User talk:Wuerzele

archive 2014

Welcome

Have removed your changes to the article on antibiotic resistance. Not sure what was with the strange numbering of sections. Also introduced a number of other errors. We typically keep section headings sort and they do not contain links per WP:MOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, do you have concerns with the content changes, or is it just the number in the section titles which is problematic? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a friendly stab at doing this more gradually, here: Talk:Antibiotic_resistance#A_modest_proposal. -- Scray (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Wuerzele,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Precious

flow and resistence

Thank you, user who signed the Neurotypical / Autism spectrum interaction pact, for "added references, summary of facts", for quality articles based on professional expertise, such as Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and Physicians in the United States Congress, for welcoming new users with individual advice, and your plans for Antibiotic resistance which will need resistance, for "I think knowledge is like clean water and must flow" and Amen, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used your lovely nightingale award on AE, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PEGIDA

Thanks for your contributions. FYI, there was a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

I have stopped counting 2a02:xxxxx reverts. Please notify me if there is a discussion at RPP or ANI. JimRenge (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your rebuke over the West/Abendland/Occident controversy: it was well-merited, and my edit was over-bold.

I now recognise the logic behind the use of "Occident", though I have to say that on balance I'm not altogether convinced. I'm not a native German speaker, but I don't get the sense that either "Occident" or "Abendland" is "archaic". However, their overtones seem to me to be very different. In English, "Occident" is rare and rather technical (usually in the historical sciences), and it is generally used in contrast to "Orient" (itself a word whose use in English has shifted, referring in the 18th century to anywhere in Asia or Egypt, but now (pace Said) pretty well exclusively confined to the (largely non-Islamic) Far East); in addition, having a Latin rather than a Germanic root it has an intellectual, analytical feel, remote from emotion – I don't know how this observation stacks up against your feel for the use of "Okzident" in German. However, apart from the euphony of the acronym, what presumably struck those who chose the word "Abendland" in this context would have been the reference it makes to Spengler, which it is very hard to convey by any English rendering. "West" may be the closest way of getting to that (it's the word always used to translate Spengler's title), though the analogy is weak (it depends, I suppose, on the "West" being the "paradise" of Tennyson, Kingsley &c).

What I would certainly contest, however, is that there is anything "literal" about translating "Abendland" by "Occident"; a literal translation would of course be "Evenland" (which would be a coinage so obscure as not to work, and would anyway be a very bad translation because it would not convey any of those overtones at all). Diomedea Exulans (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diomedea Exulans, i've long enough hesitated to respond to you, because I explained my point on the talkpage- But maybe you are looking for a response. So: I dont understand your latter paragraph: How is translating "Abendland" as "Occident" not literal?

Further, what would be a real and literal translation of Abendland into English?

Of course 'Evenland' is not even a translation; it's an alliteration at best, as Evenland does not exist. The latinised form of a potential "evening-land" however, is occident, a real word and that's why to me its a literal translation. And no, of course, nobody uses the word "Okzident" in German, because it does not exist! why should we need a second latinised word, when we already have one, right there amidst us, the Abendland ? almost magically sounding, as magical as Morgenland. isnt it interesting,that neither Abendland nor occident are a page on the en.wikipedia? (wikipidia.de of course has a (big) page on Abendland.)

More to my point: PEGIDA's use of Abendland is very clever absolutely no accident. Its a show off we stand on teh shoulder of giants AND It's a clear counterpoint to the word "Levant" (Morgenland), which you well know is used in ISIL. --Wuerzele (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, now you made me curious about your work. Kinda WP as social medium. "Okzident": "Orient und Okzident sind nicht mehr zu trennen", Goethe 1826. Also vielleicht aus der Mode gekommen, aber nicht unerhört. Lustig, PEGIDA und Goethe in Verbindung zu bringen. Es möge mir der alte Meister verzeihen. Übrigens, ich habe Dir auf meiner Talk-Seite etwas zu Nemtsov geantwortet. Machs gut,Arminden (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spotted lanternfly has been accepted

Spotted lanternfly, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Wuerzele. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Is edit #641543166 at Bitcoin article neutral?. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ladislav, thanks for letting me know. I ll see what I can do. I have boarding fatigue, as you know (no excuse, I know...).--Wuerzele (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hi, as you may have guessed, there is link again. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ladislav: It is sickening, really . I saw the reverting binge on Bitcoin first, then your notice. must be the weekend. I already drafted the first diffs of the ANI, but AlbinoFerret was faster. Thank you ! Thanks for sharing the burden, both of you.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you do not know this one: "Everybody is a madman, only I am an airplane." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I dont know "it". A standing expression in Czech? I guess I can guess the meaning (you know...)the airplane has a pilot named F for Flugzeug ? but no, please educate me. I d rather say Je suis Charlie or hands up or thank you for the 10th ANI. Maybe Catholicism. Ave Maria!--Wuerzele (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a favourite joke of mine. (Czechs are laughing beasts) At the first sight it says something about the sanity of everyone, but, when inspected, the only person, whose sanity it describes, is the speaker. "Je suis Charlie" is on my Facebook. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Everybody is a madman, only I am an airplane" favorite joke? must sound awfully good in Czech - i tell you it sucks in English..... But Oh, I forgot our son Matthias, he thinks he's an airplane, 8 and a half years old, lego, wood, paper, styropene, whatever- maybe the developmental stage we're talking about: omnipotence by day, but crawling into parents' bed at night!

and plse paste my award on your fricking empty talk page award section, will you ? - I didnt figure out how to place it with that automated thingy, award maker. oh, one has to do everything from scratch these days. :-)--Wuerzele (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice picture, warming. I like it and keep it where it is now. My translation ability is questionable, I was unable to come up with a better one. It is not easy to translate jokes to foreign language. Ladislav Mecir

(talk) 09:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome. your English is superb. not easy to translate.. ?-jokes cant be translated, only reinvented.look at Asterix. I read them in German, I am reading them now again with Matthias in English- totally different jokes. pantomime however....

anyway dont take me so seriously and yes, thank you for taking me seriously.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another (similar one), just to check whether I can come up with a better translation: Traffic news: "Drivers, look out, please! There is a car going in the opposite direction on the highway!" Driver, listening to the message, says: "A car? All cars!" Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yeeees, I snickered about that one! -I really have to make a picture and upload it, it's the photo topic of the month, you know? Outliers --Wuerzele (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am debating bringing the previous unanswered 3rr section into the present one, if there isnt an answer soon I will showing that not taking action leads to further problems. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the nice post on my talk page. AlbinoFerret 19:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States Central Command

bobrayner, I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from United States Central Command. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It appears that:

You have accidentally confused globalresearch.ca with a reliable source. It's not.
You think that an experienced editor removing badly-sourced content is actually a noob who deserves a templated warning about content blanking and censorship.

I have fixed the first problem. Don't worry about the second one. Feel free to restore the content if there is some other reliable source for it. bobrayner (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobraynor, you reverted a sentence and its source removing a third party editor's contribution, instead of flagging the sentence and source, discussing the issue and peacefully resolving the struggle to improve the United States Central Command page. In anticipation of some increased page views since CCOM's twitter feed was hacked, I copy edited and improved. I started a discussion on Talk :United States Central Command about the quality problems, the lede being unrepresentative, the page being largely unverifiable. Have you noticed these larger problems? If the page was in any way dear to you or if you wanted to serve the commons by improving it, you'd fixed anything, else but would not zero in on that one, the only, source supporting a critical view of CENTCOM.

Digging into it deeper I see that you've been battling the source, the centre for global research and its founder Michel Chossudovsky and are well known for doing so.

