TeeVeeed (talk) 04

42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN Restructure

There seems to be a problem with the DRN page this morning.[1]]

I was not able to get to our page to post my comment because the links to open disputes are all broken. I am going to be unavailable for most of the day so I'm leaving my comment here which you can post if you wish, or, I will try again at the end of the day when I'm back home.

Thank you for your help.

If comments could stay focused on the text only I think we could make useful progress. It's very hard to look at text and comment when simultaneously your character is being attacked. I still think we need a neutral third party arbitrator in cases where consensus can't be reached.

LoreMariano (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to fix something with how the dispute is listed.

I'm sorry if you feel attacked with anything that has been said there so far, but I assure you that any comments that I made about trying to solve the problem by following the usual policy of Wikipedia was not aimed at you or any other editors personally. I think that someone such as myself who looked at the article for the first time, not knowing anything at all about the topic, is a pretty good representative of a user of Wikipedia.TeeVeeed (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

all edits missing on July 25

So all of my edits except today's are not showing-weirdHousewifehader (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

H,

Housewifehader (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Diner (film)

I'm just wondering about the source of this edit. Thanks. Oh, and I think it's too long and somebody will remove it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Tildes

Hi, I notice that you are leaving edit summaries with four tildes in them ~~~~, probably due to the message SineBot left on your account when you first started. I wanted to let you know that leaving these in edit summaries is ineffectual and just clutters the field. Tildes are required when discussing on talk pages, it is how you sign your posts by leaving them at the end of a line, as wikicode inside the box. The Wiki substs them automatically into a signature. This process does not happen in edit summaries, which are intended to be concise digests of what you did. Individual edits are always "signed" with your name in the database, so we can always tell who did them and there is no need to sign. I hope that clears it up for you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

WHAT? I had no idea! Ty for letting me know about that. It might take awhile to get out of that habit.So-don't sign when editing articles? Wow.Housewifehader (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. It looks like you're on the right track. Elizium23 (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternate accounts

I note that you are editing under both User:Housewifehader and User:TeeVeeed. The policy on that is at WP:SOCK#LEGIT and I do not see that you are using alternate accounts for an illegitimate purpose. But, with a previous block for block evasion, I would very strongly recommend that you disclose your alternate accounts on your TeeVeeed user page (not here on your talk page) using one of the user boxes listed here and be very, very careful not to use them for any purpose which might even remotely be thought by someone to be illegitimate. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for the advice. I will attempt to try that but I am having a lot of trouble staying with one account! All of my contributions keep vanishing, (so it looks like i have been here less-than four days!), and the system keeps logging me out. I am really thinking about trying a CLEANSTART, just to get a new account at this point, no SP intended, and i have never SP'd or tried to intentionally pretend that i am not one person here. That SP investigation that was alleged actually was between myself and another(S?) editor, because I agreed with his edits so I was accused of being one of his/their socks. It wasn't even about me being a sock really.OH-and my agreement to not be banned from the SP bs, was that I would log-in with a user name, and really I had better luck staying with the same identity when I was IP-editing. Now I have to look for my IP, my old name, and my new name, and 90% of the contributions that I make while logged-in are not showing-up when I want to check on my older edits with those screen-names. That's why I'm thinking that it might be worth a try to start another account and drop this one?Housewifehader (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Housewifehader (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The new face of DRN: TeeVeeed

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your involvement with DRN

Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

OOps sorry I just received this message. Thank-you for letting me know about inactive status. I'll see if there is still a backlog.24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)-oops again, that was me not logged-nHousewifehader (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jessie Wiseman concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jessie Wiseman, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jessie Wiseman

Hello TeeVeeed. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Jessie Wiseman".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jessie Wiseman}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Help needed at DRN

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this. via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC) OK. Thanks for the message2601:80:4202:203B:690C:F665:1BD2:6A08signed-in with UN deleted ipTeeVeeed (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC) 21:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

February 2016

Hello, I'm GenQuest. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ahmed Abou Hashima, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 01:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.CFredkin (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah-that is exactly what you are doing warring behavior. Personally, I think that after or before current issues are resolved, maybe you should take a topic-break? You're getting a little heavy-handed, imo.TeeVeeed (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this. Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for Vaxxed article

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 pseudoscience and fringe science, 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 Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please don't be alarmed by this. You seem to have wandered into the Vaxxed article from the film side of things, I just want to make sure you are aware that this topic involves a whole set of other issues here in Wikipedia. You cannot bring sources like "ageofautism" on a topic like this. It is a really, really loaded thing to do, in the PSCI Arbcom context, and I don't sense that you are aware of this.

