User talk:David Hedlund

My content

Things I want to learn

• Avoid Wikipedia:COPYPASTE
• Use Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia articles must not contain original research.

Things I've learned

• 2017-05-07T07:18:12: Stopped using bare URLs (3 Talk page complaints) by using Autoformat tool for citations.

My Talk page

My rules

I am automatically notified about new messages that you add to this page. I think this can be enforcing so please:

• Do not send me personal messages if you don't have to, use ping to appropriate person or use that persons Talk page.
• Do not spam.

I will likely ping you back if you break this to friendly remind you how annoying this is for me.

My ignore list

Until MediaWiki Allow users to restrict who can send them notifications has been implemented and used by Wikipedia:

• Thomas.W - Top editor who complains more than anyone.

May 2014

Hello, I'm Ahunt. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page gNewSense, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Trisquel. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to BLAG Linux and GNU. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ahunt: These are not spam links but license references. Is it Wikipedia policy to ignore a problem on the grounds that the FSF reports it? --David Hedlund (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

FSF does not set policy for Wikipedia. Your continued insertion of FSF and GNU.org links is disruptive and after many warnings not to do this, is now vandalism. See see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Spam_external_linking. - Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ahunt:No, its hard work ruined by you. Congratulations, I hope you are satisfied. It would be so much better if you assume good faith instead of pointing out how bad my edits are. -David Hedlund (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Curious - when you say the FSF reports it, what are you referring to? Would it help to use the talk page of the articles to resolve these issues, and refrain from making mass changes until there's WP:CONSENSUS. Ahunt has a point about disruption (and edit summaries) [1], and maybe worth reading WP:BRD, hope that helps with the understandable frustration of reverted work. Widefox; talk 11:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Widefox: There is a problem with the term "source model; it's described in http://gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#SourceModel and "Market"; it's described in http://gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market. Despite name-calling like "spam" and "vandalism", the problem calls for attention. If I haven't used the right method to signal the problem, what method should I use? Is there a way to raise the issue that follows rules but isn't a hopeless dead end? --David Hedlund (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Coordinating

(The preferred method is to archive your talk page, rather than delete). I was looking for a reply to my question [2], care to? Widefox; talk 19:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Widefox: Thank you for letting me know that the talk page should be archived. I answered the question below where you asked for it a second time. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 08:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Linux. Can you explain why you're adding WP:CSECTIONs (and NSA controversy generally) to articles? [3] (although reworded here [4]) Would it be possible for you to not give me the impression WP:IDHT. I ask you again to use edit summaries. This is no place for WP:ADVOCACY. These edits are fail WP:NPOV and I've reverted several of them. Stop now and engage in dialogue about this - WP policies and guidelines, or you will be blocked. Widefox; talk 20:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ahunt: pls can you double check the Linux article changes (and any others) for neutrality, as I'd rather get a second opinion than revert all myself. Thanks Widefox; talk 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Widefox: Because they all contain the same text so I didn't want to confuse the readers by letting them having different titles. --David Hedlund (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, read WP:COPYPASTE, then have another attempt at justifying all this disruption I've asked you above. I'm sure Ahunt is with me here, it really would be cool to have more Linux editors around here. Widefox; talk 20:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Widefox: Noted. Thank you for your feedback. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 08:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: Your question Can you explain why you're adding WP:CSECTIONs (and NSA controversy generally) to articles? I added Richard Stallmans email signature to his article: "To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example." I agree with him, and he liked that I added this. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 08:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: This section has been removed. However, you complained that I didn't provide edit summaries. I added edit summary Added section "Critisism to NSA" for this revision, is it not enough? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 09:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bitmessage.ch

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.

A tag has been placed on Bitmessage.ch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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, you can place a request here.  SAMI  ^talk 17:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Entheogen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Vaporizer

System distribution commitments (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to System distribution

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Article expansions

Hi: I appreciate your effort to expand articles, but please don't refer to copyediting when expansion is all you are doing. It's doubly misleading since at both National Security Agency and Red cabbage, your addition contained grammar/syntax errors. In addition, please cover bare URLs. There are a number of ways of formatting references, and it is best to follow the model already used in the article, but at a minimum you should be giving the title and the publication, and preferably also the publication date (or retrieval date if none) and the author's name. Note also our strong preference for reliable sources; the red cabbage addition used a nutrition article from some sort of filler service for newspapers, but admittedly the source already present in the article also turned out to be not very good. However, you should use academic books and journal articles when you can, especially for health-related material - and one of the reasons for identifying sources is so the reader can judge their merits. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I will likely

...bring RHaworth before an admin noticeboard at some point, for his shoot-before-discussion attitude, and general user incivility. However, I am not a wiki-techonocrat, and for me it would take enormous time to generate the WP:this and WP:that text needed for a successful visit to a noticeboard. Please advise if you or others you know are experienced at this, and would collaborate on making this case. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Thanks for your support Leprof. I'll try to make something useful of our Wikipedia relationship sir. --David Hedlund (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Also

As a native English speaker with roots in the EU, I would be glad to review important edits that you make for English language. Call the important ones to my attention at User_Talk:Leprof_7272. If you wish to know who I am, go to the User page and un-gray it via the Edit tab. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: I would be very happy if you would like to help me proof read the whole entheogen article as I've dedicated a lot of energy in it. --David Hedlund (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Give me through the weekend, but it will likely be sooner. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I added Ethanol#Human metabolite, can you pls rephrase it and later add it to List of common misconceptions? Please also confirm if you do this. Regards. --David Hedlund (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

Speedy deletion nomination of Instant Heart Rate

Hello David Hedlund,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Instant Heart Rate for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification of potential conflict of interest

Hello, David Hedlund. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines, you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Why don't you just edit GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines and point out what I've missing so I can learn how to avoid problems with people like you? --David Hedlund (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I tagged you here for a potential COI because you seem to be here on Wikipedia just to promote GNU and FSF and not to build a neutral encyclopedia. I did some small fixes on GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines, but the problem is that it is an article about a non-notable policy of an organization. It shouldn't be an article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines

I have nominated this article for deletion due to the reasons provided at the deletion discussion. You may wish to make a comment there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello David, I wanted to follow up with you as I really do want to see a Linux-focused editor be successful. I'm a strong proponent of Linux and free software in general as well, but as Wikipedia editors, while we all have our personal feelings on things, it's critical to leave them at the door and edit entirely from a neutral perspective. Edits should be based upon what reliable sources have to say, never upon what we as editors personally think, and not upon our personal interpretations or synthesis of the source material. Primary sources may be used with appropriate precautions, such as never being used to provide promotional or surprising information, but should not be the main source material for any article. Standalone articles must be notable; that is, their subjects must have been extensively covered by reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject. If that is not the case, we cannot sustain a full article on the subject, though it may be appropriate for brief mention in a parent or related article. A redirect to that other article can also be used if the title may be a common search term. I hope that helps to clarify things a bit, and I do know it can be a bit overwhelming at first. Please feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Notable distros with their own articles have adopted GNU FSDG, why isn't that enough? --David Hedlund (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Because Notability is not inherited. A famous person might own a can opener, that doesn't make the can opener notable. - Ahunt (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

