_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I wanted to point out that there is a JAG episode that parallels the Frank Olson case. It is from Season 10 Episode 9; "The Man on the Bridge." It follows the investigation into the disappearance of a Navy scientist,(bioweapons defense lab) Commander Adam Kohler, who was investigating his father's research (while at Fort Detrick in the 1970's) and disappearance. His father was assumed to have jumped out of a high hotel window. Commander Kohler has a copy of CIA manuals about assassination referencing drugging a person and throwing them out a window. Commander Kohler ends up finding out that his father was killed by another scientist who he had discovered was giving intelligence to the KGB.

I was hoping this reference could be added to the page. Peanutbutter251994

Go ahead. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, User:Peanutbutter251994, you'll need a published source that meets WP:RS to add this. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Episode 9, Season 10 of JAG is as described (I haven't looked into it), then no, that does not need "a published source" to be believed. Citing the show & episode will suffice. Let's not be so hysterical. Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tuckahoe Marble , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Minor neologism with a single advocate, one critique and no currency

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laura Miller (writer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New Yorker and Guardian. 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) 09:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biological warfare in popular culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Quick and The Dead. 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) 10:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Smoke Hole Canyon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green frog. 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) 12:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Virgil A. Lewis, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/1367.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Camp Bartow Historic District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allegheny Mountain. 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) 15:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matthew Arbuckle, Sr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Lewis. 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) 10:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Francis Burton bibliography, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James A. Grant and Athenaeum (magazine). 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) 09:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you didn't see the ping I did, some users are questioning why the two Reason Rally articles are separate and are talking about merging them. Since you split them I though you might want to chime in, the discussion is happening at the talk page for Reason Rally (2012). --Krelnik (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to merging the articles, if that is the consensus. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salt poisoning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intoxication. 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) 09:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability, what's up with you. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a problem believing your own eyes when you see it on YouTube?? Vision problem, I guess. This is the film: U.S. Army PMF 5300/Navy Film MN 7499b (1954), Combat Psychiatry — The Division Psychiatrist (33 min.; b&w ). It's in the public domain. Still don't believe it exists? I don't know what to tell you. (Why don't you take all those other movies on Nimoy's list which don't have sources away while you're at it?) Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the video, if you'd look at my revert, the edit did not have anything pointing to a source. You're awful bitey. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. You opened with a threat, , which I found rude. Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are referring to. I edited that article today, but am unaware of anyone else's recent edits. Did someone complain about mine? Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years. If you want to say something to me, your tone & content could be less haphazard, shoddy & condescending. Just say it. Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VERIFY and PROMO

Please make sure you read WP:VERIFY, and that content you add to WP that is WP:Biomedical information is supported by a source that is OK per WP:MEDRS and for other content, is OK per WP:RS.

Please also read WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO and avoid promoting anything when you edit Wikipedia. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am soooooo grateful to you, Dog.... Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Low level laser therapy that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

drama that violates several policies and guidelines. you can personalize this all you want; it will not help you get the content you desire and only harms your reputation here. As you will. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning, again

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Low level laser therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The complaint is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Valerius Tygart reported by User:Jytdog (Result: ). It looks like you broke 3RR on 13 October and that led to protection of the article. You wouldn't have to keep doing these reverts if anyone agreed with your changes. On the article talk page, I see no hint that you intend to abide by consensus. For example, it has been argued that there should be no 'History' section due to its use of primary sources, but you keep putting one back. If I am the closer, you can avoid being blocked for warring if you will agree not to edit the article again unless you have consensus in your favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Low level laser therapy

You've been warned per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you make any more edits at Low level laser therapy that are not supported by a prior consensus in your favor on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valerius, you are continuing to edit the contested material at Low level laser therapy after my warning. You have made no post on talk since that time, so you've made no effort at getting a talk page consensus. Please self-revert your last change and there may be time to avoid a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings EdJohnson! I did indeed edit the article. (No offense intended.) I would be happy to post again, as often as necessary, on the talk page. But recall my last post there, some 6 days ago: "At this particular moment, it appears to me that I am the only editor here dialoging in good faith. Lift the protection if you like, but consensus has NOT been achieved. Indeed, substantial & serious discussion of my edits has not even happened." These words remain just as true as before. I am happy to engage with any and all editors on a good faith basis and without threats & ultimata. However, if you feel you must block, then do so. Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Low level laser therapy

