FergusM1970

December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Suicide methods, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Thinboy00 @199, i.e. 03:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Suicide Methods

I've removed the recent edits you've made to Suicide methods. Although well-intention, the edits are original research and don't belong in an encyclopedia. If you have any questions, reply here or feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Replying to your comment[1], Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I understand you'd like your thoughts on suicide known on the page, but your opinions are original research, which is not allowed. Entries should be properly referenced and clinical, not emotional.

Also, Wikipedia pages should be discussed on their talk pages, not through email. If you have a concern, make it known on the talk page of an article and see if other people agree with you. Wikipedia works through gaining a general consensus on disputed topics. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss your changes before just readding them, they are WP:OR. I removed your reference to paracetamol because in addition to being improperly referenced, the article you quoted was primarily about accidental overdose and did not verify the statistics and consequences you wrote in the entry.

Again, please don't just add those sections back, I'll be glad to help you out if you have any questions about properly referencing your statements. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to your comment[2], I'm trying to clean up the unreferenced statements, simply pointing to someone else's hearsay doesn't give an editor the right to insert his own. I agree the article isn't a very good one, but if it's going to be on WP, it needs to be taken care of in the proper manner. If you want to list probable outcomes or mishaps, those need to be properly referenced. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to your comment [3], I deleted the consequences of what you had added because it was not properly referenced, it was all speculation. It falls under WP:OR because based on what is written, it can't be proved, and thus it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

I can sympathize with you wanting to add things that you think might "save a life or two", but that's not what wikipedia is for. If you'd like to discuss this matter, I encourage you to take it up on the talk page of the article, I'm sure they've been through this before. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

February 2008

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

Phyllis Dobbs is a Woman Police Constable not a Woman Police Sergeant. Proof of this can be found here: [4]

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'll give you that one! I just checked (the DVD was still in my player...) and, right enough, no stripes! Can't imagine why but I always had a mental picture of three big bananas on her arm. Oh well; time she was promoted. FergusM1970 (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been very patient with your edits in the The Sergeants Affair. However, this one [5] really violates proper behavior. You should never do such a thing and I expect an apology. Mashkin (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation in The Sergeants affair

Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. You have violated it at The Sergeants affair. please revert your most recent edit ASAP, or I will have to ask that you be blocked. Mashkin (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see Mashkin report this. Calling the kettle black. Mashkin, you are in another edit war, take it like a man. Can't you guys bring other editors into the discussion. --Shuki (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. Mashkin has spent the last week reverting my edits in an attempt to slant this article in favour of two violent armed groups, both of which were so insane that by launching a series of attacks on the British Army, they effectively entered WW2 on the side of Adolf Hitler. (LEHI actually went on to discuss, with German representatives, the possibility of FORMALLY joining the Nazi side.) My aim, on the other hand, is to make this article conform to NPOV, and Mashkin is systematically obstructing this. So anyone else who wants to join in, feel free! FergusM1970 (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Lehi on the side of the Nazis? Ok... Quite the opposite. I think the British Army should have been back home defending England than worrying about its colonies. Really peculiar how the British in Palestine became pro-Arab and the Arabs were pro-Nazi, so by your reasoning, the British in Palestine were pro-Nazi as well. And the British kept the Jews from coming to Palestine and shipped them back to their death in Europe. So it seems that the Lehi and Irgun were actually pro-Allies and the British Army in Palestine was not. --Shuki (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at The Sergeants affair. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Shell ^babelfish 01:08, 15 June 2009 (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).

FergusM1970 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was warned by Mashkin that I had violated 3RR, and immediately undid my last reversion. I note (and a look through the article history will confirm) that Mashkin has been systematically undoing the vast majority of my edits to this article in favour of his own original text, which is the subject of an NPOV dispute. I have attempted to reference and explain each of my edits and believe that I have improved the neutrality of the article.

Decline reason:

Thanks for your candor. The block is 24 hours in duration, and is already near to expiration. 3RR is a hard-and-fast rule, and as has been pointed out below both editors received a similar "time out" for the behavior. Please feel free to continue editing constructively--but avoiding 3RR--once your block expires. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2009 (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.

• Both of you were edit warring instead of using dispute resolution. Mashkin received the same block. Shell ^babelfish 14:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Gulshan Esther

Please explain your position with regard to persecution. You altered the text of Gulshan Esther, stating that if mistreating a person for their religious faith is legal, then it can't be called persecution. I'm struggling to make sense of this position. Is it your opinion that a behavior must not be considered oppressive if it isn't illegal? Unless you can make a rational and persuasive statement, I intend to revert this article to its prior state. Brain Rodeo (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Your response isn't sensible. We can agree that in Pakistan the persecution of religious minorities is supported by the government. But we will not agree that the government's support for systematic mistreatment of religious minorities means that that mistreatment cannot be considered persecution. Brain Rodeo (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your input on something

Hi, FergusM1970, I was looking over the M240 article and it's talk page earlier, and saw your comments on there. While I respectfully disagree regarding your position about that article, and don't know enough off hand about the L7 variant, you make a good point about the L1A1/inch pattern FAL's. I wrote up a draft, including some info from the main FAL article, as well. I think I need more info and sources before I can consider putting it live. Judging from your arguments on here, you seem to know some stuff, so I am interested in any input and/or sources you might have that can help me make this article better. Just send any questions/comments/advice to my talk page the draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:L1A1_FAL/L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle Have a good day, --L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Please visit us on Harold Camping (article)'s talk page

Hi, please visit us on the Harold Camping article Talk Page to provide your input.[6]. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Google

Counting Google hits is what we call original research, take a look at WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I know, but it was too funny to resist. I hope the old bastard spends the rest of his life being sued by his dupes. My bad.FergusM1970 (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol. Dougweller (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Harold Camping Talk Page comment

Hi, in accordance with the polices on biographies of living people (which includes their talk page), I've had to delete the comment you made here[7]. Sorry about that. Better than someone else coming along and noticing it and dropping a warning message though. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No probs, I understand the rules. Even someone as despicable as Camping needs to be protected by WP policy, hard as it may be to swallow sometimes :-) FergusM1970 (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. But, there's also another personal point to it. If you never speak something others can claim is clearly your opinion, then it is far less likely that if you get into a content dispute or discussion that anyone can accuse you of pushing your own biases and POVs. For instance, in this case, people may start to wonder whether your content insertions are based off your opinion of Camping and are thus unbalancing the article. It's one of the reasons why (for instance in this article's talk page) I only leave premises that are citable - and on my own userpage, I choose not to list any religious or political affiliations I may or may not have, or my opinion on any religion, sexuality, politics, etc... though, admittedly, I do mention that I like bacon, Star Trek and Iron Maiden; but I suspect people won't presume those affect or bias me in the areas I edit. ;-)

Anyway, I've rambled enough. Thanks for understanding my reasonings for the "retraction" of the comment. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I also like bacon and Iron Maiden (who I had the privilege of seeing at Rock am Ring in 2005) but I retired from Star Trek when Kirk did. I make no secret of the fact that I'm an atheist and despise people like Camping, but I think there's enough verifiable information from reliable sources to prove clearly that the world isn't going to end any time in the next 5 billion years or thereabouts, which is why I see no need for WP to treat Camping's idiot "predictions" any differently from someone's hypothetical assertion that the moon is actually a sleeping armadillo called Keith - i.e. while the article should report accurately on what's being said, no weight needs to be given to the idea that any of it might actually happen. Anyway I'm drunk (again) and I'm off to bed. Have a good one. FergusM1970 (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've only seen them twice (same concert: AMOLAD, on Long Island and in Jersey). Sadly (or fortunately), instead of retiring from Star Trek when Kirk/Shatner did, I went on to help make more TOS. As I don't want to use your talk page for seemingly promotional purposes, all I'll say is for COI transparency purposes, what I am talking about is on my userpage. See you around next time, and thanks for your help in getting rid of the nonsense in the article while adding relevant stuff. I think you and Liberal brought a nice balance of perspective to it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be NEW Jersey. Or should I say Noo Joizy? FergusM1970 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

LoL, yes... It was kinda amazing... they seem to have more energy now than when they were younger. Totally amazing shows. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Star Trek and Iron Maiden rock. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Caution

You're putting your own editorial spin on the article and also now mis-quoting Camping's "Calendar" by posting that "young woman" stuff. You've got to stick with the source, even if more modern Bibles disagree with the traditional "virgin" wording. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Camping's source is allegedly the Hebrew bible (even though he doesn't speak Hebrew) and the word used there is "Amah," which means "young woman." As for the "begats" it's blatantly obvious what the term means and even more blatantly obvious that Camping is talking complete bollocks. For the sake of balance the article should NOT indicate that Camping's interpretation is equally as valid as EVERYONE else's. FergusM1970 (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to go with the wording he's using, because that's what's in the source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The source is the Pentateuch, and it says "Amah." FergusM1970 (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the cited source in the article is what Bugs is talking about. And, he is correct. In these type things, there's three options, (1) write as supported by the cite, (2) find another equally reputable source that has the "correct" information, (3) don't include it at all. And in the case of BLPs, specifically, if there's a known error, and it's deemed it is something even remotely potentially actionable, it simply shouldn't be included at all. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The cited source in the article is Isaiah 7:14, and Camping's reference to the phrase "qara shem" makes it clear that it's the Hebrew version he's talking about, not the Big Colour Southern Baptist Scratch'n'Sniff Bible. Therefore the English translation of the Hebrew bible is, unarguably, "young woman," not "virgin."

Why am I still awake? FergusM1970 (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

But you're making a connection and providing your research into it, which also leads to the presumption that he accurately translated it. If his calendar says otherwise (which it does), then the article has to use his mistranslation as well. Remember, it's not what conclusions the cited source leads you to. It's exactly what the cited sources say... nothing more or less. One cannot jump any farther than that without violating WP:OR. Oh, and I am asking myself that same question... Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps you're troubled with insomnia. I know a good cure for insomnia: Get plenty of sleep.

The thing about the source is that you're putting your spin on how he "should be" interpreting it. What you need to do is (1) stick with his own view on his interpretation; and (2) find an independent source that refutes it. It is not the place of wikipedia editors to do that refutation directly. That's "original research". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The article says "He also points out the use of qara shem in Isaiah 7:14, where it is written..." and what is written in Isaiah 7:14 is that a YOUNG WOMAN will conceive, and bear a son. The article seems to me like it's referring directly to Isaiah, rather than to Camping's self-published excrement. Anyway, I'm off. See you later. FergusM1970 (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't re-interpret his article on your own. You have to find a source for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What we're trying to say is you can say "a peanut butter and jelly sandwich will..." for all any of us care - as long as (1) that's what he said, and (2) it's backed by reliable sources. We all know it wasn't a PBJ, but that's not what matters. No matter how correct we are, the only things that matter are (1) how he translated it, (2) and what he said, (3) as supported by the citations. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I just saw how you resolved that issue. I think that's perfect! It means those who interpret the word as virgin are not put off, and those who interpret it differently understand it was his interpretaion, and is worded so it takes no position on the matter. Very nice job! Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It seemed like the only viable solution. Isaiah 7:14 quite unambiguously does NOT say "virgin" and it would be unacceptable if the article implies it did by making it appear that Camping's translation matches the original. FergusM1970 (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Rite

You are correct in your particular case, but different jurisdictions around the world handle it differently. Generally speaking, most look at it as part of SR but not controlled by it, although some jurisdictions also have a "Scottish" style vs. a "York" style of Craft degrees. For example, America tends to have the latter, but Brazil has both, and I think France does as well. Your edit would work in the England section, but not in the lead paragraph. MSJapan (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.--John (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to English longbow. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Old Moonraker (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Justin Bieber. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair warning, Fergus. As I just stated on WP:BLPN, your last edit violates 3RR. However, I won't report it if you self-revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I see someone has now reverted your last edit, so please leave the article alone for at least 24 hours, and then be careful about your edits because edit-warring, even without a violation of 3RR, is not permitted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we can't report that Yeater has been threatened by Bieber fans? Other threats are reported in the article and I have a reference for this. Why is it so important that any mention of Yeater is kept out of the article? And have you reported Lakeshade for violating 3RR? --FergusM1970 (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In my view, the report on Yeater is just a way of getting in the lawsuit. I don't believe it should be included for that reason. I'm not under any obligation to report violations of 3RR or warn anyone they are about to violate 3RR. I'm really doing you a favor by not reporting you because you clearly violated it, so although you may be frustrated, focus on that aspect of the editing issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is it so important to you that the lawsuit isn't mentioned? It's well referenced and notable. --FergusM1970 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion of the material at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR Noticeboard report