To add to what Ahunt said, if we're going to write an article about GNU FSDG, it is not allowed to write an article based upon one's personal knowledge. To be verifiable, material must come from a reliable source. In any article, the bulk of the article's content should be referenced to published sources which meet our reliability guidelines and are unaffiliated with the subject. Sources closely affiliated with the subject or written by the subject are not likely to be a neutral analysis. It might, of course, be appropriate to note in the article about the distro that it has adapted those guidelines, and to note them as an undertaking by GNU/FSF in those articles, but for a full article with the guidelines as the subject, we must have reliable sources that discuss them in a reasonable degree of detail. If such sources do not exist, we've nothing to base such an article on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

In re

Your message to me…

RHaworth deleted Instant Heart Rate that I created without talking with me first. You told me to contact you if this problem would arise again. How can you help me? --David Hedlund (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I will look into it, and get back with you. Look to conversation here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Thank you. Just use {{ping|<username>}} on my talk page or and yours to send me a Notification. --David Hedlund (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Entheogen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Pedro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nymphaea nouchali 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:

• '''', also called '''star lotus''', '''red and blue water lily''', '''blue star water lily''') is a [[Nymphaeaceae|water lily]] of genus ''[[Nymphaea]]''. It is the [[National emblem|national

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Doors 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:

• was marred by tension as a result of Morrison's increasing dependence on [[alcoholism|alcohol]]] and [[Substance abuse|drugs]], and the rejection of his new epic, "[[Celebration of the Lizard]]",
• ref=pd_sim_m_h__48?ie=UTF8&refRID=1DAN9FRGY0D45F39K9FV |title=R-Evolution - Deluxe Edition [Blu-ray&#93; [2013&#93;: Amazon.co.uk: The Doors: DVD & Blu-ray |publisher=Amazon.co.uk |date= |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 21st Arizona Territorial Legislature 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:

• repealed a [[poll tax]] and implemented the [[local option]] for sale of [[alcohol (drug)|alcohol]]].{{sfn|Wagoner|1970|p=365}} The session authorized organization of the [[Arizona Rangers]] with

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Drug Abuse Resistance Education 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:

• Smoking]], [[Tobacco advertising]], [[Drug Abuse]], [[Inhalants]], [[alcohol (drug)|alcohol]]], and [[Peer Pressure]] in a [[Social Network]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of System distribution commitments

The article System distribution commitments has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:SYNTHESIS; neologism

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Fermanted beverage

Hello David Hedlund. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fermanted beverage, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a recently created redirect - consider WP:RfD. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Is not "Fermanted" in the article name "Fermanted beverage" a typo? --David Hedlund (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It is, and there is a criterion for speedy deletion of recently created redirects from implausible typos. If you want to delete an eight-year-old redirect, you need to use WP:Redirects for discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I did that, thanks. --David Hedlund (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you briefly. Today's spate of edits are little better than vandalism. Do not propose deletion of any well-established redirect. Do not move any article unless you can show a clear consensus for the move. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, most of the moves were of redirects you had created. But creation of multiple redirects is not a particularly useful activity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ledol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caucasian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At (Windows)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At (Windows). Thanks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

June 2014

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Actually I provided a reliable source if you did read the beginning of the edit summary. Is that a violation? --David Hedlund (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

My new edit-summary explains that a non-peer reviewed work such as a book is not a reliable source for these claims. The book by LaBerge is not peer-reviewed and therefore it is not a reliable source. In any case, this discussion should take place at the article talkpage so that we can have other editors participate and comment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: The quoted text from http://www.lucidity.com/SleepAndCognition.html referred to LaBerge, S., Greenleaf, W., & Kedzierski, B. (1983). Physiological responses to dreamed sexual activity during lucid REM sleep. Psychophysiology, 20, 454-455. that you can review. If its valid I suggest you revert the edit back and add it as a reliable source. Thanks. --David Hedlund (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I moved the discussion at the article talk and also replied there. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Lindsey Lowe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lindsey Lowe 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/Lindsey Lowe 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. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome

This page WP:MEDHOW can help with your editing. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: Thank you! How did you get the idea to inform me? --David Hedlund (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Saw your edits to methanol. The other thing that we recommend very highly is the use of secondary sources such as review articles. Often primary sources get removed on English Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving content around

Also when you move content around you need to say which Wikipedia page you got it from. Maybe put something on the talk page for these edits [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. I wrote about it on Talk:Alcoholic beverage a while ago but now I also added a notice about it in Talk:Alcohol (drug). --David Hedlund (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Substituted alcohols

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Substituted alcohols, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://teklasocialspider.blogspot.com/2014/05/alternative-psychoactive-alcohol-use.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Got your note about this, will look in. Don't forget the 4 ~'s. Get me here faster. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: I updated your talk page. --David Hedlund (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Alcohol (drug)

@Wahrmund: I need your help to proof-read alcohol (drug) as Swedish are my native language. Thank you for all your contributions to the alcoholic beverage article! --David Hedlund (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ethanol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Per se (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Tragedies (events)

Category:Tragedies (events), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. j⚛e decker^talk 23:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Alcohol (drug) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Date rape drug

@Sue Gardner: Date rape drug was reverted by you.[6] Why didn't you Talk first? Regards --David Hedlund (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I explained what I did here. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sue Gardner: I splitted the articles. Do you think this compromise is ok? --David Hedlund (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Looked at substituted alcohols article

David: If you do not understand this message, past it into Google translate, and see if that helps. I am writing after reading and reviewing carefully your new "Substituted alcohols" article. The pharmacologic activities of alcohols that you highlight at the new article are only a small subset of the material required for this to become a substantial, important article. Fortunately, all of that additional material—information on alcohol naming (nomenclature), history, physical and chemical properties, occurrence in nature, toxicity, other applications, their reactions and production, etc.—already exists at the Alcohol article. For this reason, I strongly advise you to merge this material into that article. You cannot keep an article on one subtype of alcohol up to date, in all these areas, without help. Other chemistry and pharmacology editors will not agree with the distinctive importance of "substitute alcohols" as needing a separate article, and they are already working to keep the "Alcohol" article up to date.

Though I was tempted, if I make any edits to your article, it will make it more complicated for you to move its material and delete the empty article (which, as an expert on this subject, I advise you to do).