In general, for discussions of health, we rely on the WP:MEDRS guideline, which calls for very high quality sources; for FRINGE/PSCI topics like the vaccination>>autism stuff, we also bring in well-respected quackbusters like Gorski. FRINGE advocates attack Gorski etc all the time. Just want to be sure you aware of this. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

TY. Yeah I was aware but lazy. As I noted they were the top of the search result when I was trying to verify Gorski's credentials. Thanks for your concern, and I am NOT interested in helping the anti-vaccine cause at all, except for people who need real, factual, information about it. The whole FRINGE thing is too meta and messy for me anyhow at this point. It looks like anti-FRINGE basically mandates that 1)-not appearing to promote FRINGE overrides most other WP Policies. 2)-every single sentence in a "FRINGE"-topic article, needs to dispute the FRINGE idea for what the mainstream scientific community says. I can see why this could be necessary to prevent WP being used in an out-of-context endorsement of FRINGE topics, but it is just too combative and counter-propaganda in my opinion. Also I didn't appreciate being brigaded on the Fringe noticeboard. Also I think that I raised some good questions about why THIS article is being patrolled so heavily while reality tv articles and topics which are FAR MORE insidious pushers of propaganda and FRINGE for profit are left alone with no editorial content from WP whatsoever. If we are NOT applying FRINGE policies to EVERY article/topic, are we endorsing FRINGE? I don't think so, but the response on this particular article is a little hysterical imo.TeeVeeed (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a lot simpler than that. We simply don't take the word of known charlatans at face value. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

Arbitration Enforcement has been requested against you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TeeVeeed. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from editing Vaxxed and the topic area of vaccination. Note that this includes talkpages and discussion boards. Look at the topic ban policy to see what a topic ban entails.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 07:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen | talk 07:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC).

Wow

I wasn't aware you were brought to AE. Wow. So... that was what i warned was going to happen. Sorry you didn't listen to me.

Hey i have a question. in this dif you said "one editor/admin? apparently uses two different names,". What/who are you talking about? If you just answer that question, simply, you will not violate your TBAN, btw. I want to understand what was confusing you. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I was talking about you Jytdog. Are You and Guy the same admin? If-so or if-not that made the entire ordeal on that TP waay more confusing for me. I'm glad that I didn't listen to you because I just had a really "off" feeling about what was going-on with that article. (OH-and actually I am glad to be banned from it, but not the entire banning)---because I had no idea about this "guerrilla" group. A group that I learned about from a discussion that you closed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_202#Unusual_situation_with_a_source . Are you a member of that group? Regardless, their agenda is clear and I approve of some of it, but they need to follow the same rules that everyone else does, or everyone else needs to know what we are dealing-with specifically.TeeVeeed (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog is not the same person as Guy (and Jytdog is not an admin, btw). "Guy" and "JzG" are the same. I thought you might have seen both forms. Shrug. I don't understand why you didn't reply when I asked who you meant,[2] on my page where you posted both before and after my question. You're not exactly making your complaints easier to handle. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC).

Ahh. OK. Sorry I did not see that. Thank-you for making that clear, it is very confusing. Sorry Jytdog-no harm intended. Also, never being in an Arb-thing before, I really meant to dispute almost every point that the complaint made-all nine of them, but I was not sure about the format or where to do that. One uninvolved editor actually took the time to try and sort-out what had happened and comment, and they were right, so I don't know why you took such a harsh action. Banned from vaccines in general is not called-for. I really don't care about the article and I'm glad to be rid of it, but the topic ban for vaccines-I don't deserve that and is there some way that can be amended without having to do a lot of tasks?TeeVeeed (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry this happened to you. I really did try to warn you. The stuff you posted on Jimbo's page was just... more wow. I am no guerilla skeptic. But I don't want to draw you further into this mess. Good luck to you, and happier editing elsewhere (I mean that) Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

TY Jytdog, you were right, and so funny that I was accused-of calling conspiracy, when I had no idea, and then come to find there actually is one haha-or maybe not since they are pretty open about it. Kind-of. I really thought that discretionary sanctions worked both ways but oh well.TeeVeeed (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Teeveeed, just saw that you were banned from the vaxxed and vaccine articles. I found the archive of your case; there were dead links to content within it and no visible content except the final ruling. Im assuming this is just how it's done. Am I right?