If you were sorry, you wouldnt use rhetoric and false fixes (reverting my reversal is not a fix of content issue). I have confused nothing. You appear to be pushing POV by singling out. As far as the template: It is courteous and your (pretended or real) sensitivity shows that your focus is off. You weren't sensitive enough to post on my talk page as requested above. I insist that you discuss any remaining issues on United States Central Command.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice is welcome

Hi User:Wuerzele. I am coming to your talk page as I note you signed the The Autie Pact in 2014. I am a non-neurotypical who lives with Autism in the form of Asperger Syndrome. If you know much about those of us on the Spectrum as well as Wikipedia editors on the Spectrum, you probably understand that editing and communication can be difficult enough for neurotypicals, excruciatingly difficult at times for editors like me with Autism. I am here on your talk page not because I am asking you to intervene, I am not canvassing for support. I am here because you signed the Autie Pact that is meant to be a way to move toward bridging the gap between neurotypical editors and editors with Autism Spectrum Disorder(s). Currently, there has been a discussion for a few days at AN/I regarding my ability to edit. I have been open there about being a person with Asperger's. When that information was brought forth, the reactions have been -- shall we say -- less than complimentary to those expressing their views about editors with Autism. This discussion and the comments from long-time and not-so-long-time editors is, in my opinion, an example of how far we still have to go in Wikipedia toward understanding that we are made up of editors with different editing styles and different ways of seeing the world. Of course, the difference in editors with Autism is more obvious and can be, at times, more maddening to neurotypicals. That said, with the rate of autism being somewhere between 1:55 - 1:110 and Wikipedia being a magnet for those with ASDs, I think it's fair to say that awareness is extremely important. Also important to remember is that discrimination against editors because they have ASDs is just not appropriate nor does it echo WP:AGF. If you are interested in seeing the thread at AN/I I am referring to, the link is here [1]. I have no expectation that you will look at it, my purpose here is really just awareness that Wikipedia still has a long way to go in the way of interactions and understanding between autism-spectrum editors and neurotypical editors. And, as the title of this section says, your advice would be welcome. Thanks for your time. -- ] ● ✉ ✓ 16:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WV. Thanks for posting your concern here, and hat off to your courage to "come out". -Not towards me since I have the Autie Pact label on my door, so to speak, so it's reasonably safe, but coming out in front of the general anonymous audience at AN/I. I can imagine that this must be as difficult as coming out for GLBT people.

I agree with all your points. WP as ASD magnet, need of awareness, need to learn, for both sides, but probably more for neurotypicals - ah, it depends- who when afraid, resort to discrimination. - let me just make a plug for the fact that discrimination hits a number of other leagues on WP too (gender, race, country of origin etc), speaking from experience...

Now, as far as the AN/I: I looked at it briefly, and because of the accusation I read, that you had an obsession with the topic and caused damage like an editor had nt seen before, my interest was of course peaked. I looked at Bess Myerson, at your edits, and-- shrugged shoulders. maybe I didnt study it long enough, but I didnt see anything that would get me to try to block you. Maybe your edit summaries concealed reversions. But I am not going to go to ANI- I honestly have board fatigue, have spent way too much time there since November. I cant imagine that you get blocked.

Advice? Stop digging/ worrying for now. You are welcome to join us at Bitcoin, if that interests you at all. Look at the edits that are made and you'll see plenty "obsessions" and I don't think we are all autistic. I didn't even check your userpage yet, sorry I am super tired, need to go. I just wanted to reply to you quickly. I hope to stay in contact- you are the first autistic adult (adult I assume) I have communicated with. The other autistic person i ve met merely reverted and reverted me ! Best, --Wuerzele (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, User:Wuerzele. I have several things I could say in reply, but will decline to do so now. Those seeking to have me sanctioned are now taking what I've said to another editor on that editor's talk page, have twisted it to mean something I never meant, and are using those words as part of their case against me. Even more egregious is one of those editors stating I am "self-identified" as having Asperger's -- in other words, I really don't have it and am lying to gain sympathy. That comment really hurt when I first read it, but then I had to chuckle, because editing in Wikipedia could never be important enough to tell such a story. But, truth be told, to say something like that is just a slap in the face of everyone on the Spectrum, everyone with special needs whose disability or "different-ability" isn't immediately obvious. That kind of thinking, plus the general feeling expressed among a number of those in the thread that being on the Spectrum = incompetence and editing with them is a "burden" and "waste of time", is truly bigoted against those with special needs. It's discrimination, plain and simple, but in Wikipedia terms, it equates a specific type of personal attack that is "never acceptable". See this section of the NPA policy for more.

I appreciate your words here, including your advice. We can discuss more at a later time when things have calmed down to less than a dull roar. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating me, WV. Stay strong. We need you.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improve Pegida article

Hi Wuerzele,
regarding the photo issue I left a reply on the talk page. At the same time I reinstated the other changes you reverted with even more detailled explanations. The restructured version is clearly favorable to the disorganized content hopping forth-and-back.
Rest assured that while of course I do have a personal (though rather complex) opinion on Pegida, I'm clearly committed to NPOV. I've been watching the article for a while but didn't join earlier because I temporarily didn't find time and nerves for controversial discussions, and hoped the article would draw enough attention. Now, while we shouldn't give in to POV pushing from the one or the other side, we really need to work hand in hand improving the article, which still is in a poor state though the topic is highly relevant. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't convinced that "Pegida" is more common than "PEGIDA". Therefore, it was moved back. You can request a move. --George Ho (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Leggett and other things

Thank you very much for finding more sources for John Leggett. I noticed you have other drafts and open projects. When they are finished, you can move them to mainspace and add the {{authority control}} template to them, based on what I have found.

Jill Leovy

Jaromír Korčák

Best, Vycl1994 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vycl1994, well, thank you for putting the Leggett article online. you beat me to it.

I deleted my draft which was about the same as yours after you put the article online. You must not have seen it when you searched online.

Did you look up all the numbers in the authority control template? I read

"Simply adding will display all the authority control information associated with the article", but it looks like you put them in manually?--Wuerzele (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly hang around at the Death in current year article, which is where I first came across the John Leggett link. As such, I clicked the link, gathered some sources and began writing. I did not notice your draft because I did no on-WP research. This is a personal oversight for which I apologize.

The authority control template uses the corresponding values inserted into Wikidata pages. Wikipedia drafts cannot have Wikidata datasets until being moved to mainspace, which is why I added the values manually. When the above articles are live, the values can be transferred to Wikidata. Then all that needs to be on the en.wiki article is {{authority control}} and the full template will appear. See Gerrit Kouwenaar and his wikidata page for an example. Vycl1994 (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks, Please dont apologize. the early bird...you see the List of iowa writers workshop people had misclassified John Leggett as Jack Leggett, so all links looked blue ( for a different person). I entered him on deaths in 2015 as John Leggett (then red) and that was your signal. I dont blame you for not doing WP searches, but I tell you, I saw my own WP draft on google (!) even though I deleted it. weird world. One more thing: you should archive ALL links- NYTimes archive lasts "only" 10 years , all others less.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most archived links have been added to references through the |archivedate= and |archiveurl= parameters. However, the Wayback Machine doesn't seem to like the Napa Valley Register article. Vycl1994 (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with COI request for edit

Hello, Wuerzele: I am contacting you directly here to seek your assistance in updating a page on which I currently have a conflict of interest (Oil and Gas Commission). I had posted a request to edit on the Talk page of the article, but it's not been picked up yet.

As you had added information on which there is now a resolution, if possible, it would be very helpful if you could do that edit request.

I have tried to follow all the right WP protocols but please accept my apologies if I am going about this the wrong way! Many thanks for your time. Wrightwords (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wrightwords thanks for posting the edit request on the Oil and Gas Commission talk page, your patience and contacting me here. I linked to a newspaper article, more for reader convenience.

Is there a photo or two you could contribute to the page, maybe ? --Wuerzele (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wheel truing stand

Andrew, Before I ever accuse someone as a WP:vandal, as you did on Talk:wheel truing stand, I look at their editing history, their user page. I first rule out an honest error, before insulting someone.( You didnt and shot from the hip)

Your userpage very proudly claims that you are one of the 5,000 most active wikipedians of "all time" (which is idiotic hybris if you think about it - how can anyone claim into the future? ) I honestly cannot find you as such and not even as one of the 10,000. Looks like this decor is a shot in the foot. Have you ever thought about removing your unsourced (maybe outdated?) claim, before someone -equally martially as yourself- accuses/shoots you of misconduct? Live and let live, man--Wuerzele (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see...