Here is what I recommend you do, specifically: (1) Read this, [7]. (2) Copy and insert each bit of your short "Substituted alcohol" text into the Alcohol article. Do 3-4 sentences a day, and ping me (@User:Leprof_7272) when you do them, and I will check them for English, chemistry, and proper placement. (3) As you make the additions, delete the material from the "Substituted alcohols" article, and state in the edit summary "Text moved to related Alcohol article." (4) When you are done moving all content, then in the Edit area, delete any last remaining markup/coding, leaving the article space blank. Write in the Edit summary "As sole editor, preparing page for deletion."

When we reach this point, I will call the empty article to an Admin's attention, and ask for it to be deleted.

This is my best advice. If I edit at all, you will no longer be able to make this change yourself. And I cannot devote time to an article whose content belongs as a subset of an longer and more well-developed existing article. It is a waste of time to duplicate effort this way. This is my strong advice. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: I reply short here as I suffer from muscle wikinffection after a wikimaraton (~2000 edits this month).

Thank you for being clear how you think I best can achieve something useful with the concept of the article. Would it be even better to merge it to another article I started recently, Alcohol (drug) (think substituted amphetamines)? --David Hedlund (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Alcohol (drug)

Please stop making unexplained changes to numerous articles adding links to alcohol (drug) when such links are not appropriate for the context, as you did in wine and other articles. Some of them are OK, others are not. You've done it so many times it may be easier for me to mass-revert all your changes for today. Please use the edit summary to justify these changes. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I am torn, but I would support a mass revert and a gathering of consensus before such a massive change. In principle, I like the idea, but the article being linked is far too weak at this time.Unfriend14 (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact, reviewing the talk page at I see Alcohol (drug) "will hopefully improve Wikipedia articles significantly by using a link that clearly states that alcohol is a drug". It would seem that this article and associated links are intended as wp:POINT and pushing a strong wp:POV. With that in mind, I am going to open a discussion at wp:ANI as I simply don't know how to call attention to the article, and will add a POV flag to the article as well.Unfriend14 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I went through all the edits today. POV-pushing disruption like this consumes a lot of time from other editors. I am not the only one reverting these edits. Fortunately, most of them seemed OK, actually. Some seemed unnecessary but harmless, a couple clearly misrepresented the cited source, and I reverted probably 10%-20% of them that were clearly the wrong context or reduced precision for the sake of linking to a drug-related page. It's possible I missed some. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Editorial commentary

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that you're continuing your edits, despite concerns being raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and that you appear to be ignoring the discussion there and not engaging with the community. If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to reassure me or any other administrator who reviews your unblock request that your first priority will be to engage with the community and come to an agreement concerning your recent alcohol related edits. Nick (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: I have done my best to add links to Alcohol (drug) after context in the articles. I think I did more good than harm. Also, I was never warned about being blocked at my page. --David Hedlund 12:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did you ignore the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? Nick (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: Only because I didn't reply does not mean that I ignored it, I read the whole discussion and even quoted it in Talk:Alcohol (drug). --David Hedlund 12:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: So can you please unblock me so I may participate in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? --David Hedlund 12:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, on the understanding that you will be reblocked if you immediately return to making the same edits you were making before. You must ensure you gain consensus for the edits you are making before proceeding to make such wide reaching changes. Nick (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: Of course. I am sorry but this is how I edit occasionally. I will put Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in my Link page so I care to use it more often. --David Hedlund 12:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi, I notice that your signature includes a template, specifically {{country data Sweden|flagicon/core|variant=|size=10px}}, and that the template concerned displays an image, File:Flag of Sweden.svg. Please note that these practices are contrary to WP:SIG#NT and WP:SIGIMAGE. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you for the notification. I replaced the flag with text. --David Hedlund ^SWE 15:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Mailtor listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mailtor. Since you had some involvement with the Mailtor redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop

Please refrain from making major edits to the area of alcohol abuse on the English Wikipedia until the discussion at the administrators' noticeboard concludes. You have shown to be unable to contribute with a neutral point of view in this matter. This includes your recent creation of Alcohol and crimes. Stop making WP:POVFORKs.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dysphoriant

The article Dysphoriant has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

delete unreferenced of dubious notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop what you're doing

You were unblocked on the condition that you would discuss, and stop making controversial edits without getting consensus for your edits before making them, but you continue making controversial edits, without discussion. I also noticed that you try to sneak edits through with a deliberately misleading edit summary, such as this edit on Alcohol (drug) where you try to add the infobox for drugs, with the edit summary "adding/improving references". Did you honestly believe that noone would notice? Thomas.W ^talk 17:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ditto the above.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reblock_recommended JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) David, if you continue, an uninvolved admin may choose to block you. As an alternative remedy, I have suggested at AN/I that it is time to consider imposing a topic ban on you, since you have demonstrated that you cannot edit neutrally on the topic of alcohol and have not voluntarily stopped making contentious edits in the area, such as the creation of Alcohol and crimes. One way or another, you need to stop making these edits; it would be much better for the encyclopedia if you would turn your attention to other areas. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reblocked you. I am disappointed you ignored the condition of your unblock and continued to make edits which others find unacceptable. You will now be restricted to discussing your edits and behaviour here. Nick (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Its ok that you are dissapointed @Nick:. And its ok that I made my mistake too. Humans are err. However, did you read all my messages at your Talk page? Also, did you have a look at User:David_Hedlund/Alcohol_(drug)? Why cannot I edit it when I'm blocked? Please answer all 3 questions. Regards. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 19:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You were unblocked to take part in the ANI discussion, why did you think it was acceptable to go off and resume editing again ? Nick (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: Because I stopped adding alcohol (drug) to articles and instead focused on improving the article so it made sense at all. There must have been a missunderstanding here. Can you unblock me from edit my own user space until this has been resolved? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 19:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

When blocked, you can only edit your talk page (this page) and no others. Your priority should be to resolve the issues that have resulted in you being blocked, not continuing to work on what some people clearly believe is a POV fork. Nick (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: So how do I make that move from here? I will continue to edit the article on the top of this page. I hope thats not a problem as Wikipedia is not censored. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 20:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: Are you admins even able to set permissions in different zones of Wikipedia? For exaple limit a user to edit only Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents until that has been solved? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 20:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you don't understand. You will not continue to edit any article while blocked. If you copy an article to this talk page, you will lose your access to this talk page, and then you will be unable to appeal your block. Admins cannot control zones of blocking. When blocked, you have access to your talk page only. Any other restriction by zone must be voluntary on your part.

I will say that I thought you did good work in alcohol (drug), when taken section by section. The problem was that the article as a whole constitutes a WP:POVFORK, bringing together diverse topics that should remain in their own articles. Much of your work would be appropriate if moved into other articles; for example, the table of beverage alcohols would be good to include in alcohol by volume.

