I am talking about this here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Sammy D III ( talk) 17:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Re List_of_people_from_Jersey the name I re-added is notable on the French Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curb Safe Charmer ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Will do; away on holiday at the moment and I will need to translate the French page. 21:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Todd: Replying to your question about my connection to Macomb Community College. I am the manager of communications and was asked a couple of years ago to work on the College's Wikipedia page because it contained inaccuracies, misspellings and other embarrassments. I am a trained and experienced journalist with a nearly 30-year history with the college - making me probably one of the most knowledgeable contributors to Macomb's page. I understand the concern about Conflict of Interest and that is why I am taking great pains to be as factual as possible. I am not trying to "sell" Macomb. I had done a basic rewrite about a year ago but returned in the past couple of days when it was brought to my attention that the page contained a notation about the lack of citations. That is what I am attempting to rectify now. I hope this alleviates any concerns you or any other members of the Wikipedia staff had. Marysatmacomb ( talk) 18:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC) marysatmacomb.
You had undone some of my edits related to free software. My edits were however not nonconstructive. Please familiarize yourself with the topic. And have a pleasant 2017! 80.223.108.129 ( talk) 19:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Toddst1,
Hope you're well! I'm quite new to Wikipedia so apologies if this is the wrong way to do this... Getting in touch as I noticed you deleted Emily Dean's page: /info/en/?search=Emily_Dean
If I provide links to substantiate her page, would it be possible to get it back up and running?
X1c 95 ( talk) 14:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
...you can't even get the right guideline right. this was the guideline you wanted. Please could you explain where about it says Infoboxes are compulsory? . Cassianto Talk 19:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi T. The actions of this editor are beyond the scope of AIV. If you wish to pursue the matter, ANI is the obvious venue for this drama, though chances of a solution are limited. Favonian ( talk) 19:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Toddst1. I'm in the process of removing famousbirthdays.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). I noticed that you've added it, realizing it's poor [2]. We already have IMDb as an external link, which has the same info. I've looked for something better, but am not finding anything. Given BLP, I'd rather leave it out. What do you think? Thanks. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
With respect to your recent nomination, I'm sorry, but I didn't see discussion or consensus pertaining to the two articles you nominated in a batch ... all comments seem to reference the singular subject of the "main" nom. If you see it differently, please let me know; otherwise, my guess would be relisting them for an additional 7 days would probably yield a straightforward delete result. Go Phightins ! 04:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Have you looked at the citations being added on the page? I opened a section on the talk page. Duqsene ( talk) 16:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello Toddst1. I did made use of edit summary. The place Rigopiano is not a frazione of Farindola. There are no sources (expecially in Italian, neither on the official site of the municipality) that states that. Please, revert edits with more caution.
Regards, -- Horcrux92 ( talk) 18:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
"Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /index.php on this server.
Apache Server at www.comune.farindola.pe.gov.it Port 80"
Toddst1 ( talk) 22:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, we have never even edited the same page, must less communicated in any way. Perhaps seen an edit while doing pending changes work. I have no idea why the heat. What I do know, from cleaning up conflict over what deserves the title 'Bloody Sunday a year or two ago, is that this is a fraught subject that has ramifications into problematical areas (from my knowledge, the march in Selma vs. event in Ireland.
And, as a disclaimer, this note is sent here entirely because of W's reaction to my note at T. Edit warring was never the problem to my mind. I just don't want W to stray even further into actionable failure to assume good faith. Whew! I'm old enough to have lived through fifty years (as an adult) of the events on that page, then reversions for the reasons mentioned above on that page, and now this comedy. I intend to let the page stand while I follow different options. The failure to AGF, well, that's up to you. I hope no further drama is necessary. But thanks for being interested in the subject. — Neonorange ( talk) 20:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement 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/Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement 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. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Why did you remove that donors helped make OC!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThunderStrokeMedia ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that some recent changes were made to the electro swing page and then it was summarily gutted, leaving it more threadbare than before. This is a problem as the page does not even remotely reflect the current state of the genre, nor what's been taking place over the past decade.
It has spread to America, and with some force, becoming a fixture at Burning Man, Electric Forest, and San Francisco's Edwardian Ball [warrants an article unto itself]. There are many more artists to name who are not mentioned here, from C@ in the H@ [Richard Shawcross, organizer of Swingamajig] to The Vaudevillainz of Los Angeles.