This is a courtesy notice that a report has been filed at WP:3RRN concerning your edits. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine. My edits were all in accordance with WP:BLP and were reverting edits that were NOT in accordance with that. You initiated a discussion on the issue and it became very clear that you had no argument against the inclusion of the allegation against Bieber in the article. As I said, I'm happy to let the big boys sort it out. I am confident that the allegation will stay in the article. --FergusM1970 (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

They were not, however, in accordance with WP:3RR. I don't see how you can claim that removing the text is vandalism, when reasons for removing the text based on Wikipedia policy have been provided. Since neither side is totally in the wrong, it's an edit war—and yours is the only name I see getting above three reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I DIDN'T claim that removing the text was vandalism. As far as I can see no valid reasons for removing the text based on WP policy have been provided; the allegation is notable, relevant and well-documented. --FergusM1970 (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As you can see at Wikipedia:BLPN#Justin_Bieber reason(s) have been given despite your disagreement with them and peoples interpretation of polocies. The current talk should be your focus and not an edit war. As you can see some do agree with you, so why not talk it out some more and see were it gets you. If your blocked then your unable to progress in the discussion thus not adding to your point of view on the matter. Not engaging in consensus building when there is "clearly a disagreement" in the implantation/interpretation of polocies may be considered disruptive editing. All that said I think this is a close call and really not sure of what the outcome of the talk will be. I see your what your saying I just think its to soon for us to be listing all the hearsay. But you never know in 3 months from now there may be a section on his new BABY to be ;-). I do however think that Twitter tweets for random people (even threats) should never make it on Wikipedia as per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites (that is just an essay but I think hits it on the head as anyone can tweet anything at any time about anything).Moxy (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The baby has been born and the mother has requested a DNA test from Bieber to prove paternity; I assume that will be decided on 15 December at the court hearing. Also I am not asking that we list hearsay; I am saying that we should mention the NOTABLE, RELEVANT and WELL-DOCUMENTED fact that the allegation has been made. It HAS been made; there is no doubt about this. --FergusM1970 (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that was my joke - there will be many claims like this hes only 17. Anyways all you had to do was wait a bit see what others had to say (looks like some more people are stating to agree with). But now your getting blocked :-(.Moxy (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If I get blocked I get blocked. Soon enough I'll be unblocked again, but the Justin Bieber article will still say a scutter alleged he got her pregnant. Heads I win, tails they lose. --FergusM1970 (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually if a block happens the content added by the blocked user is usually removed. Would have been better to talk.Moxy (talk)

It is really a pity that you tried to insert this stuff into the article when it is now revealed that: The 20-year-old, who claims in court filings that Bieber fathered her son Tristyn during a 30-second sex session in a bathroom backstage after one of his shows, originally accused her ex of being the father of the same child This is exactly what the discussion at BLPN was trying to sort out. But despite the obvious existence of troubling signs about the accusations you had to edit-war to add this unreliable stuff into a BLP. I would revert this tripe but I ran out of reverts. If you revert yourself you may have a chance of getting a reduced block. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. In light of the discussion above where you essentially accept that you'll get blocked I don't think it needs any explanation. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Derry. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Mo ainm~Talk 09:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No OR is involved. The city is called Londonderry. This has been recently (2007) reaffirmed by court decision. "Derry" is only a nickname. --FergusM1970 (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Restrictions

The article Derry, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2007 Arbitration case, and amended by community consensus in 2008 and 2009. The current restrictions are:

• All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
• All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
• Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty.
• Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
• Editors may be subject to discretionary sanctions.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. When in doubt, don't revert! Mo ainm~Talk 09:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

All very interesting, but legally the city is called Londonderry and that's the end of it; this has been confirmed by a 2007 court case. Really there doesn't seem to be much left to discuss. --FergusM1970 (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You have breached the restrictions placed on the Derry article, please self revert to avoid being blocked. Mo ainm~Talk 09:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop trying to bully me. What is the legal name of the city we're talking about? If it is in fact Derry I'll revert my edit. Otherwise, well, I'll wait for Poland to admit that Gdansk is really called Danzig as some people claim. --FergusM1970 (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. In fact this should be easy to resolve. What is the legal name of the city: is it Londonderry or Derry? I'm happy for the legal name to be the one that's given first. --FergusM1970 (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Derry shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

In addition to the above read WP:BRD. You really need to understand that there are rules as to how you edit and you are in flagrant breech of several of them --Snowded ^TALK 11:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see that, but on the other hand multiple editors are reverting my edits but failing to explain why they are not using the city's actual name. Obviously it's quite easy for several people to put me in a situation where I have to either break the 3RR rule or allow false information to remain in an article. While the people doing this may be within the LETTER of the law they're hardly following the SPIRIT of it. Now, if someone can show me that the city is actually called Derry, rather than Londonderry, we can resolve this quite easily. --FergusM1970 (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you think you are right, you have to follow the rules and the text is a long standing one. They are following the spirit of the law as well as the letter - you work to get agreement you don;t edit war. Its your choice but it looks like you are going to have to learn the hard way. Your statement won't help by the way. Arbcom only looks at behaviour, not at content issues. --Snowded ^TALK 11:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I KNOW that I'm right, and you know that as well. The city's legal name is not in dispute; the issue here is the sensitivities of people who don't like the laws of the land they choose to live in. I trust that the arbitrators will give appropriate weight to who's trying to improve the quality of information in Wikipedia and who's trying to push a partisan viewpoint. --FergusM1970 (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you have a position which has been discussed before and not achieved consensus. I and others would argue that the common name is clear. Arbitrators will not deal with the content dispute, they will (and now have) deal with the behaviour. What will happen next is your edits will be reverted to the agreed stable version. If you revert again, the blocks are bound to escalate. You might want to spend the next 24 hours thinking about that. --Snowded ^TALK 12:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And I would suggest that YOU spend the next 24 hours researching what the shithole is actually called. Hint: it isn't Derry. --FergusM1970 (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you need to make a statement here where your actions have been reported. As per the suggestion on my talk page I suggest you self revert and then make a statement that you will use the talk page in future. That why you might avoid a block --Snowded ^TALK 11:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE

An issue you are involved in has been raised here Mo ainm~Talk 10:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is, as the city has only one legal name - which is Londonderry - but I'm willing to submit to any arbitration process that results in the article becoming more accurate. --FergusM1970 (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked for edit-warring, breaking not just the Ireland-related 1RR but also normal 3RR several times over at Derry/Londonderry. "Knowing" you are right does not justify this kind of edit-warring, especially not at a potentially contentious article whose present status quo is the result of extensive prior discussion. I'll leave it to the process at WP:AE to figure out if further sanctions are necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What's contentious about it? The article is about a city in the UK. Now, what does UK legislation say that city is called? The facts are clear. --FergusM1970 (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read the discussions about Londonderry and I don't see a concensus in favour of not calling it by its unofficial name. I am not happy about this behaviour. --FergusM1970 (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:LDERRY for the consensus reached earlier by Wikipedia editors, which is now included in our Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. The consensus applies all article naming on Wikipedia unless a new discussion is held which reaches a different result. Since this compromise has been in place for four years a single editor who knows that he is right and everyone else is wrong would need to start over on persuading everybody. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

In accordance with the discretionary sanctions imposed by the arbitration case on "The Troubles", of which you were notified earlier today, you are hereby banned from editing any article or talk page within the scope of that case for a period of three months (until 6 March 2012). This is in addition to your 24-hour block for edit-warring. You will be blocked if you edit any article within the scope of the case while this ban is in effect. You may appeal this sanction at WP:AE or directly to the Arbitration Committee. Sincerely, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello FergusM1970. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

1RR

---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

1RR breach

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FergusM1970 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, my name has been mentioned by you in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Let me know how that works out for you.--FergusM1970 (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You should look very closely at that Hackney account. I guess he's the puppet master, given the length of time he's been editing. 86.31.165.112 (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Fergus, I seem to have got that article blocked, and no argument on the Talk page will overcome the tag teaming republicans; there are just too many of them (Mo, Domer, Hackney, OldJacobite and others - Mo is a re-incarnation, Hackey is definitely a sock, and the other two are dubious. Are you familiar with User:Wikipéire? Have a long hard look at that one). Actually it's the actions of an indolent admin that's the cause of the current block. I notice he waited until the "preferred" version had resurfaced before protecting (I had a bet with myself that that would happen, and sure enough ...). Good luck! Try and deal with Hackney and his fellow conspirators. They really are a problem, and 1RR plays right into their hands. 86.23.124.57 (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. They are very good at wikilawyering. Anyway I've also raised a dispute resolution case over the article and hopefully that will achieve the result. It really is blatantly POV and I can't believe that an impartial admin will let it remain.--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Glass houses

"Next time you accuse me of something please confine yourself to the facts". I could provide several diffs where you make accusations against me stating your own opinion as fact, and erroneously so. If you wish courtesy to be extended to you, I recommend you treat others the same way first. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

In an official complaint? Bet you can't.--FergusM1970 (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Given you have made no "official complaint" against me, I have to admit I would find it difficult to find accusations in a non-existent "official complaint" yes. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well there you go. As for my accusation that you're POV pushing and using 1RR to do it, that's backed by the facts.--FergusM1970 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case your request is without merit. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hackney, or whoever you are :)) do you EVER do anything constructive here? You know, like adding content. In looking at your extensive history it's nothing but a catalogue of reverts. You add nothing to this encyclopaedia. All you do is use policy and tag team members to maintain your disgusting POV. 86.23.124.57 (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Corporals killings". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 August 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Loughall Martyrs

Hello FergusM1970. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Loughall Martyrs, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a valid speedy deletion criteria, please take it to WP:RFD if you eel it should be deleted. Thank you. GB fan 03:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thanks anyway.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 03:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to reply your (unwelcome) comment about Esteban in my talk page

Is that the same Lt Esteban who ordered his gunners to machine-gun the helicopter crews in the water?--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 05:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC) (post on my talk page, intermingled with an old comment)

Yes, he is, and he regretted it. He didn't give orders to shot the guys on the water, the conscripts were a little fuzzy.--Darius (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Eichmann, that other war criminal, regretted his actions too. And if Esteban's troops weren't properly trained that was Esteban's fault. I hope he dies of bowel cancer in a country that hasn't discovered morphine.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 05:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Corporals killings, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Corporals killings, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, and your participation in this discussion may be critical to finding a resolution. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonofSetanta (talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Corporal Killings

For the time being please refrain from making any more edits to the Corporal Killings article until the issue is sorted. Whether your edits are correct or not, continued editing of the article may be used by your objectors against you. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your signature must be fixed

In addition to being rather lengthy, your signature does not contain a link to your user or user talk page. This is difficult for other editors and a clear violation of the community's policy on signatures. When you are next online, please insert such a link into your signature before making your next edit. Thank you. AGK [•] 10:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing your signature. Happy editing! AGK [•] 13:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem! I didn't actually notice that I'd broken it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per the consensus of uninvolved administrators in this AE thread, you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, the Ulster banner and British baronets, broadly construed across all namespaces for a period of 6 months. Per WP:AC/DS#Appeal you may appeal this ban the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or directly to the Arbitration Committee--Cailil ^talk 13:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FergusM1970 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Cailil ^talk 14:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement appeal result

I have closed your appeal request to arbitration enforcement. The result is that the appeal is granted, and that the portion of your ban which prohibited editing related to British baronets is lifted. The remainder of the sanctions stay in effect. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Cobra manufacturer

I noticed you have been changing the manufacturer of Cobras from Carroll Shelby to AC. I understand your rationale, but to get more input on this significant change to multiple articles I have posted the manufacturer question at WikiProject Automobiles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Who manufactured Cobras: AC or Shelby?. Your input there would be appreciated. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem! It's a simple enough matter though; the cars were built by AC at their factory in Surrey. This is not in dispute.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Carroll Shelby disagreed. But that's neither here nor there. Regardless of anybody's opinion (even Shelby's), your changes are quite massive. It would be best to include in-text references to the changes you're making. --Pc13 (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Carroll Shelby did indeed disagree, but the fact is all the cars were built in Surrey and nobody - not even Shelby - has ever disputed that. Anyway I disagree that the change is massive, because all it's doing is bringing the article text into line with its title. The AC Cobra article already contains numerous references to the fact that the cars were built by AC; it is an established fact that all Shelby did was take delivery of rolling cars and fit the engines and transmissions. Everything else was done by AC.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a faulty argument. The Vauxhall Astra Cabrio is manufactured by Bertone, for example, but isn't called the Bertone Astra. What you are doing is changing every instance of Shelby Cobra to AC Cobra when the car was sold with the Shelby brand in North America. --Pc13 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Astra Cabrio uses a Bertone body fitted by Bertone to a chassis and running gear built by Vauxhall or Opel, depending on whether it's RHD or LHD. The Cobra used an AC body fitted by AC to an AC chassis with AC running gear, AC seats, AC interior and AC electrics. Shelby didn't build Cobras. AC did. All Shelby did was fit the engines and transmissions to otherwise complete cars that AC shipped to him. The issue here is who manufactured the Cobras, and it wasn't Shelby.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Cobra and Shelby American