Then you compounded the problem by indiscriminately replacing the word "alcohol" in several hundred articles with a link to your POV fork, in my cases inappropriately replacing better-context links with yours. This type of disruptive activity resulted in your first block. Your overlinking as taken other editors (including myself) days to clean up.

Your first priority now is to come to an understanding why you were blocked, determine what activities you will perform on Wikipedia if you are unblocked, and describe your understanding and plans in an unblock request. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic and Thomas.W: Just looking if there was a way to hack around Wikipedias policy. As it was not possible I strongly suggest that you add some text that using the Talk page for article writing is violation if its not already mentioned. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 20:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you would want to continue editing your draft article here on Wikipedia. You have been blocked indefinitely, not for a day or a week, so by the looks of it you will never be able to turn your draft into a real article (something that would also involve getting consensus for it...). So why don't you just download the text to your own computer and continue writing there? The only way you can get unblocked is if you manage to convince the blocking admin, or some other admin reviewing an unblock request, that you understand why you were blocked, and can present convincing arguments for why you would not cause any more disruption on Wikipedia. And collaborate with others, something you haven't even tried so far. Thomas.W ^talk 20:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, "indefinitely" does not mean "forever", it means "for an indefinite time", determined by when you can convince the blocking administrator that you understand your block and that similar disruption will not resume if unblocked. You had one chance already, but you spoiled it by resuming your regular editing rather than keeping a promise to participate only in ANI. Overall, I believe you do good work and would be a net benefit for Wikipedia if unblocked, provided you agree to certain restrictions. I will leave it to you to figure those out. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) We have a guideline on this: WP:OWNTALK clearly says "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." Working on draft articles doesn't meet that purpose. Some new inexperienced editors do use their own user page or talk page for drafts, however, this isn't an appropriate use of your talk page while you are blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic: Thank you for your humble words. I listen to you and will think about this situation in overall. Meanwhile, can you please inform the people at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to check if User:David Hedlund/Alcohol (drug) might suit as better content for the original article? Thank you in advance! --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 21:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That isn't a discussion suitable for ANI. It would belong on the article talk page. I gave you my opinion above: pieces of the article should be incorporated into other articles, such as the tables of beverage alcohol being included in alcohol by volume, where they would fit better than in an article having a drug context. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic: The table would suit perfect in Alcohol by volume (especially as ABV are used in legal context too). Yes you are right, can you bring User:David_Hedlund/Alcohol_(drug) to Talk:Alcohol_(drug)? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 05:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

David, let's make something very clear: There is no way to "hack around Wikipedia policy", as you alluded to above, because Wikipedia policy isn't a set of rigid rules with corresponding loopholes but rather a set of guidelines. Attempting to "hack around" using hyperlegalistic interpretations is itself a violation of the "rule" against wikilawyering. The expectation of all editors is that you will follow the requirements of editing here in letter but even more importantly in spirit. If you're not here to do that, you won't and shouldn't be unblocked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

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

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

---

Request reason:

I were unblocked on the condition that you would discuss, and stop making controversial edits without getting consensus for your edits before making them, but I continued making controversial edits, without discussion. This was wrong of me and I'm positive to make a behavior change; I'm willing to revert my changes. David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 6:50 am, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

Since you broke your agreement to restrict your editing before, why should we trust what you say this time? The discussion above indicates to me that you're far more interested in getting your way than in listening to other users and abiding by Wikipedia's policies - this unblock request does nothing to convince me that you will be a net positive to Wikipedia if unblocked. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

---

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

@Yunshui: I though I was just blocked to add links to the articles so I tried to make things right by improving the article. Obviously this was the wrong decision, I should have reverted my changes from the very beginning and not doing anything else. Can you please point me to a link with policies that should be followed when one is blocked? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 08:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yunshui: Also, do I have to make new requests in order to be unblocked? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 08:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: Please have a look at my unblock request. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 08:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Guidance on filing an unblock request can be found here - and yes, you will need to file a new request. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I were unblocked on the condition that you would discuss, and stop making controversial edits without getting consensus for your edits before making them, but I continued making controversial edits, without discussion. I need to revert my faulty edits so other people do not have to clean up for me. Please forgive me. Amatulić said on this page that "I believe you do good work and would be a net benefit for Wikipedia if unblocked". Also, I have spent some time reading Wikipedia policys to avoid this situation from happening again. It is ok for me if you set a time limit for a unblock if you decide to make it. David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 09:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It isn't clear to me that you have learned from your block. Can you come back in 1 month and ask again? When you do, I'd like you to clearly state in your own words and with reference to policy what you did wrong and why it won't happen again. John (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

---

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

@John: Sure. Happy summer. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 18:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

While we wait for an unblock request, could you answer the following questions:

• You write something about the effects of alcohol and point to a book source you like. Another editor reverts your edit with the summary "rv POV pushing, bad source". What do you do?
  • I respect that decision by either let it be or trying to rewrite it from a neutral point of view if I feel that the reference are important.

I'm sorry, but I was hoping for an answer that involved using the talk page, especially since you cite WP:BRD below. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Ok. I bolded discuss anyways below in my message to Nick. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• If somebody else thought of editing in the same topic areas that you have, what policies and guidelines do you think they should read. Can you provide some links to the most suitable ones?
  • We collaborate in Wikipedia, reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:BRD, WP:NPOV are useful to bring neutrality to the encyclopedia.

@Ritchie333:

