User talk:WSDavitt

WSDavitt, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi WSDavitt! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm Kelapstick on the Run. Your recent edit to the page Kinross Gold appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. One such example is the section "Tasiast Acquisition - One of the Largest Securities and Accounting Frauds in Canadian History" referenced to this which says nothing of the sort. If you continue this sort of blatant misrepresentation you will find yourself blocked from editing. kelapstick^{(on the run)} 06:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

To follow on from the conversation at User talk:Kelapstick please have a read of WP:WEASEL, it will explain why phrases like "Kinross is on the verge of insolvency" are inappropriate unless supported by a reliable source. You might find out more about reliable sources at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Most of your references were from Kinross Gold itself, a primary source, which should be used with caution according to WP:WPNOTRS.Calistemon (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

After looking in further. Much of what you added is original research and syntheses. You are drawing your own conclusions based on corporate reporting and projected metal prices. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 08:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

My comments User: WSDavitt :

I respectfully submit the deletion of my edits was inappropriate. It would be preferable if you were selective with your edits or reword particular sections rather than removing everything. The following information was deleted:

• Kinross Gold was sued in numerous jurisdictions in Canada and the Unitied States for fraud. Kinross Gold settled out of court. The share price decreased by 90% because of the controversy.

• The fraud allegations relate to the acquisition of the Tasiast mine in Africa in 2010. Kinross paid $6 billion for the mine even though the technical reports reported the value was under $2 billion.

Kinross reported in its financial statements that Tasiast was worth over $6 billion. In 2012 Kinross Gold, recorded significant losses related to value of the Tasiast. The total losses related to Tasiast was over $4.6 billion as the reported value of Tasiast was reduced to under $2 billion.

• Kinross Gold has incurred losses approximately $10 billion since 2010.

All of the information was referenced to the various annual reports and news releases. The current Wikipedia page is out of date and does not mention.

Kinross Gold is one of the largest gold mining companies in the world and so I believe it's appropriate to have a larger article.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Canada Pension Plan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• plans. A study<ref>See page 7 of Optimal Funding of the Canada Pension Plan: Actuarial Study]. [[OSFI|Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada]]. http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.
• ref> This approach uses an expanded definition of the term "assets". "Assets" are the total of: i) the CPP's current assets ($175 billion) and ii) the [[present value]] of future contributions for the next 150 years ($2.420 trillion). <ref>Page

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Kinross Gold

Your edits have again been reverted, you edits are drawing far too detailed for an encyclopedia (i.e. we don't go through a companies annual earnings, as a financial magazine would), and you are drawing your own conclusions based on primary sources (the Kinross website and quarterly reports) rather than writing based on secondary sources. Also, you appear to be writing in order to make Kinross look as bad as possible, which makes it look like you have some sort of conflict of interest. That isn't to say that we would not include mine closures, or declining resources/reserves, however it should not make up the majority of the article, and we only would include them if they were written about by an independent publication. Look at any other major company (not just mining) and see if those articles resemble how you are editing. You will find they do not. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

My comments: User: WSDavitt

Again your deletion of financial information is inappropriate.

The standard Wikipedia page for corporations includes a section for reporting the net income of the company. Your edit resulted in replacing the 2015 net income with the net income from 2013.

Regarding the comment that I am trying to make the company "look as bad as possible", two things:

• 1) you are welcome to add information that is more positive.

• 2) The information I have added is fair as it reflects the recent history of the company. As I noted in my edits, there has been a general decline for gold companies because of a substantial decline in the gold price. Like other companies in the industry, Kinross Gold's financial position has suffered. In addition, Kinross Gold acquired the Tasiast gold mine in 2010 for over $6 billion and within a few years the mine had lost over $4 billion. In addition, Kinross Gold has lost approximately $10 billion since 2010. I referenced all of these fact to the various annual reports and news releases. Kinross Gold was sued for fraud in both Canada and the United States. They settled out of court and paid tens of millions of dollars.

You have deleted all of this information. I am concerned about the suppression of information by corporations. I suggest that it would be more helpful to send me a note regarding your concerns and only deleting in a more selective manner.