Fergus, since you have obviously been warned previously please consider this one more friendly warning. If you continue to vandalize the Shelby American and Cobra pages, and your edits very obviously constitute vandalism, I will report it.Syr74 (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly warning, but in fact I reject your classification of my edits as vandalism. In fact you have replaced them with information that is clearly incorrect, such as calling the car "AC-bodied" when it also had an AC chassis, suspension, steering, electrical system, seats and interior (and in fact everything except engine and transmission) and "Shelby Motors produced..." when Shelby Motors did nothing of the sort; it is an undeniable fact that the Cobras were built by AC, to an AC design in the AC factory.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in your assertion that the article, as it was, needed serious revision. The problem is that your edits are simply making a bad situation worse. The use of the phrase AC bodied, while not technically incorrect, may not be the best choice of words to describe the involvement of Auto Carrier with this car. Unfortunately, suggesting that the Cobra was manufactured by AC is arguably even worse because that statement is fundamentally incorrect. With regard to the Cobra Auto Carrier was a provider of a rolling chassis to Shelby American which Shelby American then completed as a finished, Shelby Cobra CSX model at their factory in California. AC cannot therefore be referenced as the manufacturer of the CSX Shelby Cobra roadsters because they didn't produce completed cars, and it should be noted that a car of new manufacture isn't legally recognized as the same within the United States until it has been completed and is in a running state.....in other words it has to have a drivetrain. Note the definition of a motor vehicle as specified by US Federal law below.

85.1703 - Definition of motor vehicle.

(a) For the purpose of determining the applicability of section 216(2), a vehicle which is self-propelled and capable of transporting a person or persons or any material or any permanently or temporarily affixed apparatus shall be deemed a motor vehicle, unless any one or more of the criteria set forth below are met, in which case the vehicle shall be deemed not a motor vehicle:

Since all CSX cars saw final assembly by an American manufacturer within U.S. borders and were intended for sale within the North America market U.S legal definitions are going to take precedence. (still, I would be surprised if the English legal definition for what constitutes a completed motor vehicle/automobile isn't the same) This is why the court case between AC Cars Ltd and Shelby American took place in an American court rather than an English one. COX and COB cars are, for obvious reasons, a different matter and should therefore be handled differently. I don't believe that your vandalism is intentional, and I am convinced that you sincerely believe what you are stating here, but that doesn't make it any less incorrect and, to be blunt, belief has no place in an encyclopedic reference. This is about facts, and the facts simply do not support your argument. I won't report you for vandalism or request resolution until you have an opportunity to respond, but the reality of the situation is that your edits are blatantly POV as entered and, your opinion that AC manufactured the Shelby Cobra based on your view of what a completed car is constitutes original research. Because of that your edits simply cannot remain as they are and the article remain useful or accurate.

Syr74 (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement that AC manufactured the cars is in no way whatsoever "fundamentally incorrect." A rolling chassis is a vehicle lacking only its drivetrain and that is what AC delivered; the cars Shelby received were fitted with bodies, suspension, steering, interiors and everything else except the drivetrain. The reason that was done is that it made no economic sense to ship heavy engines and gearboxes to the UK, install them in cars then ship them straight back again when that work could be done by Shelby, who, while not a car manufacturer, did have a tuning shop adequate for the job. You wrote: "AC cannot therefore be referenced as the manufacturer of the CSX Shelby Cobra roadsters because they didn't produce completed cars" Yes they did; they produced completed cars for every other market except the USA and have continued to do so on and off, with periodic permission from Ford to sell the cars as Cobras, for the past 50 years. As for the CSX numbers they were simply export cars of the CS series, just like COX were export cars of the COB series and so on. Leaf-spring Cobras with right-hand drive - i.e. those sold in the UK - had a chassis number beginning CS2; left-hand drive cars, those sold in Europe or shipped to Shelby, had a chassis number beginning CSX2. With coil-spring Cobras the corresponding numbers were CS3/COB3 and CSX3/COX3. CS and CSX, like COB and COX, were AC chassis numbers, stamped on the chassis at the AC works. At least this is the case for chassis CS/CSX2000-CSX3055; subsequent CSX numbers are 1992 counterfeits manufactured in Torrance, California and later fraudulently registered by Shelby as 1965 cars.

As you state, this is an encyclopaedia. What goes in it is not determined by US legal definitions but by verifiable facts. It is verifiable fact that the Cobra was an AC design built by AC in the AC factory, and marketed in the USA as the Ford/Shelby AC Cobra. The only difference between US-market cars and all the others is that AC let Shelby fit the engines. It was the same car built in the same factory by the same company. Could AC have fitted the engines to all the Cobras and shipped them to the USA as road-ready vehicles? Undoubtably. Could Shelby have produced Cobras without taking delivery of rolling cars from AC? No. To argue that Shelby built them, based on some narrow definition made up by ambulance chasers, is not reasonable. As it is the article mentions that the car is often known in the USA as the Shelby Cobra. I have already suggested changing that to "marketed in the USA as the Ford/Shelby AC Cobra." Would that satisfy you, accurate as it is? The article also says, correctly, that Shelby fitted the engines to cars delivered to him by AC, which is an accurate description of what happened, so I don't see what the problem is. However as I said before, I do not believe that the question of whether a car was built in Surrey or California is decided by something as trivial as the words of some shyster in a Los Angeles court. A court decision is not a fact; it's an opinion. The fact is that AC built the cars and words in a court don't affect that. The article includes the opinion of the court (although it's tagged "citation needed" right now) but that opinion determines nothing. Especially seeing as how it's just the opinion of something that provoked Shakespeare to write his greatest ever line, "First, let's kill all the lawyers." (Henry VI, Pt2, Act 4, Scene 2)

The reason the Shelby/Angliss court case took place in a US court is presumably that Shelby brought the case in a US court. Any British judge would have thrown it out as absurd, given that the place of manufacture of the cars is well known and demonstrable. On the subject of the court case can you please provide a reference for it, as all I can find online is copies of the wording from this article. I'm dubious because it's stated that the court ruled that Shelby is the only person entitled to call the car a Cobra. That's obviously wrong because the rights to the Cobra name weren't owned by Shelby; they're owned by Ford, and in 1987 were granted by Ford to Brian Angliss of AC.

In my opinion, for the article to say that Shelby manufactured the cars simply because he fitted an engine built by Ford and a transmission built by any of several companies (including AC) into a car built by AC around an AC chassis, AC suspension, AC steering rack and AC body is POV. I could fit a Ford engine in my car, although I have no idea why I'd want to, but it wouldn't become a Mason; it would remain a BMW. Now, we need to find a compromise that is acceptable to us both, but I don't think it should be based on a legal opinion. It needs to be based on who actually built the cars.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We certainly agree in one respect, the article needs revision. That said, I'm afraid that the article needs so much revision that one or two (or ten or twenty) edits or discussions about what needs to be changed or what does not will barely make a dent. Given this, I'm going to experiment in the sandbox and, when I feel that I have something close to being a workable article, I will forward the same for discussion by editors in general including, obviously, you. Syr74 (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually I think it's close to acceptable as it currently stands. Naturally if you want to work up an alternative version I'll be happy to comment on it. Can I ask what is your objection to the car being called the AC Cobra? I mean they did design and build it and even in the USA it was sold as the Ford/Shelby AC Cobra. I really don't get this issue that some Americans (and absolutely nobody else) have with simply acknowledging who made the damn thing. Incidentally I think it's a terrible car. It's a classic race machine and it looks gorgeous - when I was 20 I'd have happily married one - and it's as fast as a very fast thing in a straight line, but it would lose a race to any current BMW with a -35 or better model number and it's about as controllable as a psychotic ex-wife on crack. I've driven a MkIV and I'd kill my granny to own it but, really, it's fucking awful.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 04:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

By this point the article looks like a jumbled mess because, to be blunt, it is. The article has been edited so many times,by so many different people that it just isn't a cohesive piece any more, but realistically that is bound to happen eventually with any article that undergoes the same. As for my objection to the car being called the AC Cobra, that is the simplest question of all to answer. Outside of a very few of the original 260 Cobra roadsters the CSX cars were never manufactured or sold with AC in the name of the car itself. (and really how, when, and why that occurred and the events surrounding it should be covered in the article...it is a rather important part of Cobra history) COX and COB cars, as mentioned previously, are another story and should be addressed separately, although Brian Angliss's legal admission in his lawsuit with Shelby American makes this a little more difficult than it would otherwise be. As for the use of the Cobra name on the AC cars produced by Brian Angliss and the willingness of Ford Motor Company to allow the same, yes Ford did own the Cobra trademark at that time (they still do) and did initially grant Auto Carrier the right to use it. However, during the lawsuit mentioned previously Ford apparently had a change of heart and in fact eventually joined Shelby in arguing that, at least when attached to the Cobra shape, nobody but Carroll Shelby should be allowed to use the Cobra name. We now see the results of the same as Shelby American produces cars wearing the Cobra moniker while AC does not. As for why the lawsuit was herd in the United States, this is a matter of jurisdiction and not simply an issue of where the case was brought/ The court obviously felt that they had jurisdiction in this matter, otherwise they would not have been willing to hear the case. I understand that all of this bothers some people, and I understand why it bothers them, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. As for design, the original Cobra roadster was, in most cases, essentially an AC Ace with a Ford small-block V-8 and a Borg Warner or Ford Toploader 4-speed manual or Ford 3-speed automatic transmission behind it. (there were never any AC manufactured transmissions in these cars) Outside of more limited volume cars like the Daytona Coupe Auto Carrier did design and build the chassis, body, suspension, etc. for that model...and that should be noted in the article. On the other hand, that is not the case for the coil spring, big block powered Cobra roadsters. The suspension for the coil sprung cars and the 4 inch round tube chassis that suspension attached to was actually designed in Dearborn, Michigan by Ford Motor Company with the assistance of a couple of Shelby American employees (primarily on the frame itself) using technology neither Shelby American or Auto Carrier had access to. This is a well known part of Cobra history, we even know who the man who led that particular effort as a Ford Motor Company employee was, his name is Bob Negstad and he is a legend in the Cobra community. Likewise, modifications to the body Shell to accommodate wider tires on the coil spring cars was actually undertaken at the Shelby American facility in Las Vegas. Yes, Auto Carrier still produced these components, but in this case they did not design them. All of this should likewise be mentioned in the article. I will include everything mentioned above, and much more, along with appropriate references to support the same in the article I present for review, but that will take some time as this is no small undertaking.Syr74 (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You're sort of losing me here. Still no reference for the alleged Shelby/Angliss court case (which of course is irrelevant anyway given Shelby's non-ownership of the Cobra brand) and plenty of statements about the car's manufacture that simply don't make sense. If the coil-spring MkIII Cobra was a Shelby/Ford USA design then why exactly were the cars built by AC in England? Couldn't a massive car manufacturer like Shelby - never mind FORD!!! - build the Cobras himself, or at least find a US manufacturer capable of doing it? If the car was a Shelby design then why did Shelby ask a small company 6,000 miles away to build the cars for him in the 1960s, when shipping a 2,000lb car across the Atlantic cost far more than it does now, and why did he ask another small company in Torrance, CA to weld up counterfeit chassis for him in 1991/92? Was he really so incapable of building "Shelby Cobras" himself? Sorry, none of this makes sense. As for "The court obviously felt that they had jurisdiction in this matter," who cares what lawyers think? Can a rat fly with eagles? Do snakes eat rats?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't referenced anything more here because there is no point, it would simply constitute going through the effort twice to no real end since I'll have to reference everything in the revised article anyway. As for what the Court of the State of California has to say on a matter, a legally binding court finding is obviously a legitimate source of reference and, when the owner of Auto Carrier himself signs a legally binding agreement to resolve that case acknowledging that every original Cobra produced in the 1960's was indeed a product of Shelby American, there just isn't anywhere else to go. The opportunity to debate the validity of the finding of the Court of the State of California, and the legally binding declaration made by a legal representative of Auto Carrier, will be available when the article is presented for review. As for why the chassis/body of these cars were contracted out, automakers contract out automotive chassis and body manufacturing all the time; it's far from unusual and, in fact, it's more common now that it was then. Cadillac flew Allante roadsters to Italy to be bodied by a coach-builder and then flown back, and arrangement that seems odd to me for various reasons but, that doesn't change the fact that this is exactly what took place. That the production arrangement seems odd to you is worth noting and was worth mentioning, I'm not dismissing your opinion here, but your opinion on the issue isn't something which can be referenced so it cannot be used in the article. The fact that the design work listed above was conducted at Ford Motor Company and Shelby American is a commonly known historical fact and is relatively easily referenced through several reputable sources. And of course, when submitted in the revised article that information will be properly cited as will all the rest. Syr74 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"As for what the Court of the State of California has to say on a matter, a legally binding court finding is obviously a legitimate source of reference" - Yes - for what the court's opinion was! It has nothing to do with the facts though. AC built the Cobras; that is not in dispute. Every genuine Cobra ever built was assembled to at least the rolling vehicle stage at the AC factory. All Shelby did was fit the drivetrains to the US-market cars. The Cobra was never even marketed in the USA as a Shelby until Shelby American started building replicas on counterfeit chassis; it was sold as the Ford/Shelby AC Cobra. The design work on the MkIII was done by AC with computer assistance from Ford; that is a matter of record. I note that if it had been done by Shelby (who was a racing driver, not an engineer, manufacturer or designer) and Ford (who were, at the time, one of the three largest car manufacturers in the entire world) it would have made very little sense to have the cars built on the other side of the Atlantic by a small, obscure English company unless that company (AC) had some rather strong claim on the design...