If you answer those well, I think your chances of being unblocked will be greatly improved. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I would very much like the see responses to the above questions, and a bit more of a statement from you David about your behaviour, what policies you believe you've read, where you've breached them, where you think you could improve and so on. Nick (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: I've been focusing on the policies and guidelines that I described above. I think that its most important that I discuss before I make decisions even if I'm impatient as they might very well turn into fulfilled contra productive tasks otherwise. I've written several personal notes how I can achieve them. I'm used to work alone but Wikipedia is a community that can be to a great benefit if I learn how to interact with it. I wish to make an apology to the ANI board too. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 13:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There's lots of clean-up still needed after your totally careless editing, David. On Talk:Alcohol (drug) there's a proposal to try to restore the content from other articles that you moved there, and then messed up, and then nominate what's left for deletion. Which will probably involve going through all of your thousands of edits to see where you moved content from, so that all articles you deleted content on can be restored to what they once were. This is a collaborative project, David, not a place where you can do whatever you want, without caring about other editors, or even caring about the project. Thomas.W ^talk 13:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this unblock pending for a while, to see if more people wish to comment, specifically on any unblock conditions they feel should be imposted and any enforcement actions they think necessary. If I do decide to unblock you, it will likely require some conditions concerning your editing and would definitely be on the basis that any further disruptive alcohol/drug/pharmaceutical related edits (of the sort you conducted before) would result in you being re-blocked, with a minimum period of 3 to 6 months before an unblock will be considered. Nick (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Congratulations Thomas, no one have accused me, exaggerated situations, or been as aggressive as you are. Please write to me in your Talk page so I don't have to be reminded of you everyday I'm going to read how to manage this situation. I find it very hard to talk with hateful people and I feel that you master that pretty well. Thanks in advance. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 13:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: I'd suggest an unblock on the simple condition that David restrict his editing on alcohol-related topics, broadly construed, to other than article pages (including - no editing of his userspace draft). In other words, editing talk pages, Article for Deletion pages, AN/I, on that broad topic is ok - articles are not. Additionally, he should not move his userspace draft of the main article in question to any talk pages for editing. I think David means well and can get past this current situation - let's work with him. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Will he be asked to take part in any of the recovery work that is listed on the talk page of Alcohol (drug)? Or will that be left for the rest of us to clean up? I have yet to see any indication from him that he understands what a mess he has made, or that he has any intention of cleaning any of it up. And I seriously doubt that he will accept or be able to live with a requirement that he not make any edits in alcohol-related articles. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I have not accessed Wikipedia in almost 3 months now. I do write my point of views in my own Wiki (using MediaWiki) to avoid this from happening again. Please unblock me so I can share my thoughts from a NPOV. David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 01:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given that you have been blocked multiple times for a wide variety of problems, I don't consider your unblock request to be adequate. For example, how will you respond if an editor reverts you? Will you get into another edit war, or will you respond differently now? PhilKnight (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

---

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

@PhilKnight: I am not interested in editing war, I would discuss it. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 02:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Regarding Please unblock me so I can share my thoughts from a NPOV: I think David still doesn't get it. The purpose of editing here is not to "share your thoughts"; it is to add verified, neutral, sourced information to the encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I want to add neutral information and will avoid editing war by using Talk. Please unblock me. --David Hedlund SWE (Talk) 11:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I have consulted the blocking administrator, and we agree to give you another chance. I do hope you can now edit successfully, without more of the sort of problems you have experienced. Please do be careful to avoid making the same kind of mistakes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@John: Please have a new look at my unblock request. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 11:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Alternative psychoactive alcohol use for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alternative psychoactive alcohol use 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/Alternative psychoactive alcohol use 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. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Entheogens

Template:Entheogens has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Methanol outbreaks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Methanol outbreaks 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/Methanol outbreaks 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. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User space article of Alcohol (drug)

@Amatulic: My final saying about User:David Hedlund/Alcohol (drug), please mention it in Talk:Alcohol (drug). I will have a wikibreak for 1 month and read Wikipedia policys meanwhile. I wish to thank you for your great support. Also, I seeking an adoption. Are you willing to help me? Best regards and happy summer. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 18:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@David Hedlund: I made mention of User:David Hedlund/Alcohol (drug) on the talk page. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@JoeSperrazza: Thank you Its not particular easy to see it but hopefully it make some sense.--David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 19:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alternative psychoactive alcohol use

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.

A tag has been placed on Alternative psychoactive alcohol use requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from unacknowledged copying from many different Wikipedia articles, including (probably, inter alia) Caffeinated alcohol, Coca wine, Nicotini and Chicha. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of people who have had an alter ego for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people who have had an alter ego 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/List of people who have had an alter ego 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. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

New subsection with improper citations moved here

The following subsection: (1) contains improperly formatted citations, (2) uses bare URLs to link to pubmed entries, and (3) those entries, once traced, are unacceptable primary sources, from old literature, and so constitute WP:OR in their selection and inclusion. Before reintroducing this text, first, find reputable secondary sources, to be sure the result you are presenting reflects the preponderance of scholarly scientific opinion (and not your opinion, as proof texted, by finding a stray primary source that agrees with you). Then, if you find such sources, two further steps: first, make sure that this is the right article, and the right place in the article to place the text (preferably, given the disruptive nature of your very aggressive editing, by raising the possible change here in Talk, before you add it); and second, by not making the edit until you have time to include a proper, full scientific citation for the secondary source (not a link to Pubmed, and NOT a bare URL). You are trying to run before you have learned to walk. Stop creating large tracts of poor text—poorly considered, poorly formatted, poorly copyedited, poorly cited. Have a more senior real-world colleague in the sciences review what you write, so you also can stop creating large blocks of text that demand English copyediting This is not good for WP: You are making messes, and not contributing as a solid editor.

Here is the text removed from the article, with its improper citations:

SECTION Human metabolites Studies have found trace quantities of endogenous alcohols of healthy volunteers from exhaled breath with a mean of 450 ppb methanol REF http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16705261 CLOSE REF and 244 ppb ethanol.REF http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16312013 CLOSE REF The mean endogenous methanol in humans of 0.45 g/d may be metabolized from pectin found in fruit; One kilos of apple produces up to 1.4 gram methanol.REF http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9267548 CLOSE REF However, methanol should never consumed on its own as it is poisonous to the central nervous system, and may cause blindness, coma, and death. These studies are not guidelines that consumption of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages are healthy.

See also notes from me and another editor in the Edit history at alcohol (drug), and at that Talk section. Your editing is becoming a pervasive problem, however well meaning. Slow down, do a little of high quality, not a lot of poor quality research, writing, citing, and placing. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: I agree with you that I try to run before I can walk. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 18:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic: I asked for an unblock so I could revert my own edits but was denied. However, I want to return something back to all the people who cleaned up for me when I get unblocked. I only meant well from the very begining. Do not hesitate to give me tasks for your own interests later and I'll do my best to help you. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 18:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic and Leprof 7272: I'm a wikipedian who seeks adoption. I would appreciate if someone of you guys would like to do that as I trust you, think you are humble, and I'm interested to learn how to write encyclopedic material. I'm also trying my best right not how to interact with the community better. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 18:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Comparison of specific absorption rate for smartphones

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.

A tag has been placed on Comparison of specific absorption rate for smartphones, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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. Ivanvector (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pharmacology of ethanol

Template:Pharmacology of ethanol has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Substituted alcohols

The article Substituted alcohols has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reason for this article to exist. It's not even clear what it's meant to be about - what distinguishes a a "substituted alcohol" from other alcohols?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Maproom (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter

Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 1, June/July 2014
by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery

This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.

note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

---

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:

• WHO's list of Essential Medicines[8]
• Neglected tropical diseases[9]
• Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

---

IEG grant

CFCF - "IEG beneficiary" and editor of this newsletter.

I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.

Wikimania 2014

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.

Integration progress

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.

• Swedish
  Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that.
  Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
• Dutch
  Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
• Polish
  Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article.
  (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
• Arabic
  The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration guides

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [10]

News in short

---

To come

• Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
• Proofreading drives

Further reading

• Translators Without Borders
• Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse
If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic cannabis

It looks like on your last edit you never finished a sentence. I removed the fragment for now but wanted to notify you in case you wanted to change it or add to it.MartinezMD (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Debian Kit

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.