In any event I think the rulings that you be indefinitely banned from both the Vaxxed article and the topic of vaccines were an overreaction. fwiw, I felt you posited many valid questions/points some of which I agreed with.

I understand the very reasonable concern that FRINGE topics not be given undue weight, I just feel that this concern has been applied there overzealously. I agree also that the "Skeptic" mindset is unduely prevalent on Wikipedia Health and Medicine articles. I feel that it is a bullying presence concerned soley with pushing a particular POV. The organization is apparently funded at $10M per year by undisclosed sources. I feel this whole thing is problematic because, inter alia, as you said (I hope Im not distorting too much what you said) when Wikipedia oversteps the scientific evidence it fuels those who feel that Wikipedia has been coopted by corporate or other POV influences. JustinReilly (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

TY JustinReilly -as you know I am banned from discussing certain topics or anything having to do with them. So I am no longer commenting on my issues with that. There is some weird stuff going-on with the organised "skeptics" on this project. I have watched some of their youtube videos, and they clearly state that they have an agenda on Wikipedia that does not include building an encyclopedia, but forwarding their agendas, and promoting their organisation here. There is some GREAT WORK that they do, debunking health topics, preventing snake-oil peddlers from gaining legitimacy here for their false and harmful treatments and diets, and selling/promoting...

But I agree that they need to not act like bullies towards editors that are working here solely to help build an encyclopedia. And they cannot have ownership over articles and topics. Somehow we have to find a way to work with them, and just giving them the ban-hammer is not the answer. And although their agendas are not completely against what Wikipedia's are, there has to be room for normal/unaligned editors, between the editors pushing the skeptical POV and agendas vs those who are here to profit from having their garbage appear as true facts.

They are leaving a thumbprint on this project, and at some point, if they are not challenged, they are putting the entire project at-risk of looking like a mouthpiece for their organisation and slanting/skewing articles beyond standards. A recent example that I noticed is the Tyler Henry article, (which should be deleted imo and put info. about Henry on the show page, like most other reality performers)-- where undue weight towards inserting skeptical spokespersons into the article, gives the entire article an "off" feeling, and it leans too far in promoting skeptics, even-if I do agree that the subject of the article is a fraud. At what point did we agree that "they" were free to use every fringe topic, as an opportunity to promote themselves(rhetorical-we didn't afaik).

As far as I can see, skeptics have transparent funding from Randi's foundation, and maybe other skeptical funding-and I don't know anything about any hidden funding specifically being used to affect Wikipedia. They are pretty open about what they are doing here, or at least open-enough for us to notice where they are having an effect. Being open can bring them more donations too I guess? So, I worry about their influence here, and it needs to be addressed and monitored for compliance with the goals of Wikipedia, and our editors and readers when that conflicts with their stated agendas. Also, there is the issue of "outing" editors, so I am mindful of that, and that makes dealing-with skeptical agenda editors and admin. touchy. Not outing people IS a Wikipedia policy, and I think the best way to handle the issue is to apply Wikipedia policy as priority in a matters having to do with it. TeeVeeed (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Teeveeed, I checked out that Tyler Henry article. I think it's good they put criticism in there, but I felt it just went on and on with the criticism from Skeptics. I *strongly* encourage you to appeal the ban even if you don't want to or intend to ever edit on vaccines. One the principle, two, you have made tons of contributions to Wikipedia and I feel it would be a real shame if some ppl at some point try to use this against you, trying to portray you as a distruptive editor. We know that ppl arent supposed to use "dirt" about someone against them, but we also know that is done all the time. And three: It should be very simple and easy to get it overturned because the facts did not meet the criteria for a ban- that your account is being used primarily to distrupt Wikipedia. I will write a statement like Rhoark did about the incident if you decide to appeal.JustinReilly (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking-out that article JustinReilly, and thank-you for your support and encouragement. My ban is really minor in the scope of things, and one thing that I considered about an appeal is that I could be "re-sentenced" to an even worse ban. I like to stay away from battleground topics anyhow as a rule, because no one usually "wins", not even the articles, and there are a lot of articles that need help on this project that are not considered the "property" of (so-called) "skeptical"-editors. Yes I said that because they don't appear to be skeptical about anything that mainstream science promotes, or that they promote.....I can tell what articles they have descended-on because they leave a trail of banned good faith editors, lopsided edits, un-checked violations of policy that most of us wouldn't even try, inserted advocacy for their causes...which makes-for articles that read contentiously and just weird in article space, which is sad.