Anyway, do you have a reference for the court case yet? I still can't find one.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually sod this. Life is too short to waste it on discussing the pointless utterances of California lawyers. Please report me for vandalism and take this to dispute resolution, and let's just get it over with.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that simpler is better, but there is really no point in going to dispute resolution until we have any and all disagreements with the revised article laid out. I'll notify you when the revised article is ready for review so you, and anybody else, can express any grievances at that time. Best -- Syr74 (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is also really no point in arguing for a US origin of a car built in a small, boring town in Surrey. The disagreement here is whether the manufacturer of the AC Cobra was the tuning shop that fitted the drivetrains to US market cars and paid a court for a piece of paper, or the factory that did everything else from taking delivery of a truckload of steel tubes to crating a complete but engineless car for shipment to America. If you insist on arguing that the AC Cobra was in fact manufactured in an LA shed, rather than in the factory that Shelby himself asked to design and build the Cobra for him, then we might as well call in the admins right now and invoke Wikipedia's famously responsive and fair dispute resolution process.

Alternatively we can try to find a compromise solution, as I have suggested twice already.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your flexibility, but the article needs so many revisions that, taken piecemeal, we'll be debating the issue a year from now which seems pointless. Certainly, I agree that if a suitable solution can be found between editors in general that is absolutely preferable to dispute resolution. But realistically speaking, we need more and better references, we need those references to be readily available for review, and we need the proposed revisions themselves drawn out before any of that can be accomplished. I won't revert or edit anything in the article until I've had time to review all necessary changes and forward them for review, but I don't see how the article can be appropriately revised and corrected any other way. Best -- Syr74 (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I'll welcome any RS that says the Cobras were manufactured in California by Shelby rather than in Surrey by AC, but until I see such an RS I think the article should stay as it is, agreed?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, if something cannot be properly cited through a reputable source then it shouldn't be included in any Wikipedia article. -- Syr74 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:1977 Travel Weekly Article Gailen David.png

Thanks for uploading File:1977 Travel Weekly Article Gailen David.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Help on Captain Smith and Wilde pages

I thank you for your edits to the Charles Lightoller because I need you help for the pages of Edward Smith and Henry Wilde. I have been improving them but some of them are poorley written and I swear there is no source for the Captain Smith wax figure, I tired several times to remove it but no one will listen.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.161.215 (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

While this may be so, the IP is evading a block for problematic editing, including insertion of poorly sourced or unsourced material on a variety of assassination and disaster-related topics over more than a year. Having exhausted the patience of several editors, including myself, the IP is being blocked whenever they turn up. and all edits reverted, regardless of merit. Acroterion (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads up, although I don't agree with reverting edits regardless of merit. A good edit made by an irritating scrote is still a good edit.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried that for a while, but it became a time sink to sort the good, bad and pointless. As for the "irritating scrote" part, the person behind the IP seems to be a decent, polite person when engaged, but they've never quite understood that WP isn't a place for them to speculate on or add poorly sourced material to articles on conspiracies, disasters, assassinations and the like. I've blocked and reverted them with a great deal of regret. Acroterion (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Gailen David Portrait Image01.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gailen David Portrait Image01.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have an email from the copyright owner releasing the file under a CC license. Will this do?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to put that e-mail on the talk page, and send it into the relevant OTRS queue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I did put it into the OTRS queue, when I uploaded the image.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Susi Wrenshaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salford (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) 11:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Catt Gravitt Wiki Page

Hi! I am new to the wiki format, and unsure how to properly communicate so please excuse any errors, or if this is the wrong place to be communicating...

I received your message about the page I am trying to create on songwriter, Catt Gravitt (I am not her). I worked on the edits you requested and would like you to review it again. Do I need to re-submit, or can you just view it and approve it?

Thanks so much Catt Gravitt (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, er, not her (you know what your signature block says, right?) Contacting me here is perfectly fine. I should be able to review it again, but if not I'll let you know ASAP. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Catt Gravitt

Howdy! I see you moved the above article from AFC to main space so I thought I'd raise it with you before going anywhere else. My first instinct is to take the article to AFD - it's a seemingly obvious WP:AUTOBIO created by the subject herself with "references" that include the subject's own record label, a artist's rights organisation (of which the subject seems to be a member) and other WP articles. I can't see one WP:RS in there. But I wanted to run it by you first, just to check there wasn't something that you saw that I'm not. Stalwart111 00:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all, and it was not intended as a criticism in any way. No one expects reviewers to be one-man AFD units. At the end of the day, AFC is not compulsory - it's a helpful resource for creating articles. The quality or longevity of those articles is a matter for the authors and their WP:BURDEN. And COI is a matter for WP:COIN. Keep up the good work! Stalwart111 11:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, My name is Abby and I am the person writing the article on Mrs. Gravitt...NOT herself. I simply made my username HERS for personal reasons in case she needed to sign into the page on her own time to check information as I was writing it. I am desperately trying to make sure this page remains published and meet whatever guidelines necessary to keep the page up and running because #1) I was hired by Mrs. Gravitt to do so, and #2) I don't understand the grounds for deletion. You asked me to remove any personal bends in my phrases and I believe I have done so. ALL of my information has been approved by Mrs. Gravitt herself, and ALL of my links and references are to the OFFICIAL companies that she is affiliated with, complete with proof of her signing with those companies. Please communicate with me as to what needs to be changed....this is not someone trying to put up a page for fun. She needs it for her songwriting business, and I am trying to accommodate her and make the page as professional as possible. Thank you for understanding, and again please allow me the respect of telling me what needs to be changed before deleting the page without communicating those things to me. I was hired to do a job, and I would like to do it well. Thank you...Catt Gravitt (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Halevy (2).
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

WTF? Whatever happened to assuming good faith? CheckUser showed that the socks are not geographically related to me, so where exactly is the "evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FergusM1970"? Answer: There isn't any.

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).

FergusM1970 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

These accounts are not my socks, as indicated by CheckUser. FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Contrary to what you seem to think, checkuser did not show that the sockpuppets were not run by you, but merely failed to show that they were. Behavioural evidence strongly suggests that they were. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2013 (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.

Argument in support of appeal. A suspicion was raised, I assume in good faith, that I may have created two sock puppets. I didn't (and never have,) but that's OK; Wikipedia has a way - CheckUser - to investigate that. It was duly investigated and, naturally, the socks were revealed not to be controlled by me. I was then blocked anyway. despite there being no evidence whatsoever that I was guilty and in fact fairly strong evidence (CheckUser) that I am not guilty. If cases are going to be resolved this way what's to stop users creating "socks" that agree with an editor they want silenced, then reporting them? After all the CheckUser evidence doesn't seem to matter, so what criteria should be used?

I do not use sock puppets and never have. Please revisit this complaint and take a decision based on the evidence. Thank you. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of ways to evade CheckUser; an absence of technical evidence does not mean that behavioral evidence cannot be examined. CheckUser is just one tool out of many. --Rschen7754 10:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

By all means, check using other tools. The result will be the same. I do not use sock puppets, and never have. There is no evidence to justify this block. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This is outrageous. I see that there are now three other accounts whose user pages read "This account is a sockpuppet of FergusM1970." In no case is this true. Can I please have this block reviewed by another admin who will take a look at the actual evidence (or lack of)? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

FergusM1970 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

So the socks agreed with me. How does this suggest that I created them? There is NO EVIDENCE that I created socks, with very good reason - I didn't. FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

With the clarification on the CU result, there is no longer enough evidence to maintain this block, but there are still behavioral similarities that leave me with concern. Rschen7754 21:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not disputing the fact that two accounts were created to vote in favour of a deletion I proposed. What I am disputing, very vigorously, is that they were created by me. They were not, and I am happy to cooperate with any investigation aimed at establishing the truth of the matter. To simply block me because the accounts were created, though, with no apparent concern about proving that I did it, is not reasonable. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, but it's not just a question of two sockpuppet accounts that were created to support you in an AfD. It's a matter of considering the behaviour of all the accounts and IP addresses raised in the successive sockpuppet investigations. Considering them all together, the number of coincidences is just too large to be plausible. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What coincidences? As this list of coincidences apparently doesn't extend to them being in the same country as me, never mind operated from my computer, I fail to see where the evidence to support my block is coming from. The socks voted for my proposed deletion. Fine. Is there any way I could have prevented them doing so? Is getting someone blocked now simply a matter of creating a couple of socks to agree with them? I did not create these socks or any others. I have no issue with the suspicion being raised, but am angry that the block has been imposed and is being upheld when the only actual evidence you have - CheckUser - does not support it. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If the only edits they've made is to support your position or otherwise behave like you, then they're either sockpuppets or meatpuppets indistinguishable from their master, and in such cases all such accounts may be treated as if they're one person. Also, just because Checkuser doesn't come back positive doesn't mean you're clean (since switching IPs and computers is trivial at worst) - you can still be blocked on behavioral evidence. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Switching countries, on the other hand, is a bit more difficult; I believe that CheckUser showed I'm not in the same country as the socks. In any case even if admins think there may be grounds to suspect that I'm socking I am frankly f**king annoyed that it's being stated as a fact when in reality it is not true at all. Several user accounts now carry the words "Sock of FergusM1970," which clearly labels me as a sockpuppet creator. None of these accounts are socks of me, however. I am quite sure of this, because there ARE NO socks of me ANYWHERE on Wikipedia. I'm also compelled to point out that blocks are to be used to prevent disruption and not as a punishment. Now, if I can effortlessly change IP addresses and create socks that appear to be in a different country (I can't, but nobody seems to care about that,) what exactly is being accomplished by blocking me? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, meatpuppetry is a possibility, and is just as sanctionable. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Alien invasion and zombie apocalypse are also possibilities. So what? I have not created any sock puppets and there is no evidence to suggest that I have. If all it takes to get someone blocked is a couple of throwaway accounts that agree with them, this project is screwed. Can I please have my block reviewed by someone who's prepared to take an objective look at the evidence? If I can provide system logs etc that will assist in this investigation I will be happy to do so, because I can assure you that I have nothing to hide. However being blocked when I've done nothing wrong - and I'm honest enough to acknowledge that I'm not always innocent - is pretty f*cking irksome. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You have, of course, heard of Proxy servers and anonymizers? There are services such as that that give you an IP address in another location, country and continent - it's the easiest thing in the world (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it? Thanks. I'll keep that in mind in the very unlikely event that I ever create any sock puppets. In the meantime, however, can someone actually review the evidence behind this ridiculous block? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admins: I have posted exculpatory CU results to the SPI. Since I am otherwise unfamiliar with the details of the alleged abuse, I have chosen to leave the block review to another admin. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to investigate; it's much appreciated. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

"If the only edits they've made is to support your position or otherwise behave like you, then they're either sockpuppets or meatpuppets indistinguishable from their master"

Or, alternatively, they are socks created by somebody else who just happens to agree with me - as several people do, on this issue. What they are not is accounts that were created by, or in any way have anything to do with, me. Given that I did not create these accounts, and have no idea who did, I'm seriously pissed off that various people are stating as a fact that they are socks of me. I'm happy to put my hand up to anything I've done wrong, but I have never used sock puppets and it is gripping my shit to be accused, on no evidence whatsoever, of doing so. As there still isn't any actual evidence that I've been creating socks, and the only check that has been run showed me being in a different country from the alleged socks, can someone please review this ridiculous block now? Thank you. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Heidi Hazell

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 Heidi Hazell 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 a person or group of people, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that your 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. Mo ainm~Talk 00:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, what a surprise. I take it Hackney and Domer will be along shortly? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Troubles restrictions

Mo ainm~Talk 00:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Heidi Hazell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heidi Hazell 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/Heidi Hazell 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 template from the top of the article. Mo ainm~Talk 06:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion failed, then? --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Relation to Derwick Associates

You removed everything I added, even though everything I added was from reliable sources with an explanatino of the edit in the edit summary. Then you proceed to add a great deal of information with absolutely no sourcing whatsoever. In fact, you added material that has never even been published before (as far as I can tell) [8].