A tag has been placed on Debian Kit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://sven-ola.dyndns.org/repo/debian-kit-en.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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. TLSuda (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello

HelloKiranpgi (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Resuming disruptive behavior

@JamesBWatson: and @Nick: You unblocked David Hedlund to see if he would live up to his talk page promises, or if he would resume his disruptive behavior. This is to let you know that his very first mainspace edits [11] [12] after being unblocked were to change the title of an article back to his preferred terminology, "List of methanol outbreaks", even though that had been changed to "List of methanol poisoning incidents" per consensus at the AfD discussion ‪Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methanol outbreaks‬. See the article's history. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is quite firmly taking the piss and I fully endorse reblocking. I'll wait for either James to post his thoughts or to reblock if he wants, though I'd dearly love to hear David's explanation for immediately moving a page following his unblock with no discussion before or after the move. Nick (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• David, when I first looked at the move in question, I saw that it was totally inappropriate, but it seemed enough to just revert the move and post you a message explaining why it was unhelpful. However, I then looked at your history of repeatedly moving the same article to numerous titles, and it became clear that it was by no means excessive to consider restoring the block. Then I looked at the history of your history of moving other pages, your past editing, your past blocks, and above all talk page comments you posted in the past when you were blocked. It became perfectly clear that your recent action was a resumption of an extended pattern of disruptive editing, and that despite assurances in the past that you would change your ways, you are highly unlikely to do so. Either you really don't understand what you are doing, in which case you lack the ability to ever be able to edit constructively, or else you know full well what you are doing, and just lie about your future intentions whenever you think it will get you out of a block. In either of those two cases you are unlikely ever to become a useful editor, doing more good than harm, so I have reinstated the indefinite block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Is it worth to reblock me for one single action? I only did that editing to see which feedback I would get, but I didn't expect a reblock. I suggest that I talk about it on the article page first. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 13:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

For one single action, no. For one single action which is part of a long-term sequence of actions, and which serves as a clear and unambiguous indication that you have no intention of changing, yes. "To see which feedback I would get" reads very much as though it means either "To see how much I can get away with" or "to see what reaction I can provoke", otherwise known as "trolling", or, as Nick put it, "taking the piss". Your statement here is an excellent confirmation that the block is fully justified. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Assume good faith. I didn't made any other edits and carefully waited for the outcome. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 14:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You wore out everyone's good faith a long time ago. And, as others here have also told you, you don't seem to get it. Wikipedia is not a place for people who are out on a mission, like you, so find another hobby. Thomas.W ^talk 14:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The outcome is you are quite correctly re-blocked. You said to all of us involved in your block and unblock requests that you understood the issues surroundings your (now initial) block, how to behave when unblocked, and assured us this wouldn't happen and we wouldn't need to reblock you. You either lied or you quite clearly do not understand the issues surround that initial block and on either of those points, your current block is necessary and sensible. I ultimately agree with Thomas.W and must agree that Wikipedia is not the place for you and your mission. Nick (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:PACT should apply here, this is the third month of issues. Correct actions taken here, James B Watson is one of the fairest admin on this site and I agree fully with his assessment among others and my own observances. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

David, you ask me to "Assume good faith". Have you read the sentence I wrote above that begins "Either you really don't understand..."? If so, you seem not to have understood it, so I'll try saying the same thing again, in rather blunter, less diplomatic terms, in the hope that you will get the point this time.

There are two possibilities: (1) you are acting in good faith, and (2) you are acting in bad faith. You ask me to assume possibility (1), so let's do so, and forget possibility (2). You were unblocked, and in the message telling you that you were unblocked, you were specifically warned to be careful to avoid the same kind of mistakes that led to your previous blocks. Acting in good faith, the very first thing you do after being unblocked is to repeat exactly one of things that led to your three previous blocks, and you say that you did not expect to be blocked for it. Since we are assuming that you did so in good faith, the only possible explanation is that you are unable to understand the nature of what you are doing. In that case you had better be blocked, since an editor who doesn't understand what he is doing will never be able to edit constructively. In fact, if we assume good faith then there is even more reason to keep you blocked than if we don't, because an editor who is acting in bad faith may perhaps change his mind and start acting in good faith, but an editor who is disruptive because he lacks the ability to understand what he is doing is never going to be able to improve.

I have tried to explain in blunter terms, in the hope that it may help you understand. However, the most important point is the one I tried to make above in the sentence beginning "Either you really don't understand..." That point is that it doesn't matter whether you were acting in good faith or not, because we are now at the stage where it is clear that you are not going to change your ways, and it really doesn't make any difference whether that is because of bad faith or because of stupidity: an editor who is just going to go on and on and on being disruptive is not helpful to the project, no matter what the reason for his disruptive behaviour. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Can you please add something about "classified as GRAS (generally regarded as safe) by the FDA as a food additive" in Potassium chloride?

Please also suggest the Wikipedia admins to add a feature that make it possible for them to limit accounts to edit Talk pages only so I'm not limited to do this on my own Talk page. That would be better than having me reblocked. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 02:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal, worthy of posting on Wikipedia:Village pump#Technical. This isn't something admins can implement. The Wikimedia Foundation software development team would have to approve such a restriction. I think it's a good idea though, applicable to PR representatives and other paid editors here. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic: Can you please do it for me and send me the link to where you posted it? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 03:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

David, I liked your suggestion and added it to the village pump.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Coffeepusher: Thank you very much, I think you put it in a good way. Do you think its worth to add the term "parital block" to it? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 14:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

not right now, I've put it out there let's see what people want to do with it.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of LibreWRT

The article LibreWRT has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable Linux distribution, only one primary ref other than being included on one list.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ahunt (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Leftfield (genre)

The article Leftfield (genre) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources for over a year. A passing reference to Discogs actually muddies the water instead of explaining what this is.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I want to thank you for your work covering free software topics on Wikipedia. isacdaavid 18:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Shaman (Cannabis) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shaman (Cannabis) 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/Shaman (Cannabis) 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. clpo13_(talk) 16:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Sour (Cannabis) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sour (Cannabis) 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/Sour (Cannabis) 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. clpo13_(talk) 21:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:David Hedlund/Alcohol (drug)

A tag has been placed on User:David Hedlund/Alcohol (drug) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G13, abandoned draft article; the user was indeffed for repeated disruption more than a year ago, and has since then also had a sock blocked, so he won't be needing the page; the page as such was an attempt to create a content fork of a "real" article because he couldn't get his way there, one of the many ways of disruption he engaged in...