The link you inserted in this edit is to Howard Hawkins, "an American politician and activist with the Green Party of the United States."
I checked the link you inserted, and even though I reside in Milwaukee, as my user page indicates, and ride a bicycle to work every day, I did not find any indication that the linked article mentioned truing stands, so I removed it with the edit summary "No mention of truing stand in linked article."
You reinserted the link with this edit to an article about "an American politician" without addressing the issue of there being no mention of truing stands that article. Your edit summary simply asserted that it was "sourced" material,
I once again checked all the sources provide in the article, read the linked article, and found no mention of a connection between truing stands and the subject of the linked article. I even checked your user page, but I found no mention of bicycles or cycling, so I removed it again with the edit summary "No source provided. No mention of truing stand in linked article. Stop adding link spam."
I came to this talk page and itemized the reasons for removing the link.
You went to my talk page, accused me of edit warring, and began making personal attacks:

a. I display idiotic hubris by having some little box on my user page.

b. I display unsourced and maybe outdated claims on my user page. Simply following the provided link would lead you to the list which indicates that I have made 14,489 and which lists me as the 4628th active editor.

c. I "shot from the hip" when I did no such thing.

7. You came to this talk page and began making more, uninformed personal attacks:

a. I don't ride the right type of bike to edit this article correctly.

b. I don't live in the right location to edit this article correctly.

8. You finally discovered your mistake and inserted a link to the correct article with this edit and falsely suggested that you were reverting my edit with the edit summary "Undid revision 645844543 by AndrewDressel".

Obviously there is no reason to revert your third attempt to insert the correct link, because you finally inserted the correct link. If you had instead, continued to insert the incorrect link, I believe that my previous assessment would have been correct. It would have been spam at best, and more-likely persistent vandalism. I stand by every edit I make, and I sign my real name. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay provided an edit summary

Apologies that I didn't :-) Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fishman article

I think I now understand what you were looking for when you flagged something for page numbers. I thought you simply meant you wanted the pages of an article within a book. But now I think you are looking for relevant pages in a whole book. When a whole volume is dedicated to Fishman, citing the "relevant" pages would be a challenge. Or have I still misunderstood you? Seeking peace and appropriately relevant and complete source info. Pete unseth (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you see the challenge. This essential discussion per WP:BRD belongs on the talk:Joshua Fishman page, Pete unseth ! I will move it there. BTW I already started discussing the problems this article has, you didnt look. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you reverted the edit war notice on my page. I was working hard to correct things and not tying to war.Pete unseth (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo the edit war warning you posted for me. Repeatedly, I was inserting page numbers that you had specifically requested by inserting banners requesting page numbers. That sort of activity should be seen as cooperating with you, not edit warring. Please remove the edit war posting. Pete unseth (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I see you now know, being improperly accused of edit warring is very unpleasant. I would be grateful if you would remove the accusation related to my efforts to insert the very changes you called for. I have heard people saying that Wikipedia has become a hostile environment. Let's show them this is not true.Pete unseth (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pete unseth, I cannot and willnot remove the statement. You were edit warring, read the definition. If you have done anything SINCE, thats good, but that doesnt change the fact that you were editwarring. Please stop posting on my talk page.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

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 get 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You introduce 40 changes, many to the worse, many with grammatical mistakes, some even non-sensical. This is more than bold and so it is my duty to revert. And I am not done reverting, as I find out the damage you have done.

It is you who deserves an edit war sign.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7 May

What do you think of Erda on her birthday? (I would have chosen Erda for DYK if we hadn't had Erda just recently.) Did you know that we had 9 DYK articles on contraltos so far, but in the few weeks of 2015 four (two to come)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is midnight where you are. Do you mean the Maria Radner DYK on Maria's birthday? that aside, sure go for it! it's quite veiled , and maybe should be pointed out in the hook. I love Easter egg hunting and have never missed to organize the spectacle in our yard here in teh US ( but the German way) over the past 8 years of our sons life... but you really do leave me behind in the dust with your "hidden" connections! and most people would call me an association freak.

i dont know what to say about the number of contralto DYK's because I am ignorant about it, but at the very least it looks like someone (other than me) is successfully producing articles in that field, or ... chance. Chance like being on the wrong plane at the wrong time, or living out a pilot's dream with a common mental condition that German society discriminates against, at the wrong time.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We had a DYK about a great woman on the fifth anniversary of her death, without mentioning it, - resulted in one of the few times a hook for "my" article attracted more than 5k clicks. Erda-Maria gets more than that every day, still, did you see? We are responsible for what the readers get to know ... - Did you follow the link to the 11 contraltos (one male). I was part of six of them, including the male ;) - Just found another link to him where I didn't expect it: Tristis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, not yet - have to run pick up my son , cook and all the rest...--Wuerzele (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

enjoy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still unsure what you want, please let me know.

Hello,

Regarding edits to Thomas Andrews Drake, John Kiriakou, and Jesselyn Radack https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.84.81.66&oldid=653090839&diff=cur. Retrieved 29 March 2015. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

For your benefit, I have logged in to prove my existence of having an account. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.84.81.66&oldid=653090839&diff=cur. Retrieved 29 March 2015. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

I immediately returned to your talk page to see if there were any instructions for me to improve, or at least an explanation of your enigmatic "edit war" message having no other information to support it.... only to find you have deleted everything.

Again, if you are the one I am supposedly in a "war" with, I have two requests a) please stop deleting relevant information and corrected reference detail which were incomplete and incorrect in prior versions (which you or someone keeps reverting them to). b) if you do not like the complete data nor the corrected references, will you please explain why and how I can improve to meet wikipedia standards?

Tis quite odd that corrected detailed facts and references continue to be deleted, and replaced with incomplete detail and incorrect references... am confident wikipedia.org would prefer the former, not the later. If this is wrong, please explain why.

If you are deleting corrected facts and corrected references, and continue to refuse to communicate factual reasons for this, I will then need to report your unprofessional actions to your supervisors and colleagues.

Please communicate and explain what I possibly have done wrong and need to improve.

V/R COL M.D.B., MD

my reply to your first message is on the Talk:John Kiriakou, where I moved it, as indicated in my edit summar not deleted as you surmised. I think you did not read my edit summaries on John Kiriakou either. you were impatient, reverting a third time

you were impatient the second time now, posting here again. there is absolutely no rush.

you mention in your message edits to Jesselyn Radack Thomas Andrews Drake. I dont know what you are talking about. you seem confused

the last sentence you wrote is a threat. you appear to be ignorant of all basic WP rules. for the threat alone you deserve to be reported to ANI. --Wuerzele (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi Wuerzele, I have responded to your question on my talk page. Orderinchaos 12:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit war over Dresden article

Are you sure that a link to a further wikipedia article doesn't constitute an adequate reference? evidence please. List of German defence ministers To my mind the fact that the list is on Wikipedia is source enough, given that it does claim a source for itself, though a German language one that is not accessible to a non-German speaker; that's a fact that could be improved upon - providing a direct link to the list on the site.

What however IS true is that Maizière is no longer defence minister - as the reference on his bio page surely does establish. That fact DOES need to be corrected. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GERAC, Wikistress

Hi, just an "FWIW" observation that may be totally off-base because I'm ignorant of the history and am just commenting on the talk page and recent edits: as frustrating as it can be when one feels one's concerns are being ignored by other editors, it's better to avoid "raising the temperature", and better most especially for one's own stress level. This is something I'm still learning... not meaning to lecture at all.... it's just that I sense high-ish Wikistress on your end, so I decided to err on the side of encouraging the most relaxed, Wikipedia-enjoying stance possible. :-) You seem right on the merits, but it's a judgement call on which competent editors can disagree; I could see consensus going either way. Happy editing! --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 22:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Central Command

I have laid out my disagreement with your edit, referenced to a book published by professors at the National War College and Carleton University, at the talkpage. Please feel free to respond should you wish. Additional details can be seen at the new article Combined Joint Task Force 180. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Media bias in the United States, Pro-Israel media

Hi, I checked the book in question for the quote and could not find it. The original is, however, in the Mother Jones article I cited, and more accurately reflects the date of the original quote. So I thought to put that in. What do you suggest?