Every edit you made had the intention of obfuscating the truth and falsely portraying Derwick Associates as some sort of charitable organization.

You changed Derwick's registration history in multiple parts to say that the are no longer active in the United States. Once changing text to "although presently inactive there," and once adding, "The U.S. registration was closed down in 2012." You didn't bother to source this information, so where did you find it?

You added:

Neither Derwick nor Bariven have released any information regarding the contracts. The companies are bound by confidentiality agreements and Venezuelan laws that prohibit any of the companies from releasing information

And yet, none of this information is appears in any of the sources provided. Where, might I ask, did you find this information?

You also added the following:

Derwick has set up the Hermongenes Lopez Foundation to send funds to social and welfare projects. During 2012 and 2012 [sic] Derwick Associates helped to establish the Carmen Salles School in Ciudad Bolivar on behalf of Congregación de las Religiosas Concepcionistas de la Enseñanza. This project aimed to provide school facilities to around 1600 students in the city of Nazareth in Ciudad Bolivar. During 2012 the firm donated over 200 school kits for 200 children in Carallave, as part of a larger project designed to "significantly improve" the access to educational resources for those communities local to a Derwick engineering project.

You even went as far as to tag the above block quote as "Citation needed". Not only that, but you apparently pulled a direct quote ("Significantly improved") from somewhere. Might I ask where? Perhaps it is not my place to ask, but would you be so kind as to disclose any potential relationship you might have with Derwick Associates? Derwick has already had their lawyers edit this page[9], so, in a as polite a manner as I can, I would ask whether or not you have any relationship with Derwick Associates or anyone associated with Derwick Associates? Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No offence, but you seem to have become more than a little paranoid about Derwick and this is affecting both your attitude to the article and your behaviour towards other editors. I have no relation to Derwick whatsoever; I'm just trying to keep your blatantly hostile POV out of the article. As for my supposed sources of inside information, slow down and actually look at the references properly. For example in regard to the U.S. registration being terminated in 2012 if you look here you'll find that the last act of the Derwick subsidiary in the USA was to file for dissolution on 28 September last year. I have no idea why you are so hostile to Derwick; no doubt you have your reasons, but the place to air them is on your blog, not on Wikipedia. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when every reliable source in South America says that Derwick Associates is a corrupt agent of the Venezuelan government, I have to disagree. NPOV is one thing; whitewashing the activities of one of Chavez's money laundering operation is quite another.

You also failed to respond to anything I wrote. Please let me know where you found all of the information indicated above. The only place that I was able to find it was at the self-published website for Derwick Associates.[10]

Please tell me that you didn't remove all legitimate information from reliable sources in South America to then replace it with self-sourced material from their website. Although, that seems to be what you did.[11]

I don't see any option other than AN/I. Justiciero1811 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiciero1811 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ballymurphy Massacre

The very republican Gaurdian [12], amongst others use it. Also I would like to remind you of the restrictions on Troubles articles, which you have previously been made aware of. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. I have twice tried to communicate with you through your talk page, but you have deleted my comments without explanation both times. Fine. That's WP: Assume good faith out of the way, by the looks of it. So here we go, you twunt. The term "Ballymurphy Massacre" is used almost exclusively by Irish republicans, which of course is why the Grauniad put it in quotes except when referring to the pressure group that has publicised the term. As for reminding me about the 1RR restriction on articles about PIRA's murder campaign, oops, you broke that, not me. Better self-revert before I submit a complaint. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

Hello -- I'm curious about your recent edit of the above article. I agree with your removing the "also", actually (the AB typing of the shroud sample is certainly dubious, and has never been confirmed) -- but re: your statement, "blood has never been found on the shroud" -- in the blood stains subsection of the article it states (with pretty good sourcing) that "...it is almost certain that the blood spots are blood". Again, I'm not disputing your edit, I'm just curious about your source for that statement. Because if you're right, that whole subsection needs to be changed. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's more a case of substances found in blood (but not only there) also having been found on the cloth. The stains may' have been painted on with blood, or it may be paint. It just hasn't been thoroughly enough analysed at this point to say for sure. As far as I'm concerned the AB typing is a combination of crackpottery and urban myth.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough; I think most agree that it is, in fact, blood, but it could be sheep blood. No question the AB typing is dubious at best. In my mind the '88 radiocarbon dating rendered the whole blood question moot, but clearly there are those who disagree. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be a general concensus that it's blood, but it's less clear exactly what it's based on! There certainly are those who disagree with the dating and it's impossible to discuss anything with them. At this point, though, the age of the shroud is a done deal. If God Himself were to appear to me and say the shroud was genuine I'd tell him, "No, you're wrong; it's only 650 years old. The ¹⁴C results prove that." Sadly some people can't grasp that no matter what is found on a piece of Medieval cloth, it will never be anything other than Medieval.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Derwick Associates

It looks like you are in an edit war on this article. I also note that you are reverting edits and calling them vandalism when they are actually content disputes. You need to read WP:VANDAL and stop calling people vandals when it doesn't meet that criteria, and stop the battleground behavior. Additionally, whatever the "Alek" comments are, they are either insults or outing or whatever, it needs to stop. If you can't work here in a collaborative fashion, you will be blocked. Use the talk page of the article, if that doesn't work, take it to WP:DRN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ultimas Noticias

Please see my link on the Derwick Talk page.[13] I hope to continue discussing the information there and that you will cease reverting the article mainspace without further Talk discussion now that we have established the Ultimas Noticias articles RSs. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I've opened a request.[14] Justiciero1811 (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Institute of Cosmetic and Laser Surgery

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 Institute of Cosmetic and Laser Surgery 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 a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, 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. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, Julie Khanna, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Julie Khanna" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 19:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Julie Khanna for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Julie Khanna 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/Julie Khanna 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. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Sheetal Sapra for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sheetal Sapra 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/Sheetal Sapra 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. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West Midlands Chambers of Commerce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands (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) 10:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West Midlands Chambers of Commerce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands (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) 10:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of NAFOD

Hello FergusM1970,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged NAFOD for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

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. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NAFOD

Hello, FergusM1970. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, NAFOD, 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. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

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

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

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing well supported content

You appear to be removing lots of well supported content such as in this edit here among others [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It also appears that you are up to a good 5 reverts in the last 24 hours. And that you were warned about this behavior a couple of days ago for this article and were warned a few times previous in other articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of NAFOD for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NAFOD 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/NAFOD 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. Bilby (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Electronic cigarette

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

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

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sallie Severns

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 Sallie Severns 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 a person or group of people, 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. Weel (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Answer Underground

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 Answer Underground, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

3 reverts

You are at three reverts at e-cigs. Try the talk page and get consensus. Next revert may get you blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Original research?

Are you sure that wasn't WP:OR? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Continued warring on Electronic cigarette

Hello FergusM1970. You have recently returned to editing at Electronic cigarette very quickly after expiry of your edit warring block concerning that article. Please be aware that if this is taken to WP:AN3 it looks like you've already broken the 3RR rule. Admins are reluctant to fully protect an article when there is a specific person who seems to be at the center of the problem. Here are some recent undoings you made at the article on 14 November, not all of which may be countable as reverts:

Your recent removals of changes by other editors at Electronic cigarette
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
06:16, 14 November 2013 (edit summary: "/* Usage */ "traditional" is unnecessary and potentially misleading; e-cigs are not a new form of smoking.") 06:47, 14 November 2013 (edit summary: ""Traditional" is unnecessary and potentially misleading.") 07:35, 14 November 2013 (edit summary: "/* Addiction */ E-cig use is not a disease.") 07:37, 14 November 2013 (edit summary: "/* Addiction */ This doesn't make a lot of sense. It's not possible to get addicted to nicotine from e-cig use if you were already addicted from smoking.") 08:03, 14 November 2013 (edit summary: "/* Addiction */ The sources don't say that.") 19:57, 14 November 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 581630307 by Seppi333 (talk)No Seppi333, that is NOT what the references say!") 21:38, 14 November 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 581678196 by Lesion (talk)Exactly! The source states Moorthy is from BMA, so WHY DID YOU JUST DELETE THAT INFORMATION?") 23:17, 14 November 2013 (edit summary: "/* History */ Hon Lik's piezoelectric design does not resemble modern e-cigs. Its principles of operation were completely different.")

To avoid sanctions I'd recommend you take at least a 48 hour break from editing the article. If you think some wording needs to be fine-tuned don't revert to achieve that; use the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editing Hat

File:Fes.jpg

How to care for your new Wikipedia Editing Hat^TM:

• Avoid having any personal opinions when wearing hat
• Avoid any non neutral point of view thoughts when wearing hat
• Only use reliable secondary and tertiary sources when wearing hat
• Be distrustful of anyone not wearing a similar hat
• Handwash only, do not machine dry. Lesion (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess you were not wearing the editing hat when you left that message on my talk page... Lesion (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files

Some of your images may be unfree. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 15#OTRS pending since August. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh hi Stefan2, fancy meeting you here. Anyway I see you are busy deleting things so I shall not keep you. Lesion (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

WTF?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Another 4 reverts in the last 24 hours. [16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

One almost gets the feeling this is taking up a lot of your attention. Perhaps I wouldn't make so many reverts if you didn't make so many bullshit fucking deletions with misleading edit summaries.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

FergusM1970, you've been warned per the result of WP:AN3#User:FergusM1970 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Protection, warnings). EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files

Some of your files may be unfree. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 21#OTRS pending since September. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A personal question

Hi Fergus. I ordered my first e-cig to try just a couple of days ago and was wondering if you meant to say 2.4 mg (at e-cigs talk) or if there are really going up to 24 mg as you wrote.TMCk (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. That's a common thing to get confused about! The two measuring systems in use are % and mg per ml. 2.4% is equal to 24mg/ml, and I imagine that's what you have.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok and thanks. That's clearing up my mistake :) TMCk (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
(I moved your answer back here to keep it together ;) TMCk (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC))

I made the same mistake myself at first, and so did a lot of other people. Eventually a standard will emerge and everyone will stick to it. Unless the whole industry gets killed off by people like Doc James and CFCF, of course...--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've just sent you an e-mail asking for personal non-wiki advise.TMCk (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you are having problems similar

To what I have at [17] cough medicine. Is it a wide spread problem? IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be. The editor in question uses very narrow interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines (along with a generous dose of dishonesty) to push his own POVs on a range of articles.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems other people have had the same problem but they give up, do you know if there's something we can do? IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately he seems to have a lot of friends at Wikipedia. The only solution is to wait for him to step on his cock so spectacularly that no amount of blustering about the rules will save him. He does seem to be going downhill, so that might happen sooner rather than later.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

He reverted your change and is also being confusing on the talk page. He just keeps saying the same thing? IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

he always just keeps saying the same thing. Trying to have a discussion with him is like talking to a goat. It's a waste of time.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A note

Hey Fergus, felt I needed to drop a note asking you to please tone it down. I see you're very plain-spoken, which cuts down on unnecessary verbiage, so I'll comment in kind: You've been taking content disputes very personally and it's been boiling over into uncivil behavior. You've been very confrontational and dropping the f-bombs here at User Talk and there's been plenty at Talk:Electronic cigarette, plus other stuff like that elsewhere. In particular statements like this make it sound like Doc has an agenda to undermine the industry, and other comments like it, just don't help. The other editors at the article are your co-workers and some are very experienced and well-trained in evaluating and interpreting sources. It'll help the articles if you'd listen to them and focus on the content and not the editors. Not saying everybody else has been perfect, but that's the best strategy. On the other hand, continuing to be aggressive, insulting and combative may end up with WP:CIVIL-related complaints against you that might not end well. Just my advice, worth exactly what you paid for it... Zad68 05:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A late welcome, some pointers on medical debates

Hi Fergus! Quick background about me. I've been editing since 2007 and have been an administrator since early 2013. I smoked a half-pack a day for almost 10 years before I found electronic cigarettes. I use an Ego C-Twist with a Kanger tank and I get organic flavorings from Virgin Vapors. I frequent /r/electronic cigarettes on Reddit and follow the public lobbying efforts by big tobacco and pharmaceutical companies. I'm very interested in electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for smoking.