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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. Thomas.W ^talk 22:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request

@JamesBWatson: @Nick: I want to be unblocked. I have no interest in editing Wikipedia in my POV's, I work on other wikis when I want to do this. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 01:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• After two and a half years it is entirely possible that you really have changed your approach, and I am willing to consider giving you another chance. However, I would want more of an indication that you understand what it was about your editing that led to the block and will not do the same again than that brief statement, so can you give a bit more? As I said above, your history indicated that you either didn't understand what you were doing or else did understand and had no intention of cooperating. In either of those cases you would really need to show that you now do understand, and are both able and willing to avoid doing the same kinds of things again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I'm going to be honest with you, its closer to 2 years if we count my edits from 213.21.93.252, after I stopped editing from that user then I gave up to avoid cooperating. There's many rules to remember if you want to actively author on Wikipedia, I found it hard to have all of them in my head so I made lots of mistakes simply because I didn't remember everything from the top off my head. I realized that I have plenty of things to learn from this massive project if I'm going to be more useful than counter productive. I wanted to write scientific material but I've realized that consensus play a more important role for Wikipedia than that. My final ban came when I changed "alcohol and drugs" to "alcohol and other drugs" in multiple articles for example. I've been very active in other wikis, I'm still an administrator for the Free Software Directory (btw search for "Wikipedia" on that page) for example, and one of the most active contributors for the wiki. I never had any serious battles with anyone there. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 01:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've no explicit interest in the block, I was happy for JamesBWatson to deal with the issue way back when, I'm not going to get in the way of resolving this positively now. Nick (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: So what do you say? Do you want to give me another chance? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 04:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

David, sorry I didn't deal with this earlier. I read your last message, thought I would think about it and make a decision, and let it slip out of my mind. I still don't really think you have given a clear indication that you now understand the reason for the block, which is what I asked for, but I have decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I shall unblock your account. Welcome back, and I hope that from now on you can edit without similar problems. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thanks. Look at this new menu that I just made: Wikipedia:User_page_design_center/Menus_and_subpages/Menu18. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 05:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Legality of bitcoin by country or territory into another page. 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse talk

Hello, David. I'm just letting you know that you accidentally posted your question about notifications to the wrong Teahouse page. You posted it to the Teahouse talk page when it should've been to the Teahouse's main page. I've gone ahead and moved your question to the correct page. I'm just letting you about which page you need to keep an eye on for an answer. — Gestrid (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Gestrid Thank you. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 14:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, David Hedlund. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by — Gestrid (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Impact factor

"Adv Mind Body Med" has an impact factor of close to zero and therefore would not be considered a reliable source.[13] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Navbox on Body-focused repetitive behavior

Hey! Per your request on IRC, I've fixed the navbox on Body-focused repetitive behavior. The issue was that {{Emotional and behavioral disorders}} did not pass the {{{state}}} parameter through to {{Navbox}}. Let me if you have any more questions. TheDragonFire (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC) @TheDragonFire: Thanks a lot! --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 18:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits on morsicatio buccarum

Your edits on the above article are incompetent. Please only categorize medical conditions based on reliable sources, to just make up your own categorizations is original research and harmful to the encyclopedia. Why would cheek chewing be considered pica disorder? Please properly research before making such edits.

Also please do not add Wikipedia articles to the see also section when they are already linked in the text.

I am not going to go over your contributions but my guess would be that you are blanket categorizing articles in this harmful manner and other editors will have to correct it. Please stop. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Matthew Ferguson 57: I partially restored your revert and added a reference . Thank you for using my Talk page. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 19:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Matthew Ferguson 57: I added back Category:Habit and impulse disorders (see "habits" in the article). I don't know why you removed Category:Psychiatric diagnosis, why did you do that? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 20:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Autoformat tool for citations

People have been asking you for YEARS to stop adding bare URLs when you edit.

Maybe you aren't aware that the plain wikitext editor has an autoformat tool.

You will notice that when you are in an edit window, that up at the top there is a toolbar. On the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of the new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite journal", you can fill in the "doi" or the "PMID" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing will auto-fill. Then you click the "insert" button at the bottom, and it will insert a ref like this (I changed the ref tags so it shows):

(ref) Huhtaniemi, I (2014). "Late-onset hypogonadism: current concepts and controversies of pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment". Asian journal of andrology. 16 (2): 192–202. PMID 24407185. (/ref)

That takes about 10 seconds, if even that. As you can see there are templates for books, news, and websites, as well as journal articles, and each template has at least one field that you can use to autofill the rest. The autofill isn't perfect and I usually have to manually fix some things before I click "insert" but it generally works great and saves a bunch of time.

The PMID parameter is the one we care about the most on articles about health.

One thing the autofill doesn't do, is add the PMC field if it is there (PMC is a link to a free fulltext version of the article). you can add that after you insert the citation, or -- while you have the "cite journal" template open -- you can click the "show/hide extra fields" button at the bottom, and you will see the PMC field on the right, near the bottom. If you add the PMC number there that will be included, like this (again I have changed the ref tags):

(ref) Huhtaniemi, I (2014). "Late-onset hypogonadism: current concepts and controversies of pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment". Asian journal of andrology. 16 (2): 192–202. PMC 3955328. PMID 24407185. (/ref)

The autofill also doesn't add the URL if there is a free fulltext that is not in PMC. You can add that manually too, after you autofill with PMID

Please stop adding bare URLs to Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I'll add your explanation to my personal Wikipedia FAQ. I get dizzy of the rules. Thanks. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 04:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

that would be wonderful. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I added the references to ketamine. Thank you for helping me out! Bots clean up bare URLs so why is it important that I do it first (please provide Wikipedia reference links to support your claim)? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 05:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pillow size

Hello, David Hedlund. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Pillow size, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

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

Meatsgains (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Alcoholic drink. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. The comments about "intoxicating", "possibly intoxicating" etc are not in the source but are your own additions, meaning that you're getting dangerously close to the kind of POV/OR editing that resulted in your indefinite block a couple of years ago. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I see. I just started working with charts. Could that table be added to alcohol by volume then (without any mention of intoxication levels)? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 10:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Can this revision stay on alcoholic drink? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 10:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• To be safe you should stay away from all articles relating to alcohol, euphoriants etc, since it was your edits on that kind of articles that got you blocked. What I object to in your edits on Alcoholic drink is that your classification of alcoholic drinks as "intoxicating" etc is extremely simplified, since all you did was look at the alcohol content, but whether someone gets intoxicated or not, and the level of intoxication, also depends on a long list of other factors that you totally ignored, such as quantity, age, gender, bodyweight, medication and individual predisposition. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I agree with you that I should take it very easy with certain articles, but I want to be able to edit any articles in Wikipedia and that should be possible if I use the Talk pages. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 10:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You have not kept to the undertakings you made which led to the lifting of your last two blocks.