The 2007 book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy argued that there is a media bias in favor of Israel. It stated that a former spokesman for the Israeli Consulate in New York said that: "Of course, a lot of self-censorship goes on. Journalists, editors, and politicians are going to think twice about criticizing Israel if they know they are going to get thousands of angry calls in a matter of hours.The Jewish lobby is good at orchestrating pressure.The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy - John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt - Google Books. Books.google.com. Retrieved 2013-11-12.

Changed to :

Manachem Shalev, a former spokesman for the Israeli Consulate in New York, was quoted in Mother Jones Magazine in 1987 as saying that: "Of course, a lot of self-censorship goes on. Journalists, editors, and politicians are going to think twice about criticizing Israel if they know they are going to get thousands of angry calls in a matter of hours.The Jewish lobby is good at orchestrating pressure.”Quote attributed to Menachem Shalev found in Robert Freidman, "Selling Israel to America: The Hasbara Project Targets the U.S. Media,” Mother Jones Magazine (Feb/March 1987), 25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.198.54 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 01:53, 3 April 2015‎

Dennis Keeney draft

Following your technical question to another editor, seems you want this page deleted. I'm going to WP:BOLDLY delete it; can always resurrect it afterwards. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes ! thanks, are you following me?--Wuerzele (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For now, yes. I'm waiting for you to come back to me at Talk:United States Central Command. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might get a kick out of this

Its in the NY Times, I came across it by accident link AlbinoFerret 00:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlbinoFerret, thanks !--Wuerzele (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarification on whether I have a "conflict" over a personal biography I'm preparing to Wiki.

Here is the situation:

I'd like to offer a BLP as a first article. It is about F. Scott Yeager, a tech entrepreneur who was born and lives in Texas. Yeager figured in the Enron Energy scandal Template:Http://abc13.com/archive/7073979/and, while he was director of sales for Metropolitan Fiber Systems, was a cocreator of MAE EastTemplate:Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAE-East, which, significantly spurred the commercialization of the Internet.

I did not know Yeager until a friend introduced him as a person seeking to hire someone to help him complete a personal manuscript. I accepted the work and became aware of the role Yeager played in certain developments pertaining to the Internet. Though it perhaps amounts to only a footnote, Yeager's career does add to our store of knowledge about the Internet's evolution. I wish to stress that I am not being paid to prepare this proposed Wiki entry and will of course rely on outside secondary sources, etc. I'm confident the entry will be sufficiently sourced, unbiased and verifiable and look forward to seeing what results from the contributions of others. I have a draft prepared and am currently completing the inline sourcing.

What is the appropriate way to proceed?Danan (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danan, write your thing, and the community will judge.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Maria Radner

On 11 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maria Radner, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the contralto Maria Radner, who died in the Germanwings plane crash, performed Wagner's Wesendonck Lieder at his villa, Wahnfried? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Radner. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 00:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2, 4-D

there has been a flurry of edits over stupid "a" vs "an" and I think you miscontrued what i did there... Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are uncivil, using "stupid", "misconstruing" without actually having studied the edits. How could you study the edits- you have no time in the flurry of YOUR edits everywhere. No real discussion can be had with someone who is insulting. You are no longer welcome on my user page and should post all your comments regarding my edits on the talk pages of articles. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pegida article

I reverted your edit because it is simply bad use of the English language. Hohenloh⁺ 09:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has no place on my user page.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit war warning

If you are going to revert, you must discuss your reasons. Please do not revert again without explaining your reasoning first, and talking it through. If you just go ahead and revert without doing that, I will bring you to the edit war noticeboard. I have asked for your reasoning several times on the talk page already. Thanks.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of documents such as contracts as citations

I have a pdf of a contract for the creation of MAE-East by UUNET and MSF Datanet. I'm a newbie and haven't quite figured out if this document can be cited and made accessible in support of a claim that a particular person signed the document. Danan (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danan, I couldnt read your msage because you put it in these brackets <>. why did you do that? I cannot see how a non-public contract could be a reference. please familiarize yourself with WP:ref and WP:RS. If you dont hear from me, try teh WP:teahouse.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh

I hatted that whole TP. It's moved now. Will probably archive it all, so there's nothing on it worth going to 3RR. It's 1:30 am here - and I'm . Happy editing! Atsme☯^Consult 05:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I will say this one time. do not stalk me. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted just after I edited on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#reordering, where he had reverted me.

First, I have told him on April 16 that he is no longer welcome on my talk page and must respond to edits elsewhere. Yet he has posted twice since this request.

Secondly, the post is hollow, as evidence shows that he has been stalking me.

Thirdly, the post is a threat, and no "appropriate project notices and communications".

Fourth, as jytdog is so busy on ANI etc, his friend Kingofaces reliably turned up to help in the cause, and was WP:wikilawyering with WP:NOBAN, which says "it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to).".--Wuerzele (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I saw you post on the COI talk page. I thought you might be interested in related discussions going on such as these:

Advocacy Ducks Draft Essay
Talk about Draft Essay
Discussion on SlimVirgin's talk page about COI and use of MEDRS (if you are unsure of which discussions are relevant, please let me know. Mostly topics: 1, 7, and 11 until present)

Archived discussions about COI on Jimbo's page:

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Neonicotinoid. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your tag on User:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks

Please review the following to see if my changes address your concerns: [2] Atsme☯^Consult 22:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

@Wuerzele: - thanks very much for your thorough, respectful and kind edits on the WP pages edited by the students in my Environmental Disruptors of Development class. Very very helpful! Generous with your time! Interested in conveying knowledge, constructive criticism and facilitating learning. Yay! Very, very much appreciated. Hakeleh (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well thank you ! now i have to look if we met , Hakeleh , did we?--Wuerzele (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy ducks

Could you help me understand the nature of your objection? I left an edit summary so "unexplained" is incorrect. The original author even thanked me for changing to the proper template, so I'm puzzled. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me....

I thought keeping the word "generation" was overkill, but that goes to show how much I know about that particular topic. [3] Atsme^📞📧 20:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme thanks for allowing me to correct you . you know this includes fracking, where dog has been active and reverting environmental concerns for example.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wuerz - I much prefer to collaborate than elaborate for months. It doesn't take me very long to figure something out. It probably could be attributed to things I have actually experienced first-hand. Having said that, if I had believed the revert was not substantive, you probably would have gotten the full monty.

(not really, a discussion on the TP would have ensued) Atsme^📞📧 20:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DDT carcinogenicity edits

Thanks for your rewrite of the paragraphs summarizing the findings on DDT carcinogenicity. I removed the summary of those two review articles a couple of weeks ago because it blatantly contradicted the findings of the reviews. I meant to go back in and summarize the review articles, but I see that you've done so, and your rewrite is a significant improvement on that section. Thank you! Jinnantonix (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

de nada, Jinnantonix and thanks for your comment.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to cut the drama

It's starting to seem that any mundane edit I make where you are involved results in tirades on the article talk page [4], [5]. Doing things like casting aspersions claiming someone is coming in with a particular bias, whitewashing, etc. when it was a mundane edit as picking between two somewhat synonymous words seems to show this problem is getting worse. Please be aware that making these kinds of comments on an article talk page are not welcome per WP:TPG, and we should solely be focused on content there. Attacking editors as you are is disruptive to the project. If you want to comment on editor behavior, user talk pages or other appropriate noticeboards are the place for that, but do be aware you are risking a WP:BOOMERANG if you continue to cast aspersions or make overall uncivil remarks about editors in those venues.