I appreciate your efforts not to condemn e-cig use where evidence does not support it. When I started editing, I spent 8 months arguing against a sentence on the Chiropractic article that I thought overstated the risks of spinal manipulation. I learned a lot during those months and I want to share a bit with you that I think will be helpful.

Here goes: Wikipedia is about summarizing the best evidence from the most reliable sources. We are not about what's good for society, or even what's true but has not yet been demonstrated. We conservatively reflect authoritative sources with an established reputation for fact-checking and advocacy. I learned this the hard way, that even when something may be beneficial and harmless, if there are reputable authors who have systematically reviewed the evidence in a respected peer-reviewed publication and found otherwise or inconclusive benefits, then we say that.

Now to the specifics: Nicotine is wildly addictive. One of the most addictive substances we know of. I know this both from the literature and from personal experience (the latter doesn't apply on Wikipedia, but it's my reality confirmed). I have read from multiple reliable sources that there are serious concerns that nicotine from electronic cigarettes will addict non-smokers who use ecigs as a gateway to smoking or as a novel drug-seeking experience. There's a lot we don't know about actual ecig use and long-term harms from ecig use, but we nonetheless respect expert opinions on this and conservatively reflect the best studies that have been done. There will be a lot more evidence over the coming years, and I personally hope that it demonstrates ecigs are far better for public health than cigarettes, even when studies can measure uptake by youth who don't smoke or wouldn't have smoked. But in the meantime, we have to follow the majority of the evidence from the best sources, which clearly raise concerns about ecig use among young non-smokers, about nicotine's addictive potential from ecig use, from speculations about second-hand nicotine from vapor, and from long-term risks to inhaling vaporized ejuice.

The way we balance differeces of results and findings in reliable sources is by following the WP:WEIGHT section of the WP:NPOV policy. You should read that closely. When reliable sources disagree, we summarize that debate in proportion to the amount of coverage from the respective sources. We do not 'take a side', but we do give more focus and attention to the more prominent and more authoritative coverage. Sometimes the 'mainstream' turns out to be wrong, sometimes a minority view is proven right over time--and we always struggle to determine which views are majority and which are minority, and how to balance them in an article. This is a hard task, and I urge you to approach it with patience and deliberate clarity, working in concert with other editors to create a "map" to the territory of the existing reliable sources. In doing so, follow the hierarchy of arguments to keep the debate focused on content rather than contributor or tone:

You really need to read WP:MEDRS, our medical reliable sources guideline. You also really need to listen clearly and closely to the editors who have worked on controversial subjects for years. Your opinion is valued here, insofar as you respect sources. I really want to enourage you to not view this article as a battleground, and instead engage in a responsible review of the evidence, without instinct or agenda to have the article reflect any personal opinions you have. That's really hard, but it's what we are tasked with doing here. I also request that you speak to other editors with a professional but vigorous level of mutual respect. We are all working on crafting a great public good, a reliable and comprehensive encyclopedia, and an up-to-date tertiary resource. Remember that, we are all working together towards the same goal.

Lastly, please do not think that there is some anti-ecig agenda here. We have a horde of talented medical editors who care not about anything expect for demonstrated efficacy, comprehensive research, public health data, and established side-effects. We just follow what the state of authoritative evidence shows. Over time, it may well be demonstrated that ecigs are far better than cigarettes and entirely harmless on the whole. Until we have that conclusive evidence, we do reflect the mainstream consensus on these issues, and we wait patiently and diligently for new research to weigh in.

I hope you find this helpful and it keeps you on top of the debate, the serious discussion, and the crushing task of keeping your own opinions out of the debate. From one vaper to another, cheers. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the advice. I do appreciate the need for reliable sources, but my perception is that this isn't entirely the issue here. Insofar as there are sources they are cautiously optimistic. However that certainly doesn't come across in the article, which is largely a litany of dire predictions. You're right that several groups have expressed concerns that e-cigs could lead to smoking - the so-called "gateway effect," but there isn't any evidence to back this up. No matter who it comes from, I do not regard a statement of concern as a secondary source. In fact the study the CDC based their gateway claims on showed that as e-cig use among students rises cigarette smoking is trending rather sharply down. They didn't mention this at the time they expressed their concerns and only released that data (quietly) several weeks later. My issue with a couple of the other editors on there (one of whom has openly expressed hostility to e-cigs, and persists in claiming that they contain tobacco and produce smoke) is that they insist on elevating unsupported claims to the status of authoritative sources, which they are not. As for the addictiveness of nicotine, that's actually not so clear cut. There are no studies into the addictiveness of pure nicotine in humans, and in animal studies (including dogs, which react similarly to humans) it's only weakly addictive. Another study found that non-smokers who used high dosage patches for six months didn't become dependent or suffer withdrawal symptoms, and none continued using nicotine after the study. Smoking is wildly addictive, but pure nicotine? We just don't know, and there really isn't any evidence that it's as addictive as is widely stated. The toxicity of nicotine has recently been challenged; it turns out that the very low LD50 figures that are currently accepted all go back to one thoroughly unscientific experiment conducted 150 years ago, and every source since then has simply quoted other sources. Where is the actual data on its addictiveness when not delivered in tobacco smoke? In this, as in the other contentious issues, concerns are not data. I fully agree that we should go with the best available evidence; where I disagree with some people is in what counts as evidence. "I'm worried about this," in my opinion, does not. Nor does the precautionary principle.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

When a top medical authority says, "we're worried about this", we reflect that in the article. It kills me that many doctors and public health officials are so skeptical about ecigs, but they are. That's the reality. Wikipedia is 'last to the party', and we don't follow any precautionary principle--but if the reliable sources are doing so, then we reflect them. That's the frustrating but proper way we work.

As for your new nemesis, let me just nip this one in the bud. Jmh649 (Doc James) is a close friend of mine, and someone I work with regularly through meta:WPMED. He can be maddeningly stubborn in following the evidence, but he is as informed about medical research as anyone I've ever met in my life. If he tells you something, please give it some thought, because I've rarely found him to be wrong. Maddeningly stubborn but right, is still right ;) If you find him difficult to work with, please seek a third opinion from Zad68, who is as diligent as James but may have a more approachable style for you to work with. We really are working together on this, and you need to join rather than battle. Together we can discuss the evidence, but it's essential that we do so while treating each other decently and keeping some emotional and mental distance from the content so that we can weigh it properly. Doc James is not the enemy, he's poured thousands of hours into Wikipedia because he cares so deeply about reflecting medical research. I have poured thousands of hours into Wikipedia because I care that our community can function with clarity and respect. Zad has poured thousands of hours into Wikipedia because he loves to treat even the most controversial subjects with calm and perspective. You are a part of this, and to do your part, to be heard, you need to view us as allies in a discussion about evidence rather than opponents in an agenda. Change your approach, and you'll get better results. I really hope you hear me--that there is a better discussion to be had and you are invited to share in it. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with the article saying that major organisations are worried; I've never suggested that this information should be removed. My point is that it should be reported as what it is - concerns - and not as evidence.

My issue with Doc James isn't his stubbornness; it's his occasional dishonesty in edit comments (not confined to this article, I believe), his refusal to engage where he doesn't have an argument to back him up and his reliance on a few stock phrases during any attempt at discussion. A typical conversation goes like this:

Me: Why did you delete my edit? Your edit summary was misleading.

DJ: We do not use primary sources to rebut secondary sources.

Me: But your edit comment said "Cited source does not mention whales." I wasn't talking about whales. I was talking about e-cigs.

DJ: We do not use primary sources to rebut secondary sources.

Me: That has nothing to do with it. You deleted my edit because the source didn't say something that I wasn't saying either!

DJ: We do not use primary sources to rebut secondary sources.

Me: OK, we'll come back to that. In the meantime are you going to tell me why you deleted my edit?

DJ: We do not use primary sources to rebut secondary sources.

Me: Ohh FFS. Just answer the question would you?

DJ: We do not use primary sources to rebut secondary sources.

Me: You are an ass hat.

DJ: Maybe we should do an RfC and get some more opinions on that.

Me: Slams head on desk, opens bottle of rum, gets shitfaced in despair.

It's very frustrating trying to discuss things when these tactics are being used.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll also note that although he may be very well informed about medical research he knows jack shit about e-cigs. I know that in general this isn't an obstacle to making good edits, and is often even a good thing, but here it's getting in the way of his ability to interpret the evidence. The most obvious example is his apparent belief that if e-cigs with nicotine don't perform better than 0mg e-cigs this means they're not effective. He didn't even know that 0mg e-cigs are available!--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's frustrating. Controversial subjects often lead us to act like WP:Dicks. It's hard. But your dispute with Doc James is really a distraction from the discussion, the sources, and the policies we follow. Perhaps James' edit comment wasn't perfect. Ok, let's move on to the content. We actually don't use primary sources to rebut secondary sources. That's clear from WP:Primary, WP:PSTS, and WP:MEDRS. You also called him an ass hat, which was clearly you being frustrated and perhaps sarcastic, but makes you look equally unprofessional and careless. You're frustrated with James, so find another editor you can talk with. But meanwhile, do not engage in more edits and edit-warring until you can reach consensus on the talk page. That's how it works here, and it takes time. Do not get off track by making this about your dispute with another person. We are here to create an encyclopedia, and it often takes a mix of people to get there. You and James need to bring in some more voices, because what's happening now is not working. So do that. You have to engage in our process if you want to get good results. Bring a good source. Put the source in the context of other good sources. Summarize it neutrally. Repeat. It's the only way we get to where we want to go. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you've just touched on the key to the whole problem. We have various people saying "Well, we're worried that young people could use these then, for some inexplicable reason, decide to switch to something else that's less enjoyable, ten times the price and will as likely as not kill them." Great. If the originator is significant enough have that in the article. However it is not a secondary source. When it comes to the actual issue of e-cigs acting as a gateway, rather than what people are saying about the issue, we have the evidence and it's not happening. A couple of editors including myself added the ASH study from the UK which shows that use of e-cigs among never smokers is essentially zero. Doc James and others arbitrarily decided that ASH - which was founded by the Royal College of Physicians and acts as a consultant to the Department of Health - isn't a reliable source. We then found the CDC's own figures which completely contradict the gateway hypothesis. At that point, according to Doc James and CFCF, the CDC developed a split personality; they're a secondary source when expressing concerns about a gateway effect, but only a primary source when releasing figures disproving it, even when both pieces of information come from the same document. Now, how is it possible to build a consensus when distortions like that are happening?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

, That's a fair question, and just the kind of discussion you want to raise on the article's talk page--calmly and clearly. "I don't understand the way we're treating the primary and secondary source issue. Can you explain to me why you're handling it like that? Why isn't the ASH source considered reliable? Are the CDC's figures conclusive or am I engaging in original research by citing them without their statement? Why is that source secondary in one context but primary in another?" These are great questions, that I can't answer but are good to ask. Ask questions. Genuinely seek to understand before you argue. Don't ask James these questions, pose them generally to the talk page and let someone reply. If you don't like James' answer, keep seeking an answer from other editors. If someone points you to a policy, read it. If you still don't understand, seek an uninvolved third opinion, or dispute resolution. Drop by Wiki Project Medicine's talk page to ask questions. Use the reliable sources noticeboard for clarification on specific sources. There are next steps to advance this discussion, and you can take them to move it forward. Also take a step back--you clearly support ecig usage and it's challenging to write neutrally when you have a personal stake in an outcome. I generally avoid subjects I care deeply about precisely for that reason. Ask as many questions of yourself as you do of others. "Am I being neutral? Am I making a 'point' rather than just summarizing? Am I selecting and interpreting sources that advance my perspective?" Lots of questions, time to ask them, worth asking. Good luck :) Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but these questions have already been raised - by several people - and every time they're either ignored or answered with a stock phrase. I've read all the policies that have been brought up, and taken them into account. For example WP:MEDRS says that position statements by major organisations are notable but less authoritative than the underlying research. Now, to me it seems clear that when that policy is applied CDC's concerns about a gateway effect are less authoritative than CDC's figures showing no gateway effect. However Doc James refuses to even discuss that; any attempt to do so is met with "We do not use primary sources to rebut secondary sources." Well yes, sure, but that's not what we're trying to do. The biggest contention at the moment is any mention of studies that show a benefit to e-cigs for smoking cessation. It's verboten to mention these studies because a "secondary source" from the WHO says there aren't any. This is patently ridiculous (and a violation of WP:MEDRS). "We can't mention the sources because someone says there aren't any." That's not a rigorous approach to evidence; it's just wikilawyering.

