User talk:Fyddlestix

Regarding Official language Correction for Vidyaranyapura wiki page

Hi, Kannada is the only official language of Vidyaranyapua, Bangalore. Refer your own wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore to see kannada the official language. Vidyaranyapura is the part of Bangalore and Official language must remain same. Unwanted languages have been put there and I have corrected it, kindly approve my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.70.117 (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've changed it. Per this, the official government report on official languages in India (which is the only source we should accept for it), Kannada is the only official language in all of Karnataka state. Thomas.W ^talk 19:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W and 117.192.70.117: Sounds good, thanks for the correction/clarification! Fyddlestix (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

New section

How may i contact you to discuss your edits? Thank you very much. Email possible or,this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingseason (talk • contribs) 13:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingseason: If you really want to email me, there is a link on the left side of this page titled "email this user" that you can use. But assuming that this is about the article Robert Ira Lewy, I strongly suggest that you start (or join) the conversation on that article's talk page, here. I am only one editor and there are others who have been or will be editing that page - it's usually best to keep discussion related to the article on its talk page, where everyone can see and read it.

Also, while I have your attention - please read up on some of wikipedia's policies - especially on:

• conflict of interest: if you have a close connection to the subject of the article, you really should not be editing it. That doesn't mean you can't be involved, it just means that it's best to suggest revisions on the article's talk page, where other, un-involved editors can evaluate them impartially.
• reliable sources - many of the sources you had linked in the article weren't verifiable or reliable, and un-sourced material in a biography often gets removed.
• What Wikipedia is not - wikipedia is not a means of promotion.

I hope you can join the conversation on the article's talk page, that is really the very best place to raise any concerns that you have or settle any disputes about the article's content. Best, Fyddlestix (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

An RfA you might be interested in

The editor we worked with on Ankit Love is being nominated to become an admin. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NeilN Jbh^Talk 13:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Oh cool, thanks! I see/run into NeilN all the time, I think he'd be a great candidate. Never would have noticed if you hadn't mentioned it though, RFA is not a page/area I watch usually. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I keep his talk page on my watch list and saw the discussion there. I think he would make a great admin also, I just wanted to keep the notification neutral since I am not sure if CANVASS would apply. Enjoy your weekend! Jbh^Talk 14:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Breast Implant litigation

the references paint the experts as paid persons who will say anything for money. What I was trying to prove was that my contributions were peer reviewed scientific contributions of national note. Refs 4 and 9.could not a statement be made that my interest was scientific and predated the litigation? Likewise, I'd appreciate omitting the dollar figures. Do they add anything more than just being inflammatory? Irrelevant to the scientific issue? I believe my peer reviewed papers reviewed by editorial boards of respected journals should trump a one sided newspaper article. Sincerely yours Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingseason: I do understand your concerns and I want to make sure that the article is fair to its subject - I've raised the issue at the biographies of living person's noticeboard here and asked some other editors to weigh in, but I wouldn't get your hopes up that the article will be returned to its former state. The NY times articles are the most reliable and notable sources that we have on Lewy, there would need to be a very compelling reason for not summarizing/acknowledging what they say about Lewy in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Expansion

I hope its possible to do the Proposed Expansion of my article suggested by Marchjuly. I know you worked diligently on this too. Thank you. Robert LewyKingseason (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Article inclusion of references greatly appreciated. The breast implant business, though nicely softened, is a bit one sided. Just please allow me to say this: the NIH was worried enough about silicone immune problems to convene a symposium in Mharmfularch 1995 in Bethesda, shortly before the NYT declared that the matter was settled. The Preface and chapter citations written by me were from the proceedings of this meeting in the series "Currents Topics in Microbiology and Immunology" published the following year. Would it not be possible, since this is a third party opinion, to state that after the NY Times comment in the article,"However in March 1995 at the National Institutes of Health, a meeting was held to evaluate the potential biological activity of silicones" or similar language and cite the Proceedings as cited below? also I had no part in huge awards; i worked for the court to implement a court-approved class action settlement, not any trial work. in paragraph two "the effect of aspirin on heart disease" (citation needed), perhaps more in keeping with the references which don't mention aspirin directly, one might state "the effect of platelets and thromboxanes on heart disease" instead and then cite those publications (2,4,6-11) in References section. Finally the exact reference for my membership in MMRF Legacy Society showing my name is www.gftpln.org/Article.do?orgId=757&articleId=15295 Thank you Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kingseaon: Please bring this up (and raise future issues/concerns) on the article's talk page - there's not much point just addressing these kinds of questions/comments to me, because there are multiple people who have been working on the article and weighing in on it's content. It's really best to keep all the discussion in one place. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Antifeminism discussion on AN/I

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

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

RFC closure challenge

The closing of an RFC in which you participated, is being challenged at WP:AN#RFC closure challenge - Cwobeel (talk)

Thank you

Hi Fyddlestix. Thank you for making me aware that someone was slandering me. That user's talk page was not on my watch list, so I would have never known had you not raised it at AE. I very much appreciate your diligence and concern.- MrX 16:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: No problem! It was such an over-the-top (and non-sensical) personal attack, reporting it at AE kind of seemed like a no-brainer. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Dalton McGuinty

Dear Fyddlestix i know your concern about the safety of the Wikipedia but the article of Dalton McGuinty has a very perfect detail with a date prefix is not harm at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.79.32 (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:North Yemen Civil War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:North Yemen Civil War. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

fj

Fuck you Mattwalp98 (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)