I know the man who made those recent edits and he means well, but I understand that he doesn't get the required tone of these articles, nor the need for objective citation. I however am a journalist and would love to take some time with you when you're available and sketch out some updates for the article. Imagine, if you will, if glitch-hop or dubstep had articles which were basically devoid of updated information from the last 10 years. It would be a travesty, as it is here.
So please, take this into consideration, and let's work together on bringing this page into the present decade. After all, we only have a few years until it's the 20's again.
Take care, Sam Baker — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankFitzgerald ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new here and didn't know exactly where to respond to your message so I started a new one. I had attempted to contribute my personal experience regarding the subject of DOG TAGS and, as might disappointingly be expected, my comments, although not in any way intended to be harmful, were simply deleted.
Is it not possible at Wikipedia to contribute facts regarding something as banal as Army Dog Tags without providing a source, especially when there is no source other than one's own personal experience? In this case I am the source myself, having worn dog tags in the US Army which I still wear. Someone wrote everything in Wikipedia, and much of the material simply describes a subject and is not quoted from a source somewhere. You tell us how overloaded you are and ask for support here, open up your texts for editing, but then remove harmless edited text?
I am a registered Wikipedia user. The paragraph which I added was certainly not derogatory or otherwise insulting, fit in well, could be proven to be truthful, and IMO provided additional info to anyone desiring to read about US Army dog tags. So would it not have been possible to ask me to verify myself as a source in some predefined manner which Wikipedia would of course define, rather than just exerting your authority and deleting the text which I had posted and which I had not thought it necessary to back up?
At the moment I am left with the opinion that Wikipedia is a rather unfriendly place where people ride on high horses and what they say is Law, instead of providing an environment where it is possible to profit from the experience of those who know first hand what the subject is about. I'd be overjoyed if you'd prove me wrong. Of course I realize that Wikipedia is certainly not a forum, and that it cannot be made possible for members to simply post whatever they like.
OK, I've said my piece. Should it still be possible, I would appreciate it if I could at least be sent the text from the paragraph which I had attempted to contribute. I hadn't felt that a backup was necessary at a secure place like Wikipedia ...
All the best, Ralph Ralphdno ( talk) 17:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Ralphdno ( talk) 16:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC) ralphdnATgmxDOTde — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphdno ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Fine, your response has little or nothing to do with my posting, of course; see this, see that. You've succeeded in reducing your feedback by chasing away another interested user. As described above, only got one lifetime and better things to do than study to qualify for posting here. Good luck guys.
All the best, Ralph Ralphdno ( talk) 17:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphdno ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not leaving Wikipedia, no need, disagreements are normal .. just this particular dialog. All the best, Ralph Ralphdno ( talk) 17:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Ralphdno ( talk) 16:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphdno ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The "history" section already talks about former services that served that line. We do not need to put them in the "Extent and Services" section. Also, many other services have served other lines in the past. For example, the V and N also served the IND Queens Boulevard Line, the Q and K served the Sixth Avenue Line, the M and W used to serve the BMT Fourth Avenue Line, the B and W used to service the BMT West End Line, the 1 and 2 used to serve the IRT New Lots Line, the C used to serve the IND Concourse Line, the Q and R used to serve the BMT Astoria Line and so forth. Unless you plan on going to every one of those line articles and put in historical services, there should be no reason these two should have them. Also, I am not Kew Gardens 613.
In regards to the above comment, ... I tend to agree with their removals, if only because these information are already sourced in the "history" section of each line's article, and the "extent and service" sections of these pages only talk about the current services.epicgenius ( talk) 22:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Toddst1 - Please do not remove entries on New York Times that are fully cited (Rolling Stone, NPR) and valid, irregardless of your personal bias. Doing so insinuates that sources such as NRP are not credible, and furthermore violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker315 ( talk • contribs) 19:21, January 27, 2017 (UTC)
Toddst1 - Please do not remove entire sections or entries that are cited and valid. I can understand that you may want to clean the article in good faith, but good faith works in both directions. Quickly deleting entire sections that were seen and accepted for years by other contributors/editors, and without reading the cited sources is not helpful. Also making edits based on select reading of one sentence without a context and ignoring other sentences in source article can be seen as bias.