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

You have continued to edit the contested history section, without attempting to get consensus first. This violates the warning which resulted from the most recent AN3 case. Since the article was fully protected from Oct 13 to 18 due to an edit war in which you participated, this doesn't leave us many options. The ideal outcome is to see you waiting for consensus before making further changes. You seem to have rejected this option. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong work, Ed! Valerius Tygart (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston please have a look at the recent history of Low level laser therapy - Valerius came off their block, re-added the content under an IP, and just reverted my reversion of that. Zero interest in seeking consensus for these edits. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog, consider opening an WP:RFC at Talk:Low level laser therapy. Another option is to discuss what sources are usable for the history of this therapy at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I think there should be a history section - it is just that Valerius is uninterested in actually working toward consensus and there is no room to try to get there with their aggressive editing. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you won't even attempt an RfC, that weakens your position if this gets appealed further. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that -- I will consider it! I am just unsure how to proceed in this situation; i have dealt with a lot of difficult characters but Valerius is taking the cake here. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "difficult character" asks (yet again) that Jytdog stop personalizing the issues with gratuitous adjectives and asides. More important, I ask that you stop characterizing me as "uninterested in actually working toward consensus" when there is ample evidence to the contrary. After I failed to yield to your one-sided, idiosyncratic, and rigid interpretations of wikipolicy -- and after I made two concrete proposals, both of which you would not deign to acknowledge -- you announced (ludicrously) that a "consensus" against me had been unanimously achieved. You then declared victory and more or less signed off ("that's all I will say for now"). If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not going away. Ever. I am now committed to improving this article, with or without your help. You are now simply reverting anything I edit, without rationale, except the lamest. ("He's editing without signing in! Wahh!") If you will not even engage me with comments about why you think my good-faith edits are unacceptable, you will prolong this situation indefinitely. I patiently await your (thoughtful, constructive, non-personal) remarks. Valerius Tygart (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed the changes for you on the Talk page, as you were advised to do yourself. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jytdog, although you know I proposed them myself on the Talk page a couple of times.... Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from One Thousand and One Nights into The Thousand-and-Second Tale of Scheherazade. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good tip! Thanks! Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Due to your editorial involvement in {{One_Thousand_and_One_Nights}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From my user page...

Anon	A majority of this user's edits have been (& continue to be) anonymous.

...placed there many years ago. That said, I never intentionally make the same series of edits on the same article both logged in & logged out. Thanks for the advice, but I see none here that I need to take. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor 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/Valerius Tygart, where the editor 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also on my user page for several years...

Non	This user has been mistakenly accused of sockpuppetry, twice.

Guess I'll have to make it three times.

Magnolia677, you are a genuine nuisance.Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. On your talk page, you changed my edit to read "Magnolia677 harassment". Please remove this. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, ma'am, I have not deleted or edited anything you wrote. I can title sections on my talk page as I like. No removal needed. Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I wanted to do was get you to stop edit waring using two different accounts. I would have left it at that but your response was so defiant, even after previous cautions. Now you write that silly heading about harassment. My goodness. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should take up a hobby. I have heard that needlepoint can be quite absorbing. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it was your intention (and I sure hope it wasn't) to edit both logged in and out on Tygart Dam, to the outside observer, it looks an awful lot like sockpuppetry. Please try to avoid this situation from now on. Sro23 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Turpiquilum. Since you had some involvement with the Turpiquilum redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stephen Prince has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You introduced a new section at the Case fatality rate article, which included no citations. That section's content is at odds with the rest of the article. I cannot source its many unsourced statements. I cannot justify the statement that the CFR statistic varies between 0 and 1, and that it is not a ratio, when the rest of the article contradicts these assertions.