Yes, I support e-cig use. I wouldn't dream of trying to put anecdotal evidence in an article, but anyone who denies that e-cigs work for smoking cessation is a fool. However the position I'm taking here is that yes we should mention concerns expressed by organisations, but no we shouldn't use them as a justification to suppress the research that's actually been done. My impression is that Doc James doesn't like e-cigs, just as he doesn't like cough medicine. As for CFCF he's made it quite clear that he thinks e-cigs are equivalent to tobacco use. I, on the other hand, have no objection at all to evidence about negative health effects or addiction potential being added to the article - just as soon as some exists. Right now it doesn't, yet the Health section is still extremely negative.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well now you're doing much better and focusing on actionable questions. You have to note that we give a lot of deference to systematic reviews and to major guideline or policy statements. Often primary research comes out that has not yet been incorporated into the latest systematic review or statement, and in those situations we have to very carefully approach putting that information in context, if at all. We do defer to the most recent major reviews and statements. This issue is evolving, Fergus, and it's quite possible that the medical establishment is still catching up to the latest numbers. We still don't rush to get ahead of them. The CDC's research is one data point, and it needs to be weighed. I would encourage you to follow best process with these specific steps: If you have a question about medical evidence, post it to WT:MED. Do this, you will get answers, and not just from one person you are debating. If you have a source question, post at reliable sources noticeboard. Do this, you will get a variety of opinions about what is reliable in a specific context. If you are having trouble with James, request a third opinion or dispute resolution. Do this, so that you can better hold a true discussion on the merits of content. If you cannot come to consensus on the talk page as is, start an WP:RfC. Do this, so that you can get a broader audience to weigh in. Do those 4 things, patiently, for the next month, and I will check in to see how it's going. You're making a clear argument and I respect that. Keep working towards consensus and finding editors who you can learn from. Best, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The trouble is, who does the weighing? Doc James seems to have appointed himself as the arbiter of what's a reliable source and that, frankly, is an insurmountable obstacle to progress. The CDC's research is one data point - and it shows no gateway effect. ASH's research is another data point, and again it shows no gateway effect. I know that an n of 2 isn't ideal, but how many studies are there that do show a gateway effect? Well, that would be none. There hasn't even been any attempt by anyone to argue why there would be one, and I have to say it's an extremely counter-intuitive suggestion. In fact it's already been tested with Swedish snus, and failed spectacularly. However as far as this article goes it has been decreed that statements of concern about the issue carry more weight than all the evidence.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sallie Severns (November 27)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sallie Severns.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! John from Idegon (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! FergusM1970, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sallie Severns (November 28)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sallie Severns.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! John from Idegon (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Gailen David Portrait Image01.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gailen David Portrait Image01.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Answer Underground was accepted

Answer Underground, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

FairyTailRocks (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP violations and edit-warring: please stop

Please stop edit-warring at Stanton Glantz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The material you're repeatedly re-inserting violates WP:BLP, as it makes contentious claims about a living person based solely on a blog. Policy is not at all ambiguous about this: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." You are also at risk of violating the three-revert rule, which is bad enough, but to make matters worse you are edit-warring to restore material which violates WP:BLP. If you continue, I will block your account from editing or refer the matter to other admins for review. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Given your ongoing abusive talkpage commentary and BLP violations, I've referred the matter to WP:AN/I, where you are free to comment if you choose. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Halevy (2) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Halevy (2), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP

The biographies of living persons policies applies across the entire encyclopedia. Review specifically WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPTALK and WP:BLPFIGHT.

Further, your edit was a violation of our talk page guidelines. Please review WP:TALKNO, specifically Wikipedia:NOTFORUM.

I have been watching your behavior on the Stanton Glantz page since you wrote "Stan the Glans." It has been consistently disruptive and not in the spirit of creating an encyclopedia, rather furthering your dislike for this individual. You have been warned for this numerous times by administrator MastCell. Allow me to strengthen his warnings - I will not hesitate to escalate if your conduct touches the line regarding this living individual just one more time. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. I'll just note that I've done more to actually improve the article on Stan than all his defenders bothered to do. Who actually added his academic qualifications, which had been mysteriously lacking? Me. Who cleared out the fluff that turned the Research section into a travesty? Me. The article is now more accurate and contains more information. [BLP violation redacted].--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Drmies (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• As you are warned about a BLP violation you commit another one. Hence this block. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Halevy (2)

Hello FergusM1970. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Jeff Halevy (2)".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeff Halevy (2)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for a week. You really need to step away from the articles you're working on now. First it's Stanton Glantz, now apparently you have moved on to Electronic cigarette. At both pages, your editing has been repeatedly tendentious. I might not have blocked you for your edits on the latter page if you didn't have a history with this topic, but you have not listened to warnings from a number of other long-term editors and administrators. You really need to step back and stop taking such a confrontational approach with your editing. (To appeal this block, see WP:GAB) NW (Talk) 17:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

eCigarette

This looks like one of those rare cases where I'd support the addition of the results of an as yet unreviewed study. A lot of new eyes are focussing on the case now, and you could save me and the others collectively a massive amount of time if you were to summarise your argument in support of your proposed edits with diffs and links to the relevant article sections and links to the sources you're referring to. (If you've already done that, would you mind linking me to it?) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Your recent editing history 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I am biting my tongue here.

It is very hard to build consensus when certain editors, and I am not going to name them here, refuse to engage in productive discussions and simply repeat statements that have already been debunked.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing secondary sources

Why did you remove this recent secondary source [18] rather than not move it to the section on smoking cessation? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Because it doesn't say anything useful about smoking cessation either. Sure, some e-cig users aren't using them as a cessation device. That's irrelevant, because it's already well documented that many are.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked again (April 2014)

I'm blocking you again, this time for a month. Because apparently nothing has changed since the last time. NW (Talk) 00:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? I am trying to improve the article through all that good WP stuff like discussing on talk pages and seeking a consensus. Go look; I'm engaging with other editors and all the things I'm meant to do. This is a travesty.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Here you have reverted twice [19], [20] restoring content supported by a ppt without consensus.
• Here you reverted again [21] and here you reverted the addition of recent review articles [22]. This all within around 24 hours. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

And what about you deleting the STS data without consensus, continuing to complain about file formats long after being told it's irrelevant and mischaracterizing sources to support your own POV? Go away. I'm sick of you.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly as you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do wish. You're determined to exclude all actual research from that article and keep it stuffed with unfounded statements of "concern." It's one of the most blatant examples of POV pushing I've ever seen, backed up by a misunderstanding of WP rules that's either deliberate or cretinous. You're exactly the sort of wikilawyering nonentity that will destroy this project.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, numerous separate admins and editors all misunderstand the policies of Wikipedia and wish to exclude all actual research from the article. Stop and please apply some logic! Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 01:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Then how come every attempt to add links to research gets reverted, while a ridiculously biased FAQ is elevated to the status of unchallengeable gospel?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You've stepped far enough over the line that a block just for WP:NPA would have been easily upheld, even pushing aside everything else. Your talk page access is still enabled now, but that does not have to continue to be the case. NW (Talk) 12:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well, that's me told then.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:24, 21 April 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).

FergusM1970 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't believe there was anything wrong with my editing. I have been actively engaged in talk page discussions and have proposed compromises, in the face of stonewalling from other editors. If I was a snivelly sort of person I'd be feeling quite persecuted now. As I'm not I'm rather irked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

FergusM1970 please take a step back, both NuclearWarfare and Doc James have outlined what got you blocked - tendentious editing. Also this did not come out of the blue, Mastcell and Hipocrite both separately warned you earlier this year about your edits in topics related to smoking.
Furthermore, your response to this block is quite tendentious in and of itself and shows absolutely no clue as to what behavioural change is required for you to be unblocked & return to productive editing. I'm strongly advising you to heed the multiple warnings here FergusM1970 and de-escalate your behaviour before it leads to tougher sanctions--Cailil ^talk 23:52, 21 April 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.

Except I haven't made any edits on topics related to smoking so I fail to see how I could have been warned about them, and it's a waste of time trying to discuss anything with Doc James unless you like being droned at. Oh well.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• Indefed. Same rationale, again. NW (Talk) 15:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are free to think that. You know the avenues of appeal. If an another admin feels like unblocking, I ask that they at least consider talking to me or someone else who has rejected your unblock before first, but I'll leave the call up to them. NW (Talk) 15:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I do think that. None of my edits were even remotely tendentious.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:35, 22 May 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).

FergusM1970 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have done nothing wrong here apart from make edits that a couple of people don't agree with (but several others do). I haven't been edit-warring. I haven't been rude to anyone, which I admit I've done in the past. An indefinite block is simply absurd. This looks very much like a knee-jerk reblock. FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Just looking at what you've said on this talk page and the diffs which are included that you have engaged in a number of behaviours which are unacceptable on Wikipedia, including incivility, edit warring, and tendentious editing by continuing to push your argument after it has been decided and hence disrupting Wikipedia.

Regarding the edit warring, you have been blocked numerous time for edit warring and there is absolutely no reason you should be given any more leeway regarding this, likewise with the other issues which have been raised. However in the interest of trying to get you involved in the project again because I do see some positive editing I would need the following before I might consider discussing an unblock with the other admins involved.

• Explain what edit warring, the three revert rule and WP:BRD mean for editing, including linking to a time you have edit warred and should have applied WP:BRD instead.
• Explain the civility policy and WP:NPA, including linking to a time you have recently used personal attacks or incivility.
• Explain how you will recognise that a discussion, which didn't end in a way you would have preferred, has ended and so you have now moved on.

At a minimum I would also need you to agree to the following:

• A blanket WP:1RR on all pages everywhere on Wikipedia.
• A topic ban from smoking and tobacco, including the government regulation and health effects of as well as the alternatives to tobacco smoking (including nicotine replacement therapy and edits relating to this) in all namespaces.
• If you are blocked for any reason the block will be indefinite and you acknowledge that you are very unlikely to be unblocked again without appealing to the Community or the Arbitration Committee.

These are questions I have come up with by reviewing the history only, remembering that I'm not familiar with the full situation, and if the other admins involved here can suggest. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:11, 22 May 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.

I'm not asking for any leeway. I'm saying I wasn't edit-warring and that this block has no justification whatsoever. I fully accept your points about some of my past behavior, but I don't agree that just because I've edit-warred etc. in the past it's OK to block me now for no reason.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

FergusM1970, forgive me for diving in here. Can I suggest you read carefully what Callanecc has suggested as it might be the best offer you can get. Alternatively you may wish to give some more information here about the background for your blocks. This may allow others to be able to give consideration to unblocking you. It may also allow you some thinking time. It's rare that many admins are wrong about something, and its hard to see one's own faults. Is it possible there is a pattern in what you are doing that you do not see is unacceptable? Please feel free to ignore my unsolicited advice but I know you are keen to contribute here. --John (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. I do appreciate Callanecc's offer, but I honestly don't see what this block is for. I haven't edit-warred; all I did was remove one POV statement once and revert some vandalism. As can be seen from the article talk page I've taken an active part in discussions, unlike some. The main issue from my point of view is that some editors are gold-plating WP rules to exclude most of the available evidence - recent reasons for reverting edits include "source is not MEDLINE indexed," which isn't a requirement anywhere. I'm aware that I'm a less than exemplary editor on occasions and don't mind being sanctioned when I've done something wrong, but in this case nobody has even tried to explain the block reasons beyond "Oh look, he's editing again."--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You weren't blocked just for edit warring (which you did with 60.224.213.49) you were blocked for a continuing pattern of tendatious editing that is understanding the reason that others are disagreeing with you. This edit was not removing non-neutral material and it's edits like this for which you were blocked, not understanding what is and what is not non-neutral POV and given your history regarding the article and topic not playing it safe and discussing it on the talk page, trying to build consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism by an IP user is not edit-warring and, if I understand correctly, is not covered by 3RR. I've been discussing extensively on the talk page and none of my edits since my last block expired violate BRD. The edit you refer to was, in my opinion and that of other editors, POV; by using terms like "evade smoke-free laws" it casts vapers in a negative light, whereas in fact they're "evading" smoke-free laws by not smoking.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure this was vandalism though? --John (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In a word, yes. The IP user's edit comment was "Removed the worst possible source the history of academia has ever seen and the associated propaganda". The source he was referring to was the Smoking Toolkit Study, a large-scale longitudinal project to measure smoking behavior in England that's been surveying 1,800 people a month for several years, is financed by groups that include Cancer Research UK and the NHS and is conducted by a professor at a major London university.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. In fact it was more like disruptive editing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think the IP intended to damage Wikipedia, they likely either just didn't understand or they were pushing their own POV (which there is not an edit warring exemption from). Regarding the text you removed, rather than just remove the entire bit can you think of a better way of dealing with it given from what you said above your problem with it was the wording (see WP:WEASEL or example). Also you stated that other editors also believed that it had a non-neutral POV, why do you say that?