The article is about GNH, its origin and later developments. The entries you removed, cite articles that clearly state they are different versions, but based on the same GNH. If you took the time to read the source articles (not just the entries on wikipedia, which can be incomplete), you will discover GNW states it is a second generation GNH. Whoever wrote the disambiguation he or she probably meant about the versions. The source article state that GNW = GNH 2.0 It is global secular GNH vs. Bhutan GNH Index is local and spiritual. Both cite the King's GNH philosophy. Today, you have Thailand GNH, American GNH and Bhutan GNH, Indian GNH initiatives and others. They all are later developments of the same GNH. Again: They have GNH in their name and cite the King's GNH as the origin or for their initiative. So you cannot say they are unrelated.
Also please consider Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. As an editor, I ask you to help make more balanced edits. For example, keeping unrelated critical information about Bhutan in the GNH article is unbalanced editing. If someone does not like the King's policy or Bhutan for their ethnic cleansing, they can write it in separate article about Bhutan or the King. This article is about GNH as a development philosophy. Trying to remove GNH related information and keeping negative political information can be see as biased edits that are anti GNH or favor initiatives competing with GNH or simply anit Bhutan. The edits about ethnic cleansing should go into Bhutan page. GNH philosophy is not about ethnic policy. I hope you will consider the above suggestions, when you finalize your edits. - Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.90.13.192 ( talk) 23:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
How can i change my username for my wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeGrasMusic ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think my edit was vandalism, I've actually removed vandalism... 95.49.35.135 ( talk) 16:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You say that you took down my edit on "Attack On Titan" because you thought it did not seem constructive or whatever. Let me say this: my edit filled in some details that the original plot on that page left out. And if you think I don't know what I'm talking about, I have been an active reader of the Attack On Titan manga since it began. So let me ask you this again: Just what part of my edit is not constructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asianpeng8 ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about the mess I made, it was not my intention to remove anything at all. In fact, all I wanted to do was change one or two words, and then go and get some refs to expand the article, because what I saw didn't include all the stuff you restored. All I can imagine is that I EC'd with someone. Thanks for fixing it. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to decide if you need a barnstar or a bottle of Scotch. Thank you for your leadership with this one. Magnolia677 ( talk) 00:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The Bio page for me was originally done by some venture capital instestor. I updated the page a few times to keep it up to date. It looks like that flagged it for a COI. While i am obviously conflicted, the material is not as it is fairly dry and factual. Do you have any suggestions on how to have this page rewritten by an editor without a COI? Paul Paulthelen ( talk) 19:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC) February 13, 2017
The problem is that the section in question doesn't present the opinion pieces it cites as statements of opinion; it presents it as statements of fact (ie, saying "this is what her talk consisted of.") An opinion piece cannot be used to support a statement of fact, even outside a BLP; but using it in a BLP is erogenous enough that I felt it had to be removed immediately. Please do not restore it; as written, it's an extremely unambiguous WP:BLP violation (which is why I removed it again before coming here to explain; BLPs are sensitive enough that we have to err on the side of caution.) If her speech actually consisted of what those opinion pieces claim, it should be easy to find higher-quality, non-opinion-pieces stating those facts. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Toddst1 -- I am responding to your message, which is reproduced below, regarding my edits to the Rodney Frelinghuysen page. While I agree that wikipedia articles should have a neutral point of view, I strongly disagree with the removal of my edit from the page. My edit was factual in nature and did not misrepresent any facts or statements. Rodney Freylinghuysen has not held a town hall meeting with his constituents in more than three years and has not yet announced that he will have a town hall meeting despite the repeated demands of his constituents. I cited to a reputable newspaper article for the paper of record in Morris County, NJ, which is Mr. Frelinghuysen's district. There was nothing factually inaccurate about this edit. In fact, by removing that edit, I believe that you are the one that has made a less than neutral edit on the page. Facts are, by definition, neutral. If I edited Ted Bundy's page to say he was a convicted serial killer, I do not think that edit would be reverted for lack of neutrality. The edit I made and the link that I provided as a reference are accurate and factual.
Dmoses816 ( talk) 21:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
You then sent me to a link that says that "on Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses." That is exactly what I did -- the Daily Record is the "mainstream media" in Morris County. However, in the spirit of compromise, I will proposed the following edit, linking to the same article, "Mr. Freylinghuysen has not held a town hall meeting in more than three years."