Could you please either remove that editing, or add the citations from which you drew the content? If we can see the sources, we can sort out the mistake. Otherwise it is guesswork for us to try to correct (and makes your editing of epidemiology articles look very suspect). Here is the diff that says it was your edit. See the paragraph you added, beginning "A mortality rate — often confused with a CFR — is a...". Thank you in advance for helping move this article from being a mess, to being encyclopedic. 2601:246:C700:19D:6DB8:E3D9:8FD6:A7B0 (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The edit about a CFR not being a ratio was mine, but the one about it varying "between 0 and 1" is someone else's. Even so, I don't see the problem. You may be getting confused about how a CFR varies between zero & unity (0 and 1, 0% and 100%, etc). There's no contradiction. I have tried to clarify in the article along with adding 2 references.

BTW, the personal swipe about "your editing of epidemiology articles look very suspect" is not necessary. Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Andrew Cook (author) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition is not well-sourced. It uses one source only, Epoch times, and that is deprecated. See WP:RSP. Please use the article's talk page. MartinezMD (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continue at the article's talk page. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Matthew Dunn (author), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://freshfiction.com/author.php?id=27145. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
  If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wall dormer 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/Wall dormer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Tooncool64 (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to revert other editors at An Experiment with Time. You have now thoroughly breached the Three-Revert Rule. Next time you show Edit warring behaviour in this discussion I thall report you.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You "stall" report me? Why wait? Report me now! Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be whining about me on an article talk page: either take me to ANI or leave the matter be. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about a third option: A compromise. I'll extend a peace offering with the following proposal: Here is my edit as it currently sits:

In Philip Jose Farmer's 1952 science fiction novella The Lovers (expanded into a novel in 1961 & '79) the religion of the Haijac Union derives from Isaac Sigman, a messianic figure of a thousand years prior to the events of the story. Sigmanism is the belief system of the "Sturch" (state-church) and it is clear that it is an elaboration, or variant, of Judaism. It incorporates Dunne's "Serialism" with an extremely oppressive and coercive theocracy.

I agree that it does seem a little lengthy compared with the other lines. Suppose I shorten it a bit:

In Philip Jose Farmer's 1952 science fiction novella The Lovers, a fictional religion of a thousand years hence is based on Dunne's "Serialism"; it won a Hugo Award in 1953.

The bit about the Hugo (which is true, BTW) dovetails nicely with the next sentence about Philippa Pearce & her Carnegie Medal. (Hugo = premier SF award; Carnegie = premier children's fic award). What do you say? Valerius Tygart (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, you should not expect us to discuss article content on user talk pages but in the article talk page, so that others will see it. First you try to discuss it in your edit comments, then you demand consensus, then when that turns against you you seek compromise. I would recommend following WP:POLICY rather more diligently. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, you make it difficult to accept you on an "assume good faith" basis. I would be happy to discuss article content here or there. You scolded me above for "whining about me on an article talk page", so I thought I'd make my offer here to allow you some measure of face saving... In your case, it is impossible to separate "article content" from the angry, self-centered editor that hovers over it... BTW, (1) did I "demand consensus" ? (No, you did), (2) did consensus "turn against me" ? (No, there is no consensus, hardly even the beginnings of a discussion... You & I have had our say by now, more or less... Now we need even ONE additional editor to give a coherent & full opinion on the matter... And of course we need more than one)... I'm sorry you disdain my offer of compromise, which offer was made in the best spirit of wikipolicy... You thereby reveal your true character... Well, I tried... It's going to be a long slog... Back to the trenches! Valerius Tygart (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valerius, but did you have the opportunity to give consideration to the following potential whole set of covered tigers hidding in the bush? WP:BLUESKY will nicely complete the show but only above the canopy ( Baccharis pilularis: hit the preview button ) . --Askedonty (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be traveling internationally for the next 3 weeks with only sporadic internet connections. (Valerius Tygart (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC) is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Laboratory Response Network 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/Laboratory Response Network until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]