Right now I am fine staying in my own lane here if possible, although I appreciate that I am not the only GF editor who has run afoul of the skeptical agenda here, and I am going to be watching how other editors here are treated more carefully, as you are, (thank-you again for that). When I decided not to appeal again, and just accept my ban, I had that in mind, that I could have come out of it with a ban that entertained an even wider-scope, one that could have truly handicapped me from editing, and then my other goal of hoping to keep an eye on how these "guerrilla skeptics" are treating us here. So I'm good with it for now, TeeVeeed (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how you could possibly get a worse ban since the one you got was nowhere near supported by the facts of what you did. Anyway, i understand what you're saying about there are lower hanging fruit out there in terms of articles that need editing. Good luck and take care!JustinReilly (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you

Hey there- thank you for your help and support! You're the best! I just think Pandemonia is so cool and should have a wiki page ;)) I copied from her bio page because I was totally unaware of how wiki works, so thank you again for your help. I also seem to be locked out from editing? I would love to add an image and more fact based details...will I be able to edit again? Hoping you have a way of responding...xxxxx Rubycann (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh--Thank-YOU! There was a nice image but it was deleted so I found one that should be OK copyright-wise. I would ♥ to add more about the Hyde Park exhibit, but so far I can't find anything except what is on the artist's page about that. You did a nice job bringing the article here, and I hope that it doesn't get deleted. Copying a little is usually OK, but cutting & pasting large chunks of text and content is not good and it is best to summarize--I'll check and see what happened and try and post on your talk page, or if it is gone, I'll post hereTeeVeeed (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

COI notice

Hi there!

I saw your recent edit on The Pictet Group article. Thing is, I'd already approached two editors last year (including one who'd spotted a COI problem before I arrived) asking for review [3] [4], and it passed with flying colors.

Is this okay for you? Cheers, Pplc (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh come to think of it, actually every single article we touched has a declaration banner/template in the talk page as well, eh (see, e.g. here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pplc (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah well, the template's instructions say it all: "Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {{POV}} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame or to "warn the reader" about the identities of the editors. (..) Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." I'll just take it off then, but I'm happy to discuss anytime. Pplc (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi again TeeVeeed. Thanks for engaging on this, and apologies for removing the tags before the issue was cleared (I was in a bit of a rush last night and should have waited for your replies). I think it all boils down to one question: is an article neutral or not? Writing articles is a collaborative effort, and putting a tag up there casts doubt not only on the work done by the COI editor but also whoever else helped improve or reviewed it. I think disclosure is important, but a balance has to be struck between transparency and generalized suspicion.

If every article written by a paid editor is slapped with a {{COI}} tag, no matter what s/he did and how well s/he worked (and I've been a volunteer Wikimedian for long enough to know how rewarding good work is), then the immediate and unintended consequence is to force paid editors into hiding their Conflict of Interest and pretend to be volunteers. The higher level of scrutiny invited by the disclosure on the talk page would be negated, and it is in the end very much counterproductive.

This being said, I'm going to leave a note asking for further review on The Pictet Group and Swiss Private Bankers Association (the other one I never edited and still needs sources). Is this okay with you if whoever does it removes the tags? Pplc (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for your response and explanation. If another editor removes the tags it is fine with me, and I won't push the issue with you or revert. You have a good point there about keeping paid editors honest. I was/am hoping for more editor involvement-to answer some questions, but I don't think that it is fair or right for myself without much consensus to single your paid edits out, or make them a test-case, since you obviously are complying with what has been asked of you here. And -like I said, I have questions, and I don't really want to change any policies, just understand them.

It is entirely possible that removing the tags is the correct edit. On the other hand, there are articles that have had tags since 2006, and as an editor and reader I like the COI info. in article space. But if it really doesn't belong there, or if an uninvolved editor thinks it should be removed at this point, I don't have a problem. I do think that they, (COI notice)-needed to be placed, and revisited, --there is no policy that says that once a COI is removed that it is "permanently" removed, and as I pointed-out, at least one other editor recommended COIs, in the discussion at the Signpost, so there's that. I don't really know enough about what the standards are for paid-edits, so I leave it to editors who are more involved with it as an issue to chime-in hopefully. May 2016 (UTC) TeeVeeed (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of tags on articles pages (whatever they are): they're unsightly and more often than not only state the obvious (e.g. "references are lacking"). The fact that they can stay there for years at a time also shows IMHO that they're not really effective at enticing people to act (I was told there was a Foundation research on this but haven't seen it). Anyway, thanks again and have a nice week-end! Pplc (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)