Dmoses816 ( talk) 21:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
My personal voting preference is irrelevant and further makes me question the purported "neutrality" of your edit. Dmoses816 ( talk) 21:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. I have read the pillars and are quite familiar with them. I made a factual edit with proper sourcing to a reputable news outline. Understanding your concern about neutrality, I have since made it even more overtly factual and even more devoid of any opinion or statement, and have added an additional citation to the New York Times. If you believe this most recent edit remains suspect, I would ask you to further explain to me why, particularly when his page also mentions things such as him chasing down a pick pocketer
Dmoses816 ( talk) 22:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
It is subject to changes pending review because you are refusing to allow people to post factual statements with the proper support due to your obvious political bias and prejudice. You are censoring the free flow of public information as a result of your obvious political leanings and bias. This is not why wikipedia was founded, and you are doing a disservice to the freedom of information everywhere.
Dmoses816 ( talk) 22:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Just a quick question about your removal of the Controversy section on The Pyramid Companies page. Did you remove it because it related more to the Walden Galleria than to TPC or because there was only one source? SortaScience ( talk) 20:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The discography section for Emily Wright was removed, a section that has been active for years. I went through and added a number of sources. Can you please elaborate how these are not valid? 68.9.114.97 ( talk) 20:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Nihonjoe. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See this edit. Please do not act without good faith like this. There is no reason to be rude. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
In a discussion here on your talk page you said "Jewcleanser". What were you referring to? Magnolia677 ( talk) 01:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I have read your comments and thank you for the educational materials. I was unaware of some of the policies and how my actions were being perceived. As far as the infobox goes, I had developed the original early on with verified facts and a photo but recently updated the article with new information and a photo. I removed the original info box because I made it a bit long and most of the information was already in the article so I thought it best removed because it was redundant. If other editors feel the infobox is necessary please correct the date of birth at least. My intention was not an editing war and I apologize for that appearance. I have only had time to create two articles which were both edited last night. I did my best with both articles. As far as your remarks regarding the Robert Sundholm article I would ask if you have read the attached articles as they verified what I wrote. If you still believe they do not belong in the article then I won't argue the point, but I do not understand. Camimack ( talk) 04:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the first two paragraphs are related to Western countries but almost all of the subsequent discussion relates to developing countries so I do not see the need for this tag. I do, however, agree with the other tag you added. It was my first Wikipedia article many years ago: lessons get learned but I have never got round to amending it. I will now do so, given that there are still a couple of hundred page views a day. As part of this I'll move the offending paras further down in the text. Agricmarketing ( talk) 18:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Toddst1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy (I don't think). I am logged in from the guest wifi network at the Hyatt Regency hotel in Orlando, Florida, IP 12.41.141.10. Toddst1 ( talk) 01:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I've given you the IP block exempt right, which should hopefully be sufficient. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Todd, article Michel de Klerk is violated by User:98.248.33.194. You had contact with this user. Perhaps you can help. Thank you. Leuk, 23:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it okay to respond here? Adam9007 ( talk) 03:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Todd, how are you? I would like to write an article about the Freider brother and I will make sure the sources are properly provided. Assuming there are no more issues, I would like to provide a link at the List of Asian Jews with a proper source. I hope that there would be no more issues. Best regards.-- Jondel ( talk) 07:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Toddst1, thank you for the message. I am trying to figure out how to use this system, and I am making many mistakes along the way. Your article on Puankhequa is well-written, but it is much out of date. The sources you are using, such as Liang, Dermigny, Kjellberg, and Cheong have many mistakes concerning Puankhequa. I am glad you spotted the correction of Puankhequa NOT-going to Sweden. That change at the Gothenburg City Museum's website was added shortly after I had criticized them for not providing any evidence. I can show from the historical records that he was in China consistently from the late 1740s to his death in 1788. And all historians, foreign and Chinese alike, have taken the name of his later business, Tongwen Hang, and transposed in back in time. But it wasn't established until 1760. Anyway, there are numerous errors concerning him and his family that have now been corrected, which you can find in my book (see the book I added to the Bibliography, Van Dyke 2016). Let me know if you have any questions. And thanks again for your message! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandyke555 ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Todd how are you?-- Jondel ( talk) 21:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Todd, I apologize. The List of Asian Jews is Reverted to your version. I think we can agree that Emil B. is Jewish? Anyway feel free to revert. It is good there are people like you who maintain the integrity of wiki. I'm going to keep away from wiki for a while.-- Jondel ( talk) 21:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