If this disruptive behavior continues, the next conversation will about the appropriateness of a ban (interactions or otherwise), so please just stick to the talk page guidelines instead of prickly behavior in these topics. You might find that people will also be more willing to discuss with you if you aren't starting out conversations with various accusations about editors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I´ve seen your so called ¨"discussions" for years. You are a master at rhethoric, veiled threats and generic platitudes. I see you as completely counterproductive on the articles i have seen you edit. You are not welcome on my userpage, for the exact same reason that you pretend to post here´.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modification of Elias Murr

Hi Wuerzele, thank you for your message and awesome contribution. 2 years and a half contribution on wikipedia is awesome, thus i would be talking to someone who can help and guide about the wikipedia rules. The reason i am removing the spy falciani, is because it is endangering the reputation of Elias Murr where he did not do any wrong but it seems wrong. First, the Lebanese law does not have any taxation rules outside Lebanon. Second, he is a very rich person, which it seems silly to tell people they discovered 42 million which already this company only works in Switzerland you can check www.groupmurr.com. Third, it does not give any more information about him or any valuable news other than trying to ruin his reputation and harm him in a bad way. Please look it at that way as i know it is not your intention Will be looking forward to consider my suggestion Wuerzele. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljoumhouria (talk • contribs) 08:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2,4 D

Have you seen this? link AlbinoFerret 00:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:AlbinoFerret, I am still in Spain and I will be able to see this in 8 days, when I am back, sorry.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources

In this edit you used a primary source [6]. Much better to use secondary sources such as review articles. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah, really? Man, you seem to get a kick out of teaching me how to suck eggs. What do you know about Chagas cardiomyopathy, or ID , really? Please, get a life.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will never gusess what I got today.

In the mail a box came, and inside was a large Fenton, Lotus and dragon shallow bowl. I will have to take a photo and add it to one of my glass articles so you can see it. AlbinoFerret 21:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlbinoFerret yeah please do ! I ll look forward to it! Let's have some fun in this serious WP world of COI interest proceedings.... --Wuerzele (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, -Tryptofish (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full Reference on General Electric Page for my Contribution

Thanks for your message. I have cited full references for my contribution on General Electric page. -- User:Franklyn.issac (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Your recent editing history at Kevin Folta 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 get 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.
Edits 1, 2, 3 Glen 21:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glen First link does not exist, if you would correct please. I hope you added this template on the pages of Jerodlycett and all other users that are editwarring, I have no time to check now.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wuerzele. You have new messages at Jerodlycett's talk page.
Message added 02:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Just in case you didn't get the notification. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Kevin Folta. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Kevin Folta. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

multiple aspects have not been considered. I also do not count 4 reversions in the diffs mentioned below

I am requesting reconsideration of this block, because multiple aspects have not been considered. I also do not count 4 reversions in the diffs mentioned below. I have filed 3rr only three times in almost 3 years of busy editing and never filed it, if I believed that I violated it.

I offer to walk away from this article, if this is acceptable.

When unblocked, I will continue to help Wikipedia by adding references, copyediting/ grammar spelling issues, expanding short articles, which is my main activity as can be seen from my record.

Behavioral issue: Administrator Drmies posted on the Talk:Kevin Folta page here accusing me of "launch into a personal attack that makes not a bit of sense". I disagreed with his opinion. I had mentioned the word troll, which to me is no personal attack, but a fact-based description of what one can see for oneself in the diffs of Silver seren's immediate bad faith interaction to a newbie of the page, calling my contribution "rubbish", and continuous casting of unfounded aspersions. In retrospect I can see that the word troll is inflammatory and feeding the behavior and I would not spell it out again.

I am responding to the diffs cited by jerodlycett as violating 3rr, which in hindsight, I should have done right away before being blocked:

[7] This is a copy edit improving the sentence " NATURE alleges...". a journal cannot allege. an author writing in Nature can. I also cut the repeated use of the word allege per WP:ALLEGED. I wrote in the edit summary to write what was quoted on the talk page in order to paraphrase the facts neutrally.
[8] This edit corrects demonstrably false information, which I laid out in the talk page. It is an incorrect quote of the source, not found in the source. Such a correction is exempt from the 3RR rule "Removal of biased, unsourced, contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).." There was never any reply to this issue, up to the moment of filing this request.
[9] Here I reinserted properly sourced info which had been removed by Jerodlycett without explanation. The phrase "amongst them email exchanges with Monsanto" was key to understanding the paragraph and removing it was adding WP:undue weight to the BLP. I asked what the problem with this statement was, asked to discuss and not edit war. He did not discuss this, and there is no evidence on the talk page, that he discussed this issue, despite of his assertions on the 3 RR report; all of his discussions were PRIOR to my arrival on the page. The removal served to keep the name Monsanto out of the beginning of the paragraph, which is detrimental to the understanding of the paragraph titled "COI", since it is the crux of the COI and has to be mentioned, so removal made no sense and seemed POV guided. This edit could be seen as allowable, per WP:BLP rules
[10] ~~This diff isnt mine, should not have been listed~~ Removed POV sentence, because source unacceptable per WP:BLPSPS. WP:BLPREMOVE states that such a correction is exempt from the 3RR rule "Removal of biased, unsourced, contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).."
[11] ~~This diff isnt mine, should not have been listed~~ this is a revert and could be seen as an unnecessary edit. Nobody replied to this issue on Talk.
[12] This is inserting a sourced quote, and it is no reversion- this quote still stands as of now, uncontested.
[13] This is an edit where I marked an unreferenced statement and deleted the erroneously attributed reference. The reference cited did not contain the claim made, as pointed out, and as in[14]. In hindsight I could have just marked it, and leave the erroneous ref in, this could be seen as an unnecessary edit. Nobody replied to this issue on Talk.

The latter 2 diffs should also not be counted as two diffs , because "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". Of the remaining 6 diffs 3 were allowable per WP:BLPREMOVE, so the 3 RR rule was not broken.

Comments: I could not have survived 2 and a half years of editing controversial articles in a wide variety of different fields (incl Bitcoin) without these skills and without a block up until today. I do strive for NPOV, and am not a partisan warrior, which I declared on the talkpage, while the editors that reverted have expressed clear POV as I laid out.

I am aware of what WP:Revert only when necessary#Unacceptable reversions are: I do think that I made one unnecessary edit, as noted in the diffs above.
I know what allowed reversions are: I did two.
I am aware how to handle edit-warring behaviors: I did open a talk page section addressing what I saw. editwarring continued and editors in question did not respond to any issues (like user silver seren). I admit that his immediate hostility, innuendo culminating in trollish behavior affected me.

At that point I should have asked for a WP:third opinion or started a WP:request for comments already. This is one thing that I could have done, that I will consider immediately if there is ever such a time.

Context: I do not understand why jerodlycett 's reversion have not been mentioned, not considered, nor been found a violation of WP:3RR. I do not understand how the template on his user page that I mentioned in my comment was not considered in decision making, a template which states

difficulty with altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions addressed to them;

limited capacity to respond to other Wikipedians via talk page messages or e-mails in a timely fashion, to participate in conflict resolution, or to complete their usual workload of Wikipedia tasks.

If you are here because I reverted an edit of yours it's likely by accident or because your edit damaged enough, that I assumed you made a mistake. Feel free to undo my revert if you fix what was messed up.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 September 2015‎ strike outs and corrections added, because I had erroneously retrieved wrong diff by manual entry of the raw diff number. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=multiple aspects have not been considered. I also do not count 4 reversions in the diffs mentioned below
'''I am requesting reconsideration of this block''', because multiple aspects have not been considered. I also do not count 4 reversions in the diffs mentioned below. I have filed 3rr only three times in almost 3 years of busy editing and never filed it, if I believed that I violated it.

I offer to walk away from this article, if this is acceptable. 

When unblocked, I will continue to help Wikipedia by adding references, copyediting/ grammar spelling issues, expanding short articles, which is my main activity as can be seen from my record.