There have been multiple criticisms of the source in question, such as here, here, here and here. Clearly there is no consensus that this paper is a suitable source, with the common concern being that it's heavily biased towards an anti-harm reduction POV (which we know, in fact, that Professor Glantz does hold). As for an alternative wording I would change it from "other common explanations for the use of these products are to evade smoke-free laws and to cut back on traditional cigarettes, which may reinforce delaying or deterring to quit smoking." to "another reason for using these products is to reduce consumption of tobacco". I think that covers the worthwhile information; that e-cig use "delays or deters" quit attempts is simply Glantz's widely broadcast opinion and doesn't match up with any of the actual evidence (in every population studied, as e-cig use goes up so do both total and successful quit attempts) and the bit about "evading smoke-free laws" is simply POV-pushing.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion suggests that what lies behind a lot of the intractable issues here is that Doc James is applying MEDRS as he would like it to be, not as it actually is.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• FergusM1970, I have spoken to NW and read the history briefly. I understand what the problem seems to be. I noticed my friend User:Drmies had spoken to you at AN/I and I recommend you take his advice and that of User:Callanecc in your last unblock decline. I'll give you some numbers; I'd say a 3-month 1RR on all namespaces and a 6-month topic ban from tobacco broadly construed (ie to include talk pages and central discussions) would convince me to unblock you immediately. It's clear that your interest in the area in dispute has become an unhelpful one (and I say this without taking an opinion on the merits of what you are arguing!) Don't take it as a punishment, take it as an opportunity. Use the time to think about how some of your editing behaviour can be difficult for others, and (if you wish) come back again after 23 November 2014 and you can come back to it refreshed. What do you say? --John (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh OK, I agree. In the interests of peace and harmony I'll even voluntarily self-extend the 6-month topic ban from tobacco to cover e-cigarettes as well. However I would ask that someone with a suitable degree of detachment take a serious look at why that article is so far from what scientists and public health experts are actually saying, and why it's so dominated by old position statements.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• • John, you know I'm all for second and third changes. As for tobacco--that includes e-smokes, right? Drmies (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

As they don't contain tobacco then clearly no, it doesn't, but I'm willing to make that concession.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • Thank you both for correcting my oversight. Yes, of course I meant to include that. Thanks for accepting and I have now unblocked your account on that basis. In respect of your restrictions, please don't be tempted to skirt the boundaries of 1RR or tobacco/ecigarettes. If you're in doubt, don't go there. I am widely known as a lenient admin and I wouldn't want anybody thinking that meant gullible. When I am eating olieballen and stroopwafels and sipping a glass of schnapps round at Drmies' house on New Year's, I don't want him to be looking at me with pity as "the guy who unblocked FergusM1970". I hate it when he gives me that look. Not to mention User:NuclearWarfare. Seriously, please don't make me look daft in front of my peers by getting blocked again. Best wishes, and good luck! --John (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that and I'll do my best to be a good boy from now on. There are plenty of other things I can edit.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. A user has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FergusM1970, where the user who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. HiJiGN€ ^{Tell me} 11:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm preserving this for posterity; it was dismissed as "malicious" and "bullshit" and the user who submitted it has himself been labeled as a sockpuppet. It's nice to see that Wikipedia's systems can come up with a decent result. Thanks to everyone who was involved in this.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Request

I think it was ok to bring QuackGuru's conduct to my attention at my talk page, but I'd rather you didn't make any more posts like this one. I wouldn't like to get into Wikilawyering territory by pointing out the connection with your restriction; I am just politely asking you not to get involved. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, no problem! I won't do it again. Thanks for the heads up.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I actually considered going back and deleting it before you mentioned it, but Doc James is as much part of the problem as QG is, so I decided to let it stand.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This opinion seems to be shared by an increasing amount of editors. With respect to QG, I found that there are concerns of a COI [23], and there is another COI issue raised here [24]. We see how this is going nowehere fast [25]. For speaking out, I believe this [26] was initiated and we can see how it's just devolved completely. I wanted to give you a heads up about the bigger picture and context that is playing out, and it is not confined to one article.... Neuraxis (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland

Moving the page while discussion is on going is disruptive, and whether its a direct breach of the Troubles restrictions of 1rr directly it is a breach of the spirit of it. I see from above since your block for Troubles breaches you have been towing a fine line of disruptive edits. Murry1975 (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Troubles in Strabane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IED (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, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:John S Marr.png

Thanks for uploading File:John S Marr.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John S. Marr, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages OSS and National Geographic. 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) 09:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

6-month topic ban regarding e-cigs ended 12 days ago; removing well-sourced content

Hi Fergus, I noticed that your 6-month topic ban from e-cigs ended 12 days ago, and you are returning to the topic area with this edit, which removes well-sourced content from the article. Please tread carefully on your return to this topic area. Thanks... Zad68 19:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The word "some" failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't be so silly. Some liquids may have those drugs added, but you're deliberately slanting the wording to make this look widespread. It is not.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please provide verification from the source where the review said it was "some". I rewrote the text here. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Now you want to delete it rather than improve the text. QuackGuru (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Your edit was awful. It wasn't "with different types of devices" at all; it was ONE brand of cartridge that fitted ONE brand of cigalike. Stop this now.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes QG, I want to delete it because it's misleading and a massive WP:WEIGHT issue. What's your source for "various brands"?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"With notable differences among different brands and types,..."[27] Did you read the PDF file when you changed it to "some"? We can work together to tweak the text as long as the changes are sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No. I want it out the article. It's POV-pushing. 99.9% of e-liquids don't contain these drugs. You're just digging up as much scary stuff as you can.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There are different types of e-cigs according to the review. We are not talking about an e-cig someone could be anywhere. QuackGuru (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I know there are different types of e-cig. I have about nine right here. None of them contains any erectile dysfunction drugs. Nor does any other I have ever seen. This is vanishingly rare, but you are trying to word the article to make it look widespread.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There are e-cigs used as medical devices that contain drugs. QuackGuru (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't believe you.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

According to a recent review they are regulated as a medical device. QuackGuru (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

For the treatment of...? You're being deliberately obtuse. Stop wikilawyering and try to build a FACTUAL article for a change.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I provided text from the source. I don't think the review is being vague. QuackGuru (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You are gaming the rules. You know perfectly well that e-cigs are not a licensed medicine anywhere. Being controlled under pharma rules is not the same as being used medicinally. Stop this.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Dont let QG drag you into a content discussion on your talk page where no one will see it. His saying that they are regulated as medical devices is another WEIGHT issue. In a few countries they are, but not overall. By the way, welcome back. Everyone deserves a fresh start, just learn from the mistakes of the past. AlbinoFerret 03:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Joking

I think the line you added to the photo section was funny. A diff of that funny sarcastic line might be used against you out of context by someone who dosent get it. You may want to make it painfully clear its a joke.AlbinoFerret 16:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Katz jerome.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Katz jerome.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to electronic cigarettes

I've deleted your userpage under criterion G7, since the creator blanked it quickly after creating it. If you want a blank userpage, let me know and I'll happily undelete, or file a WP:REFUND request (with a link to this comment) if I'm not online. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Request

I know I'm asking a lot here, but would appreciate it if you will consider striking or editing your most recent remarks at E cig. We have hit the wall many times before attempting to reach compromises, and I think it is important that we avoid discussion of particular edits or "gripes" until we can gain general agreement for the broader issues. Its very very hard to get agreement on anything on this article, and so if we could take it a step at a time that would be really helpful in my opinion. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! Let's cross our fingers and hope this doesn't get bogged down like previous efforts. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be nice. I do understand the importance of using reliable sources and sticking to NPOV, but the article is hopelessly slanted. Yes, there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered, but the impression given by the article at the moment is frankly terrifying.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello kettle, this is pot. Confirm colour, over.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Drugs

WOW! I'm speechless, how can one argue with someone like that? TheNorlo (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't meet one of those every day, do you? I'm gonna print that out and frame it, so on days when I feel stupid I can look at it and feel better.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

His argument goes a little bit like this TheNorlo (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

His argument is making my brain hurt.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Now, I am not as familiar with all of Wikipedia's policy and all that jazz like some of you experienced guys. But how do we usually deal with trolls? His disruptive attitude looks almost (not quite) but almost like trolling. Just showing up and repeating the same things over and over again it really doesnt help anything. TheNorlo (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

AN/I. Actually just repeating the same thing over and over again is something Doc's quite well known for. I think he does it to make people lose their temper and get banned.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Intro

In an effort to chop down the intro to something that is actually readable, please see, comment or edit this.TheNorlo (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Explanation please. What do you mean by "Oh dear, looks like VMS will be keeping us company."? QuackGuru (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears the part "VMS will be keeping us company" suggests there will be meat puppetry editors coming to Wikipedia. Am I mistake? QuackGuru (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

According to this edit and this edit you outed yourself as you. I think there are WP:COI concerns with your editing. According to you "Veteran, vaper, writer and paid e-cigarette industry shill."[28] Are you currently being paid by the e-cigarette industry? Does this have to do with writing on Wikipedia? Thanks in advance for answering these questions. QuackGuru (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There have already been meat puppetry editors coming to Wikipedia. Fergus has done well recruiting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your thanks may have been premature.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record

People who openly refer to themselves as "Paid industry shills" tend not to be. If I really was an undercover operative for Big Vape the chances of me admitting as much on my Twitter profile are quite small. If anyone else asks me if I really am a paid industry shill I cannot guarantee a helpful response.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Also for the record, there are many things I could potentially out myself as. I'm already out as an atheist, but what other secrets am I hiding? Perhaps I'm gay. Perhaps I've been secretly collecting My Little Pony accessories for a decade. Perhaps I'm even the internally conflicted child of deep-cover KGB agents sent to infiltrate the West at the height of the Cold War. You'll never know unless I out myself. But outing myself as me should not, frankly, be seen as of any great significance. Apparently, for some, it is. I'm mildly curious as to why.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It allows those details to be used on Wikipedia as evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of what?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence to try and win content disputes by removing editors who disagree with you. Its must appear easier than working with people. AlbinoFerret 14:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Terms of Use

The Wikipedia Terms of Use state:

You must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

Your talk page statement discloses the articles that you received compensation. Who were the employer, client, and affiliation with respect to those contributions? Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus. Half the time I don't know. I don't have an employer. Is "Elance" an acceptable answer where I don't have a name for the client? And what do you need for "Affiliation"?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are working for yourself, your employer is "self." The client is the person that paid you. The affiliation is the affiliation between the client and the subject ("I was paid by Ralph and Wagner, PR Agency for the subject.") Hipocrite (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do. Sadly I belong to the "leave it on the floor and the cat will get rid of it" school of business paperwork but I should have most of it on Elance.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, reviewing Elance's agreements, you were not paid by Elance - per [29], "Elance and Affiliates merely provide a platform for Internet payment services to Client." Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It's OK, I found pretty much everything. Is that OK? The one marked "private client" I don't know his/her name, but in any case they just asked me to clean the articles up a bit while researching from them.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't care as long as said private client had no affiliation with the subject, but it should be noted that this is, in fact, a violation of the Terms of Use. Given that this is an individual who paid you money, you should be able to identify them. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I can identify them by Elance user name but I'd much rather not. They definitely have no affiliation with the subjects though, on account of the subjects are all dead. One of them died in 1892. Another was shot down near Kursk in 1943. I doubt if any of them much care what their articles say.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)