It's not that I throw my toys out of the pram, it's because I can't deal with it, no matter how hard I try. I have great difficulty dealing with such situations in real life, and I'm no good at it here either. I fear I'll just make things worse if I carry on. Adam9007 ( talk) 04:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Todd I had absolutely no idea I was posting on an archived page. I was just responding to a ping and didn't notice. Sorry about that. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Take it easy with the templated warnings, please. It was obvious pings attracted the other editors. -- NeilN talk to me 20:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Coretheapple: Let's get back to basics:
Please discern the difference between a properly applied warning to stop disruptive (intentional or not) editing and a threat. If you are so thin-skinned that you can't handle being told you're doing something very wrong then, perhaps you should do something else. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@ SlimVirgin: There's plenty of reason to template in this case as well as not to template. DTTR is merely an essay. Thanks for your opinion. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Since Jondel has resigned adminship, your case request is moot and has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 19:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for demonstrating how "sensible" contributions of even a high ranked "Master Editor IV" can be:
Btw, all the time, people throw around their threats without looking what has happened already. There is no time never for looking around. There is time only for one's own strong emotions.
But now the case as such is settled. And I wish you better luck with your forthcoming "Master Editor IV" interventions. -- Nomen4Omen ( talk) 15:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Get REAL is my album that I am releasing this summer i do not understand why it was deleted? I feel rejected. you can check genius to see if it is real because it is..
~~S42669~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by S42669 ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello Toddst1 Thank you for your response re my reinstatement of the “Popular Culture” section to Oreo, which I see you removed in January this year, and have now removed again, though I’m a bit perplexed.
I don’t dispute that the items listed within the section are mostly without reliable source references (my only contribution, incidentally, was A Star Is Born; the other items have been there back to
2006). I doubt that published references are available at all for most of the items, short of finding a script from each of the movies, or anecdotes about the songs, etc. In a few cases the Wikipedia pages on the individual films make a connection to Oreo, albeit weakly. But that is the nature of each of these items; they’re mostly minor occurrences within the larger theme of a movie or song.
My reason for reinstating the section is that Oreos have an iconic status (admittedly in American junk food!), and the Pop Culture aspect is an important aspect of this. The wholesale removal of the complete section, based solely on a technicality which applies to individual items within it, seems pretty pedantic to me. Surely there can be a bit more latitude, in the interest of giving readers a true flavour (no pun intended) of the subject.
I’d be obliged of your consideration and response.
Regards Kokopelli-UK ( talk) 21:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm deleting my comment. Feel free to revert the Schultz article if you'd like, it's not a big issue for me. I hope we are one good terms, but please do not threaten me when I did not violate WP policies. Best El cid, el campeador ( talk) 19:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. For starters, I was removing a name, not adding one. Secondly, I was removing because it was redundant. The exact same entry is right below it. - Americus55 ( talk) 01:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Todd, I'm just swinging by this article because of other editing concerns. The Fowler section is "the" UNDUE portion of the article. I'm seeking to put it into a less UNDUE section because it is an incidental event in the agency's history. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
You deleted all the edits I had made on the said article, since references were lacking and/or not accessible. Would you care to explain? Sindu5673 ( talk) 16:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 01:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I was editing Thomsen's successor's bio (Khuzami, another revolving door proponent/icon... sigh) and noticed your edit on Thomsen's talk page. William Donaldson didn't do a great job in picking her as director of enforcement, to say the least! Donaldson of Donaldson, Lufkin and Jennrette probably shouldn't have ever been head of the SEC to begin with, but what do I know... I'm just a pink piggy on the Internet.
Your user page is very entertaining. I will check to see if you won that elected office that caused you to be identified as Wikipedia itself. I like your notable quotations list. I'm going to add myself to that category, contributors of lousy articles. I want to be there with you! I spent some time contributing to a lousy article about a kind of lousy entity, FusionGPS. It isn't easy sometimes to keep the articles and the subject matter from sullying each other.-- FeralOink ( talk) 21:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)