Behavioral issue:
Administrator Drmies posted on the [[Talk:Kevin Folta]] page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKevin_Folta&type=revision&diff=681086765&oldid=681085939 here] accusing me of "launch into a personal attack that makes not a bit of sense". I disagreed with his opinion. I had mentioned the word troll, which to me is no personal attack, but a fact-based description of what one can see for oneself in the diffs of Silver seren's immediate bad faith interaction to a newbie of the page, calling my contribution "rubbish", and continuous casting of unfounded aspersions. '''In retrospect I  can see that the word troll is inflammatory and feeding the behavior and I would not spell it out again.'''

I am responding to the diffs cited by jerodlycett as violating 3rr, which in hindsight, I should have done right away before being blocked:
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=680963522 ]</span> This is a '''copy edit''' improving the sentence " NATURE alleges...". a journal cannot allege. an author writing in Nature can. I also cut the repeated use of the word allege per [[WP:ALLEGED]]. I wrote in the edit summary to write what was quoted on the talk page in order to paraphrase the facts '''neutrally'''. 
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=680968584 ]</span> This edit corrects demonstrably false information, which I laid out in the talk page. It is an incorrect quote of the source, not found in the source. Such a '''correction is exempt from the 3RR rule''' "Removal of biased, unsourced, contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).." There was never any reply to this issue, up to the moment of filing this request.
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681026453 ]</span> Here I reinserted properly sourced info which had been removed by Jerodlycett without explanation. The phrase "amongst them email exchanges with [[Monsanto]]" was key to understanding the paragraph and removing it was adding [[WP:undue weight]] to the BLP. I asked what the problem with this statement was, asked to discuss and not edit war. He did not discuss this, and there is no evidence on the talk page, that he discussed this issue, despite of his assertions on the 3 RR report; all of his discussions were PRIOR to my arrival on the page.  The removal served to keep the name Monsanto out of the beginning of the paragraph, which is detrimental to the understanding of the paragraph titled "COI", since it is the crux of the COI and '''has to be mentioned''', so removal made no sense and seemed POV guided. '''This edit could be seen as allowable''', per [[WP:BLP]] rules
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681028074 ]</span> <s>This diff isnt mine, should not have been listed</s> Removed POV sentence, because source unacceptable per [[WP:BLPSPS]]. WP:BLPREMOVE states that such a '''correction is exempt from the 3RR rule''' "Removal of biased, unsourced, contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).." 
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681028203 ]</span> <s>This diff isnt mine, should not have been listed</s> this is a revert and ''could'' be seen as an unnecessary edit. Nobody replied to this issue on Talk. 
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681068538 ]</span> This is inserting a sourced quote, and '''it is no reversion'''- this quote still stands as of now, uncontested. 
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681068692 ]</span> This is an edit where I '''marked an unreferenced statement and deleted the erroneously attributed reference'''. The reference cited did not contain the claim made, as pointed out, and as in<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=680968584 ]</span>. In hindsight I could have just marked it, and leave the erroneous ref in, this ''could'' be seen as an unnecessary edit. Nobody replied to this issue on Talk. 
The latter 2 diffs should also not be counted as two diffs , because "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as '''one revert'''". Of the remaining 6 diffs 3 were allowable per [[WP:BLPREMOVE]], so '''the 3 RR rule was not broken.'''  

'''Comments:'''
I could not have survived 2 and a half years of editing controversial articles in a wide variety of different fields (incl Bitcoin) without these skills and without a block up until today. I do strive for NPOV, and am not a partisan warrior, which I declared on the talkpage, while the editors that reverted have expressed clear POV as I laid out.
*I am aware of what [[WP:Revert only when necessary#Unacceptable reversions]] are:  I do think that I made one unnecessary edit, as noted  in the diffs above.
*I know what allowed reversions are: I did two.  
*I am aware how to handle edit-warring behaviors: I did open a talk page section addressing what I saw. editwarring continued and editors in question did not respond to any issues (like user silver seren). I admit that his immediate hostility, innuendo culminating in trollish behavior affected me.

At that point I should have asked for a [[WP:third opinion]] or started a [[WP:request for comments]] already. 
This is one thing that I could have done, that I will consider immediately if there is ever such a time.

'''Context:''' I do not understand why jerodlycett 's reversion have not been mentioned, not considered, nor been found a violation of [[WP:3RR]]. I do not understand how the template on his user page that I mentioned in my comment was not considered in decision making, a template which states 
<blockquote>
*difficulty with '''altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions''' addressed to them;
*'''limited capacity to respond to other Wikipedians via talk page messages''' or e-mails in a timely fashion, to participate in conflict resolution, or to complete their usual workload of Wikipedia tasks.
*If you are here because I reverted an edit of yours it's likely by accident or because your edit damaged enough, that I assumed you made a mistake. '''Feel free to undo my revert if you fix what was messed up'''.</blockquote>
<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wuerzele|Wuerzele]] ([[User talk:Wuerzele|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wuerzele|contribs]]) 21:02, 15 September 2015‎</span></small> strike outs and corrections added, because I had erroneously retrieved wrong diff by manual entry of the raw diff number. --[[User:Wuerzele|Wuerzele]] ([[User talk:Wuerzele#top|talk]]) 06:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=multiple aspects have not been considered. I also do not count 4 reversions in the diffs mentioned below
'''I am requesting reconsideration of this block''', because multiple aspects have not been considered. I also do not count 4 reversions in the diffs mentioned below. I have filed 3rr only three times in almost 3 years of busy editing and never filed it, if I believed that I violated it.

I offer to walk away from this article, if this is acceptable. 

When unblocked, I will continue to help Wikipedia by adding references, copyediting/ grammar spelling issues, expanding short articles, which is my main activity as can be seen from my record.

Behavioral issue:
Administrator Drmies posted on the [[Talk:Kevin Folta]] page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKevin_Folta&type=revision&diff=681086765&oldid=681085939 here] accusing me of "launch into a personal attack that makes not a bit of sense". I disagreed with his opinion. I had mentioned the word troll, which to me is no personal attack, but a fact-based description of what one can see for oneself in the diffs of Silver seren's immediate bad faith interaction to a newbie of the page, calling my contribution "rubbish", and continuous casting of unfounded aspersions. '''In retrospect I  can see that the word troll is inflammatory and feeding the behavior and I would not spell it out again.'''

I am responding to the diffs cited by jerodlycett as violating 3rr, which in hindsight, I should have done right away before being blocked:
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=680963522 ]</span> This is a '''copy edit''' improving the sentence " NATURE alleges...". a journal cannot allege. an author writing in Nature can. I also cut the repeated use of the word allege per [[WP:ALLEGED]]. I wrote in the edit summary to write what was quoted on the talk page in order to paraphrase the facts '''neutrally'''. 
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=680968584 ]</span> This edit corrects demonstrably false information, which I laid out in the talk page. It is an incorrect quote of the source, not found in the source. Such a '''correction is exempt from the 3RR rule''' "Removal of biased, unsourced, contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).." There was never any reply to this issue, up to the moment of filing this request.
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681026453 ]</span> Here I reinserted properly sourced info which had been removed by Jerodlycett without explanation. The phrase "amongst them email exchanges with [[Monsanto]]" was key to understanding the paragraph and removing it was adding [[WP:undue weight]] to the BLP. I asked what the problem with this statement was, asked to discuss and not edit war. He did not discuss this, and there is no evidence on the talk page, that he discussed this issue, despite of his assertions on the 3 RR report; all of his discussions were PRIOR to my arrival on the page.  The removal served to keep the name Monsanto out of the beginning of the paragraph, which is detrimental to the understanding of the paragraph titled "COI", since it is the crux of the COI and '''has to be mentioned''', so removal made no sense and seemed POV guided. '''This edit could be seen as allowable''', per [[WP:BLP]] rules
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681028074 ]</span> <s>This diff isnt mine, should not have been listed</s> Removed POV sentence, because source unacceptable per [[WP:BLPSPS]]. WP:BLPREMOVE states that such a '''correction is exempt from the 3RR rule''' "Removal of biased, unsourced, contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).." 
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681028203 ]</span> <s>This diff isnt mine, should not have been listed</s> this is a revert and ''could'' be seen as an unnecessary edit. Nobody replied to this issue on Talk. 
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681068538 ]</span> This is inserting a sourced quote, and '''it is no reversion'''- this quote still stands as of now, uncontested. 
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681068692 ]</span> This is an edit where I '''marked an unreferenced statement and deleted the erroneously attributed reference'''. The reference cited did not contain the claim made, as pointed out, and as in<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=680968584 ]</span>. In hindsight I could have just marked it, and leave the erroneous ref in, this ''could'' be seen as an unnecessary edit. Nobody replied to this issue on Talk. 
The latter 2 diffs should also not be counted as two diffs , because "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as '''one revert'''". Of the remaining 6 diffs 3 were allowable per [[WP:BLPREMOVE]], so '''the 3 RR rule was not broken.'''  