May 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Shooting of Walter Scott, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Jian Ghomeshi

A lot of what you added was personal analysis and opinion commentary about the Rubin Report and the trial and their fairness or lack thereof, based on original research interpretations of primary source documents like the Rubin Report itself. That's not appropriate content in a Wikipedia article regardless of what other improvements might still be needed, because it's not our role to be the originating publisher of claims that he got railroaded — we do not publish any claim about the Rubin Report that has not already been placed on the record by media coverage about the Rubin Report. We do not editorialize in our articles, or conduct our own "public service journalism" analyses of whether legal decisions or internal HR reports were right or wrong in ways that haven't already been analyzed by real media outlets independently of us — but that's a large part of what you were doing. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Kinross Gold

Regarding the section Fraud Allegations, Class Action Lawsuits and Settlements, where exactly in this linked source does it say something that supports "In 2012, class action lawsuits were launched in the U.S. and Canada alleging Kinross Gold overstated the value of its Tasiast mine in its financial statements and made other false statements"? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

And in this linked source does it say "In 2015, the parties reached a settlement agreements which included a payment by Kinross of approximately $US 40 million"? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

All of the subheadings you are adding to the sections related to the mines are not necessary, as the sections are not large enough to warrant them. They also make the Table of Contents much larger than they need to be. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Censorship in the Canada

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Censorship in the Canada. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Censorship in Canada. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Censorship in Canada – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 00:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Rape into Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 15:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: No, that's not correct. I am the original contributor and content provider of the Statutory authorization sections in both articles. Executive Order 13769 Executive Order 13780 WSDavitt (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay sorry for the mistake then. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: No worries! WSDavitt (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

October 2016 - Smear campaigns

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Seconding Rrburke's warning. If you want to propose a section, do it on the talk page. Also on Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations too EvergreenFir (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

==Smear campaign==

The public allegations of misconduct against Donald Trump is an example of a smear campaign. Other politicians, such as Bill Clinton and Gary Hart, have been the target of the same campaign tactic. Smear campaigns are associated with yellow journalism which is a type of journalism that presents little well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines, scandal-mongering and sensationalism. For example during Gary Hart's 1988 presidential campaign, the New York Post reported on its front page big, black block letters: "GARY: I'M NO WOMANIZER."

See also: Gary Hart § 1988 presidential campaign

See also: Swift Vets and POWs for Truth

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please explain why it is inappropriate to note the issue of smear campaigns on this and similar articles. Smear campaigns are just a campaign tactic. It is helpful for young readers to understand that this tactic is commonly used.

I make no comment regarding the accuracy or validity of the allegations.

In addition, the editors who deleted the content did not attempt to improve the article by adding references, they merely deleted it.

I believe the issue of smear campaigns is important and it is important to link articles in Wikipedia as readers can become informed.

Positive comments and suggestions are welcome! WSDavitt (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The main issue is that it is original research. We need reliable sources (preferably secondary sources) to explicitly call it a "smear campaign". As frustrating as it is, you cannot apply the concept of a smear campaign to these events. Sources must do that for you. But the other main issue here is the edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I respectfully disagree. I think the section of the article can be improved by adding references. Deletion is inappropriate. I have added a reference to the statement by the Trump campaign stating the allegations are a "an attempt to smear" the candidate.

WSDavitt (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WSDavitt reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: ). Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Duty to warn

Great idea! Go for it. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 19:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{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.  Doug Weller talk 20:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been blocked for posting the following addition to the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations wikipedia article.

[forum post redacted Drmies (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)]

WSDavitt (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• You're blocked for one of the most blatant examples of edit warring I've seen in a while. You may claim to have no interest in promoting the guilt of this or that person, yet you kept posting your section all over Wikipedia. Well, talk pages are not a forum--nor is your free speech being repressed, or the actual edit washed away: it's still there in the history, as many times as you stuck it in the article. While you are blocked, talk pages are for requesting unblocks and such things, including friendly banter with some and discussion with others. They are not here to help you spread what you apparently wanted spread; thus, I am removing your access to this talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Response to comment on my talk page