You have returned to controversial editing about alcohol, which has been a major cause of your being blocked from editing in the past, continuing to do so even after you had said "I agree with you that I should take it very easy with certain articles". I also see that you have made a significant effort to make your editing on the subject superficially appear to be neutral. However, there have been various aspects of your editing which, while taken individually might seem innocuous, taken together, and in the context of your editing history, make it clear that you are determined to continue to use Wikipedia to promote your point of view concerning alcohol, and that you have no intention of sticking to your undertakings. There are also several aspects of your recent editing which give the impression that you may be trying to disguise the nature of what you are doing, and while I am willing to assume good faith as far as is reasonably possible, the combined effect of seeing what you have recently been doing and knowledge of the problematic editing which led to your past blocks make it difficult to do so. I have twice in the past unblocked you, to give you another chance. The last time I unblocked you, I made it explicit that I was doing so despite feeling that you had not given clear enough assurances that you would not continue in the same way as before, and that I had "decided to give you the benefit of the doubt". Unfortunately, you have now removed that doubt, and there is none left to give you the benefit of. I have therefore restored the indefinite block. In view of your persistent returns to the same kind of unacceptable editing over the course of three years, your repeated assurances that you won't do it again, and your waiting a while after being unblocked and then returning to the same kind of editing, I very much doubt that unblocking you ever again will be beneficial to the project.

Just in case at some time in the future you ever decide to make another unblock request, for the convenience of any administrator who reviews that request I shall mention just a few of the relevant aspects of your recent editing.

You have returned to editing to promote your personal view that the harmful effects of alcohol should be given more prominence in Wikipedia, which was largely what led to previous blocks. In order to do so, you have added your own original content, not supported by the references to which you attached it. You have buried such editing in the midst of large numbers of seemingly innocent edits, largely concerned with formatting and similar matters: while it is impossible to be certain as to what if any motive you had in doing so, in the light of your editing history it looked exactly like an attempt to hide what you were doing. After you were warned about such editing to the article, you have edited the article's talk page to promote your point of view. As well as adding new talk page content to that effect, you have edited old sections of the talk page from years ago to give greater prominence to matters related to the point of view which you have been trying to promote, including changing the wording of a heading created by another editor to make it more supportive of your point of view. In the course of one talk page edit in which you gratuitously added a list of mentions of harmful effects of alcohol to a stale post from years ago, you pinged an editor who had posted a talk page message expressing a view similar to yours years ago, which looked very much like an attempt to attract an editor who might be likely to support your recently renewed point-of-view pushing on the talk page now that you have been warned off doing it directly in the article. And so on... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I'm not against alcohol. I made the chart that could be useful for people to know if they were intoxicated or not so they could decide if they could drive without loosing their driving license. Also, I just started List of wines, and I added added Template:Wine by country to alcoholic drink. You misunderstand my intentions. I did _not_ edit alcoholic drink after I said "I agree with you that I should take it very easy with certain articles". Your revert on drink ("I think we should add " (Drug) " in the tittle of the article, we are a objective source of knowledge.") was a response that it has been made -- by a lot contributors, not just me. Is is less responsible by you to block before Talk? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 13:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Your first indefinite block was for long term very persistent POV-pushing. You then promised to reform, and stop pushing your POV, and were given a second chance as a result of that, but quickly returned to your old ways, and were indeffed again. You then resorted to socking, continuing to edit as an IP for months, until your IP was given a one year block. After waiting two years you then requested yet another chance, once again promising to reform, only to show today that you're simply not able to change your ways. Resulting in the current block, your third indefinite block for the same kind of editing. People don't get more chances than that... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Correction of timeline and number of indefinite blocks Seems like I a overlooked one indefinite block, because according to your block log this latest block is your fourth indefinite block, with three chances given in between because of you promising to change your ways, promises that you have broken each and every time by continuing your crusade here. So don't expect another chance... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Please stop nagging me. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 16:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself, I'm not nagging you, I'm providing information that might be of value to reviewing admins in case you make an unblock request. Which is normal procedure, and not aimed specifically at you. So stop pinging me. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Flatter yourself then: You are the top editor of my Talk page according to the article revision statistic (I and DPL bot excluded) of my Talk, despite that you are not an admin. I have the right to ping you to make sure you read my messages back as you enforces me to read yours. Please set ping|JamesBWatson (for example) before each message or use their Talk page so we don't have to discuss any more. I added a policy about this to my rules. Thank you.

@Thomas.W: I understand why you reverted the chart edit. In my opinion its cruel to block for just a single thing like that without talking first. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 13:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Since you obviously haven't read what JamesBWatson wrote in the block notice above, I strongly suggest you do, instead of wasting other people's time as you're doing now. EOD. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I don't like you either, I never did. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 14:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please be careful when using that type of humor (if you are being humorous) in written form. Sarcasm is often taken as seriousness when it is written instead of spoken. If you are being serious, please do not start a fight with another editor. You are liable to get your talk page access revoked in addition to your block. — Gestrid (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Adoption

I hear that you like to be adopted. I am available for this express purpose. Please contact me here or at my talk page if you would like to work with me. Pablothepenguin (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pablothepenguin: The user is currently indefinitely blocked. — Gestrid (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

True, but he can still use his talk page, darling. Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Just making sure you know they're blocked. — Gestrid (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gestrid: Please do not spam. I added a policy about this to my rules on this page. Thank you. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 04:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You and I apparently have completely different definitions of spamming. Would you rather me have let them know you were blocked on their talk page where you couldn't reply? — Gestrid (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Besides, you'll be notified that I posted here whether or not I use pings for other editors. — Gestrid (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pablothepenguin: Hi there, its cold today, I'm happy to meet a warm penguin. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 03:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pablothepenguin: Can you please /msg David_Hedlund Hi at #wikipedia-en on freenode.net? I need someone to talk with privately. I will of course try to solve issues in public. --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 04:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk page use

David, I've had three pings this morning from you. As you're blocked, what's the purpose? It's only trying my patience with three year old discussions, where, to be honest I can't easily follow the old threads as you've selectively deleted things, so I just give up. Not answering my questions, but instead namedropping Stallman doesn't convince me that you're willing to abide by the norms we all have to here. Admins are likely to remove your talk page access if you continue to disrupt. I'm fine to discuss any issue with you here, just don't ping me. Widefox; talk 10:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

How do you know if there are any messages here for you if I don't ping you? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 10:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you know the difference between one ping and three?

How do you know when my patience runs out is the window of attention you have open right now, use it carefully! Widefox; talk 10:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

There's so many details to keep in my head, my Talk page is 52 pages. Is there any specific edits I shouldn't have been removed (can you please give me those revision links)? I likely never answered the question is not defined in #Coordinating. I don't like the NSA, do I have to have a political discussion with you about it? --David Hedlund ^SWE (Talk) 10:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)