'''Comments:'''
I could not have survived 2 and a half years of editing controversial articles in a wide variety of different fields (incl Bitcoin) without these skills and without a block up until today. I do strive for NPOV, and am not a partisan warrior, which I declared on the talkpage, while the editors that reverted have expressed clear POV as I laid out.
*I am aware of what [[WP:Revert only when necessary#Unacceptable reversions]] are:  I do think that I made one unnecessary edit, as noted  in the diffs above.
*I know what allowed reversions are: I did two.  
*I am aware how to handle edit-warring behaviors: I did open a talk page section addressing what I saw. editwarring continued and editors in question did not respond to any issues (like user silver seren). I admit that his immediate hostility, innuendo culminating in trollish behavior affected me.

At that point I should have asked for a [[WP:third opinion]] or started a [[WP:request for comments]] already. 
This is one thing that I could have done, that I will consider immediately if there is ever such a time.

'''Context:''' I do not understand why jerodlycett 's reversion have not been mentioned, not considered, nor been found a violation of [[WP:3RR]]. I do not understand how the template on his user page that I mentioned in my comment was not considered in decision making, a template which states 
<blockquote>
*difficulty with '''altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions''' addressed to them;
*'''limited capacity to respond to other Wikipedians via talk page messages''' or e-mails in a timely fashion, to participate in conflict resolution, or to complete their usual workload of Wikipedia tasks.
*If you are here because I reverted an edit of yours it's likely by accident or because your edit damaged enough, that I assumed you made a mistake. '''Feel free to undo my revert if you fix what was messed up'''.</blockquote>
<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wuerzele|Wuerzele]] ([[User talk:Wuerzele|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wuerzele|contribs]]) 21:02, 15 September 2015‎</span></small> strike outs and corrections added, because I had erroneously retrieved wrong diff by manual entry of the raw diff number. --[[User:Wuerzele|Wuerzele]] ([[User talk:Wuerzele#top|talk]]) 06:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=multiple aspects have not been considered. I also do not count 4 reversions in the diffs mentioned below
'''I am requesting reconsideration of this block''', because multiple aspects have not been considered. I also do not count 4 reversions in the diffs mentioned below. I have filed 3rr only three times in almost 3 years of busy editing and never filed it, if I believed that I violated it.

I offer to walk away from this article, if this is acceptable. 

When unblocked, I will continue to help Wikipedia by adding references, copyediting/ grammar spelling issues, expanding short articles, which is my main activity as can be seen from my record.

Behavioral issue:
Administrator Drmies posted on the [[Talk:Kevin Folta]] page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKevin_Folta&type=revision&diff=681086765&oldid=681085939 here] accusing me of "launch into a personal attack that makes not a bit of sense". I disagreed with his opinion. I had mentioned the word troll, which to me is no personal attack, but a fact-based description of what one can see for oneself in the diffs of Silver seren's immediate bad faith interaction to a newbie of the page, calling my contribution "rubbish", and continuous casting of unfounded aspersions. '''In retrospect I  can see that the word troll is inflammatory and feeding the behavior and I would not spell it out again.'''

I am responding to the diffs cited by jerodlycett as violating 3rr, which in hindsight, I should have done right away before being blocked:
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=680963522 ]</span> This is a '''copy edit''' improving the sentence " NATURE alleges...". a journal cannot allege. an author writing in Nature can. I also cut the repeated use of the word allege per [[WP:ALLEGED]]. I wrote in the edit summary to write what was quoted on the talk page in order to paraphrase the facts '''neutrally'''. 
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=680968584 ]</span> This edit corrects demonstrably false information, which I laid out in the talk page. It is an incorrect quote of the source, not found in the source. Such a '''correction is exempt from the 3RR rule''' "Removal of biased, unsourced, contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).." There was never any reply to this issue, up to the moment of filing this request.
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681026453 ]</span> Here I reinserted properly sourced info which had been removed by Jerodlycett without explanation. The phrase "amongst them email exchanges with [[Monsanto]]" was key to understanding the paragraph and removing it was adding [[WP:undue weight]] to the BLP. I asked what the problem with this statement was, asked to discuss and not edit war. He did not discuss this, and there is no evidence on the talk page, that he discussed this issue, despite of his assertions on the 3 RR report; all of his discussions were PRIOR to my arrival on the page.  The removal served to keep the name Monsanto out of the beginning of the paragraph, which is detrimental to the understanding of the paragraph titled "COI", since it is the crux of the COI and '''has to be mentioned''', so removal made no sense and seemed POV guided. '''This edit could be seen as allowable''', per [[WP:BLP]] rules
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681028074 ]</span> <s>This diff isnt mine, should not have been listed</s> Removed POV sentence, because source unacceptable per [[WP:BLPSPS]]. WP:BLPREMOVE states that such a '''correction is exempt from the 3RR rule''' "Removal of biased, unsourced, contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).." 
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681028203 ]</span> <s>This diff isnt mine, should not have been listed</s> this is a revert and ''could'' be seen as an unnecessary edit. Nobody replied to this issue on Talk. 
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681068538 ]</span> This is inserting a sourced quote, and '''it is no reversion'''- this quote still stands as of now, uncontested. 
# <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=681068692 ]</span> This is an edit where I '''marked an unreferenced statement and deleted the erroneously attributed reference'''. The reference cited did not contain the claim made, as pointed out, and as in<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&diff=next&oldid=680968584 ]</span>. In hindsight I could have just marked it, and leave the erroneous ref in, this ''could'' be seen as an unnecessary edit. Nobody replied to this issue on Talk. 
The latter 2 diffs should also not be counted as two diffs , because "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as '''one revert'''". Of the remaining 6 diffs 3 were allowable per [[WP:BLPREMOVE]], so '''the 3 RR rule was not broken.'''  

'''Comments:'''
I could not have survived 2 and a half years of editing controversial articles in a wide variety of different fields (incl Bitcoin) without these skills and without a block up until today. I do strive for NPOV, and am not a partisan warrior, which I declared on the talkpage, while the editors that reverted have expressed clear POV as I laid out.
*I am aware of what [[WP:Revert only when necessary#Unacceptable reversions]] are:  I do think that I made one unnecessary edit, as noted  in the diffs above.
*I know what allowed reversions are: I did two.  
*I am aware how to handle edit-warring behaviors: I did open a talk page section addressing what I saw. editwarring continued and editors in question did not respond to any issues (like user silver seren). I admit that his immediate hostility, innuendo culminating in trollish behavior affected me.

At that point I should have asked for a [[WP:third opinion]] or started a [[WP:request for comments]] already. 
This is one thing that I could have done, that I will consider immediately if there is ever such a time.