Assuming you're genuine and not just trying to keep false allegations on this article for as much time as possible, read WP:EDITWAR. At this point you have imposed your changes far too many times against consensus. This should be handled by discussing it on the talk page, and only once there is consensus should it the be edited in. You clearly don't have consensus, and you have massively exceeded the three-revert rule, which means someone will block you, regardless of what I want. These edits are not making the article more balanced. There is no evidence of a smear campaign. These are multiple independent news organizations, and false sexual assault allegations are much rarer than true ones. Powerful people deter people from reporting about sexual assault because of the damage that can happen to their lives. It is entirely plausible these women only chose to own up recently. If you want to prove a collaborated smear campaign, you have to provide reliable evidence so other people can verify it. See WP:VERIFY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:365C:2F00:B042:17A2:80D6:F71E (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what comment you are referring to? What article? Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

The section being deleted is noted below. The section merely provides the response from the Trump campaign to make the Wikipedia article more balanced.

It's pretty innocuous as the focus is campaign tactics. I'm make not comments about the validity of the accusation against Mr. Trump, Mr. Clinton or Mr. Hart. Comments?

Category:Smear campaigns has been nominated for discussion

Category:Smear campaigns, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - American politics since 1932

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

Doug Weller talk 06:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WSDavitt. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
Message added 13:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Rrburke (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Your files for upload request

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main FFU page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards, --Majora (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Strongly recommended reading

After reading the article Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims, I would strongly urge you to read the articles about righting great wrongs and advocacy. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kleuske (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, WSDavitt. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Kinross Gold

Hi there. I noticed that this edit removed a bunch of lawsuit info, junk bond rating, office closures--stuff you had worked on--and added a large laudatory section on corporate responsibility. Did you see the edit(s) subsequent to yours? Brianhe (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for the comment! I really appreciate your input and agree completely.

It appears there is censorship going on with respect to the article. Information about the fraud lawsuit is being deleted. In addition, information about the company's poor financial performance has been deleted. It's a bit ridiculous that the Wikipedia article includes a discussion of freibergite, pyrite, chalcopyrite, galena, and sphalerite but failed to note that the company has incurred losses of over $US10 billion during the past 6 years.

(By the way, the story about the Tasiast mine is fascinating. Kinross Gold purchased it for about $7 billion in 2010 even though the valuation reports (NI-43-101) stated it was only worth $1.5 billion. Kinross subsequently incurred billions impairment charges. In addition, they've invested billions trying to develop the mine.)

I also find some of the content is inappropriate. For example, the following technical discussion about the gold deposits:

"At Kupol, gold and silver occur as native gold, gold-silver alloy electrum, acanthite as well as silver-rich sulfosalts. Dvoinoye, on the other hand is a low sulfidation epithermal gold-silver vein deposit, and notably counts with appreciable free gold in parts of the deposit. Ore minerals and sulfides in the vein include freibergite, pyrite, chalcopyrite, galena, and sphalerite."

And the way the editing was done is suspicious. Instead of updating a sentence or a paragraph, the entire article was deleted and replaced.

The end result is that the article is biased and does not have helpful information regarding this failing company.

Any suggestions on how to challenge this censorship? Thanks! WSDavitt (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm watching your talk page so we can just continue here. Right now the editor who made the changes on Kinross is answering some questions about other suspicious editing. The conversation just started, after I asked you the question here. This issue will probably be make its way to the other conversation. You can join in, or wait and see how things work out. Thanks for your reply. - Brianhe (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Canadian values for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Canadian values is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian values until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for page : Nancy Ziegenmeyer

Taking Back My Life: The Nancy Ziegenmeyer Story (1992)
"True story about a rape victim who took a stand that rape is never the victim's fault and inspired many other victims who felt shame about what had happened to them to speak out."Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Done! Thanks so much!!! Nancy Ziegenmeyer's story is exactly on point with the Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims article! WSDavitt (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Rape tree for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rape tree is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape tree until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Hello, I'm Fuzheado. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 2017 Manchester Arena incident, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't add unsourced material about deaths Fuzheado | Talk 00:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a work in progress ... I've added the reference as is my usual practice. Talk WSDavitt (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, WSDavitt. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2017 Mississauga Restaurant Bombing

Hello WSDavitt,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 2017 Mississauga Restaurant Bombing for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, 2018 Mississauga explosion.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Anaxial (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, WSDavitt. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Controversial topic area alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Newslinger talk 15:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)