'''Context:''' I do not understand why jerodlycett 's reversion have not been mentioned, not considered, nor been found a violation of [[WP:3RR]]. I do not understand how the template on his user page that I mentioned in my comment was not considered in decision making, a template which states 
<blockquote>
*difficulty with '''altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions''' addressed to them;
*'''limited capacity to respond to other Wikipedians via talk page messages''' or e-mails in a timely fashion, to participate in conflict resolution, or to complete their usual workload of Wikipedia tasks.
*If you are here because I reverted an edit of yours it's likely by accident or because your edit damaged enough, that I assumed you made a mistake. '''Feel free to undo my revert if you fix what was messed up'''.</blockquote>
<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wuerzele|Wuerzele]] ([[User talk:Wuerzele|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wuerzele|contribs]]) 21:02, 15 September 2015‎</span></small> strike outs and corrections added, because I had erroneously retrieved wrong diff by manual entry of the raw diff number. --[[User:Wuerzele|Wuerzele]] ([[User talk:Wuerzele#top|talk]]) 06:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I'm not going to respond to all of your points except to express some astonishment at how little understanding you have about policy. But your rebuttal of each of the reverts is worth a short response. First, overall, all of the them are reverts and none is exempt. Second, #10 and #11 are yours. I have no earthly clue why you say they are not. Beyond that, I'm not going to get sucked into a point by point wikilawyering discusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re "no earthly clue..." : The two diffs are for the action of ANOTHER editor, not my action.

Re "wikilawyering": The protocol for unblock requests contains a template for discussion of diffs, so the term wikilawyering (which nobody has ever accused me of!) appears uncalled for. what exactly are you criticising?

your reply so far is unhelpful to me, as my points are unanswered, eg why Jerodlycett's 3RR was completely dropped and what mixed message his template is sending. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should really give up on this, but I'm curious. The two diffs that you say are of another editor. When you look at those diffs, who is the other editor? BTW, Drmies is right. If an administrator acts on your unblock request, they will most likely look at this discussion, which is what you want. If it were I, I might say something slightly different like "Please look at the points I make below this request." Otherwise, they may focus only on the diffs issue. Just a thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23Thank you for your comment, which made me go back and look at these 2 diffs once more. I looked at them in a different way by clicking on this page, which showed, that previously I had erroneously retrieved the wrong diff by manually entering the raw diff number from the draft page, which created the wrong diff. So thanks for your persistence.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, that's a lot of points, but I noted one salient point, about the word "troll"--thanks. Now, this block should be over shortly, and when it is I look forward to your response on the talk page about that Novella blog. A policy question, sure, but with a slight twist--context. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Please clarify: who is the reviewing administrator for the unblock request? Per my information "any review will be carried out by another administrator (not the one who blocked you)."--Wuerzele (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no unblock request that I see, Wuerzele. The way to go about it is via Template:Unblock. If you're really asking why Bbb responded, it's because some of your comments were directed at them. But it's quite usual for a blocking admin to respond or comment. Wait, now I see it: you're "requesting reconsideration of this block". Yes, you'll need to use the template, though by the time you get this your block is probably over. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thanks for pointing out the missing template. I had it originally, but it got lost and I have e never seen such an unblockrequest before. Does this format look ok/conform to the rules or should I have pasted the whole discussion into the template ? (I followed the guide minutely)--Wuerzele (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure--I think not having all that in there is acceptable, I think. I'd certainly make sure I'd follow the "below" marker. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies thanks for the reply (since "thanks" in view history mode is disabled). I do not understand though, why when I did post the template below, you mentioned "I'd certainly make sure I'd follow the "below" marker", as if I hadnt. (?)--Wuerzele (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If I were the administrator reviewing this unblock request I would read the word 'below' and look underneath for further explanation of why the editor thinks they should be unblocked, even though those reasons are placed outside the block template whereas usually they are placed inside." Drmies (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Wuerzele's revised unblock request, his statement that diffs #12 and #12 are consecutive edits is correct. However, just to be clear, that means that they should be counted as one revert, not two. That doesn't change the conclusion that he breached WP:3RR, just that instead of seven reverts, as listed at AN3, there were six. Although I reviewed all this before I blocked him, I actually just satisfied myelf that there were at least 4 reverts. Without re-reviewing the diffs again, I cannot say with absolute assurance whether there were 4, 5, or 6. I don't intend to re-review the list.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Thanks for your statement mentioning me! Which are the diffs you found most compelling? FYI. A couple of minor revisions for things said about me: My last name is spelled "Tornheim" rather than "Thornheim" (a common misspelling). Jytdog took me to AN/I twice, but not to COI to my knowledge, despite numerous allegations of being an Single Purpose Account, etc.:

He took DiPiep to AN/I ostensibly for behavior, but more likely because DiPiep disagreed about content (the second case above was retaliation for trying to keep DiPiep out of trouble by warning him the group would take him to AN/I without a second thought and win for behavior that is tolerated on other pages):

Jytdog v. DePiep, 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There was an early case where Canoe got into trouble by this same group:

IRWolfie v. Canoe1967 18 August 2013

Those are the only cases I have handy. I remember seeing a case against Viritidas about name-calling towards the group, but I have not found that case or I would give it to you. Perhaps someone else has seen it and can refer to it.

Also I believe Gandydancer stopped editting GMO articles because of this group, but may work on pesticide articles. (However, I think the way you worded it in your statement is close enough, especially given the word count constraints.)

So I hope you revise your statement for accuracy about both spelling of my name and that it was AN/I for me rather than COI. Thanks again for your statement and positive comments about my work.

Referred to or possibly interested in this post: Jytdog, Kingofaces43, Viriditas, Canoe1967, Second Quantisation (fka Irwolfie), Gandydancer, DePiep, SlimVirgin, Petrarchan47

David Tornheim (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Folta Mediation

I have asked for mediation in regards to Kevin Folta. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Kevin Folta". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 September 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Kevin Folta, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Kevin Folta

Editors involved in this dispute

Jerodlycett (talk · contribs) – filing party
Wuerzele (talk · contribs)
2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk · contribs)
Silver seren (talk · contribs)
SageRad (talk · contribs)
Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs)
kevinfolta (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

Kevin Folta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Talk:Kevin Folta

Issues to be mediated

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

Is a lack of evidence of any connection between Monsanto et al and Kevin Folta evidence of a lack of any connection.
Is there a smear campaign brought against scientists, specifically Kevin Folta, supporting GMOs as being safe.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

Why would Wikipedia take it upon ourselves to decide whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence when Folta's university has already conducted an investigation and unambiguously stated that there is no misconduct? Surely second-guessing external sourtces is the very definition of WP:OR and is doubly unwise on a WP:BLP. This is not something to mediate, it's something expressly forbidden by policy. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

Agree. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, though I don't know if it'll do much good. Silverseren^C 18:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm not seeing specific content mentioned here that's really needing mediation at this time for issue 1 or 2. Nothing on the talk page makes that apparent to me right now, so I think it's better to have a conversation on focused content at the talk page and other noticeboards prior to this option. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. My willingness to participate wasn't high to begin with. Evidence: I'm still an IP user. I've initially uttered some thoughts about NPOV on the article's talk page, and those issues were quickly resolved by very capable editors. But now I'm finding myself being dragged in a fruitless debate on very basic principles, which I normally assume as granted. I don't even want to go there, sorry. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I just wandered onto the Kevin Folta article today while looking at the recent history of another editor, and then made a couple comments on things that seemed to be very biased to me, but i am somewhat up on the recent controversy regarding Folta and Monsanto and USRTK, and i am willing to participate in this, i suppose. SageRad (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, with apologies if I put this at the wrong place on this page. ArbCom is on the verge of accepting a case whose scope includes the dispute here, and MedCom may wish to be aware of that fact when deciding whether or not mediation is appropriate at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." The "GMO articles" case pending at ARBCOM constitutes a related DR proceeding. If there are still issues outstanding when that case is closed or rejected, this may be refiled here. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

Authority control databases
International	ISNI VIAF
National	United States
Warning	Local parameters are deprecated.

Authority control databases
International	ISNI VIAF
National	Germany United States Czech Republic
Other	IdRef
Warning	Local parameters are deprecated.