One other point if I may, much of the information onthe Wiki page regard this Company is outdated if you click through to some of the reference links you will see they are gone. Much of it from over 10 years ago that is no longer applicable.
I have read WP_DR as you suggested so we can better attempt to get resolve (apologies as I am a Wikipedia novice). If accuracy is not a critical to an encyclopedia please explain to me what we should be striving for with this site? I simply documented factual, verifiable information on the Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grocke2 ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Notably missing from the information on membership fees is the amount of the initial fee. This makes it unclear as to just how different this is from the previous membership pricing. Programs such as the "savings guarantee" are typically of very limited value due to the restriction that it applies only to an identical item. Also, the promised savings under this guarantee are evidently subject to change at the whim of DirectBuy (there's nothing that says it isn't, so I presume it is).
We actually can't even talk about a "neutral point of view" because the only sources are the company itself and a "puff piece" that's presented from the viewpoint of DirectBuy which, as such, cannot be considered a "verifiable source". And as for that newspaper article, given the nature of the article, I would consider that even linking to it from the article is objectionable, because it's tantamount to "extending" the Wikipedia article to include the newspaper article without that being subject to editing in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
The claims that DirectBuy no longer uses "high-pressure" sales practices (presumably they no longer threaten that you must sign up today or you won't be able to buy later), but that doesn't mean they don't use other high-pressure tactics.
Any source that puts DirectBuy in a positive light is going to need to incoprporate the same level of research and analysis, and address the same points as the Consumer Reports article did. This requirement cannot be overcome by having DirectBuy commission an article claiming that its current offering now really benefits its customers; any claims to that effect must be the subject of critical examination. Fabrickator ( talk) 05:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
In reviewing your edit revert of my addition to the aforementioned topic, I noticed you have quite an interest in age of consent vis-à-vis articles on WP. In any case, I wonder why you think that the addition of this particular passage was "extraneous [and/or] inaccurate":
In overturning sodomy laws, the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) [1] invalidated Michigan’s law which set a different age of consent for male/male and female/female acts.
I suppose your saying that my first paragraph is extraneous is acceptable reasoning, if somewhat pedantic. However, perhaps you could show me a link to something that contradicts what I wrote in the second? Or maybe you have personal knowledge of something I don't as a Michigan resident. I ask this because I researched this issue fairly thouroughly before adding that paragraph to the article, and what I understand to be true doesn't jibe with your revert. Barring that, I'd be obliged to re-add the blockquoted section, and assuming you remove it again we'd have a 3RR situation. — VoxLuna ☾ orbit land 04:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
References
The act of forgery is not recognized as a crime by the criminal law of Scotland. So no it is not a crime. Criminal liability only results in the uttering of such a forgery as genuine. In Scotland, I could forge your signature and your will and neither would be an illegal act until I tried to convince someone else (likely for a fraudulent purpose, of course) that they were authentic. The distinction is important as in some other jurisdictions the forging of another person's signature is in and of itself a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunlar ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ages_of_consent_in_North_America&oldid=674482839&diff=prev
The point the lawyer site is making is that it doesn't count as a sexual offense. Even though the reason why a "corruption of minors" charge could be brought has to do with intercourse with no other factors and no incidence of rape, it's not actually categorized as a sexual offense.
Considering Wikipedia's mission anyway is to describe what other people say in secondary sources, we should err on what secondary sources say. Avoiding original research is paramount. WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I found this:
Therefore unless another secondary source explicitly says the age of consent is 18 because of the corruption of minors law, Wikipedia should follow what the Inquirer does and say "the age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16" WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I have removed an erroneous statement made here (without attribution, although the statement was made by a known sockpuppet) regarding the age of consent in Texas. Fabrickator ( talk) 15:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have deleted this edit warring threat that was posted by a sock puppet. Fabrickator ( talk) 06:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
D
In the "Role in Society" section:
cite journal|author=Zeinelabdin, A. R. |year=1996|journal=Journal of Economic Cooperation Among Islamic Countries|volume= 17|issue =3–4|pages=1–40
title: Poverty in OIC Countries: Status, Determinants and Agenda for Action
See http://www.sesric.org/files/article/53.pdf
Fabrickator ( talk) 17:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the sea change to the page LGBT conservatism by user AHC300. There are many that seem to be knowledgeable about European matters, but the first things that this user did was change all occurrences of "conservative" with "right-wing", an action that equivocates the political leanings of at least half the people in the developed world with what I see as a pejorative term, and trying to move the page to "LGBT right", and add a section that links to fascism.
There are numerous edits by this user almost every day, and I fear that this page has been turned into something that demonizes LGBT people that aren't Progressive or at least liberal, and covering those edits with scores of minor succeeding edits, although some of his/her worst changes have been reverted or refused.
This user doesn't have a main page and his/her Contributions are limited to to this page (and details for Zoophilia maps, possibly on Legality of bestiality by country or territory), which tells me that this user is very possibly a sockpuppet. But it's not possible from what I find on Wikipedia to determine whether this person is a sincere editor with a forgivable political bias, or a vandal of the "LGBT conservatism" page. Note that an attempt to move "Zoophile rights by country or territory" to "Legality of bestiality by country or territory," similarly changing a more-or-less neutral term (Zoophile) to a more pejorative term (bestiality) was approved. And, further edits of the site by this user seem knowledgeable and responsible, if you ignore his/her preference for pejorative terms.
I have an entry on the Talk page that proposes to do a global change of "right-wing" to "conservative" that is a couple of weeks old now; there have been no responses. I don't have the time or inclination to get into an edit war. Nor am I knowledgeable about the LGBT community or politics of any demographic. What is the responsible way to go here, as per the Wikipedia culture? I'm considering just making the global change "right-wing" to "conservative" and then letting the process work from there. -motorfingers- 20:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Bradley Cooper. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 05:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Fabrickator. 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)
Hello, Fabrickator. 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)
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
How is it " obviously true" that Michael Moore has a podcast that started in 2019? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
michael-moore first-rumble-podcast
An update regarding a statement to the effect that my assertion that Jimbo stated some people should be kicked off the project is both a "bizarre implication" and "unsupported hearsay". Here is the primary source: post by Jimmy Wales. Fabrickator ( talk) 21:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
I said it bluntly in two letters. PR. It reads like advertising, especially with tone/primary sourcing. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
When I first read your edit summary about content being a hoax, I thought "Mars" the planet. Ha, silly me! Good catch! S0091 ( talk) 19:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Why not include USA state laws against bestiality in Sodomy section? It appears to support old false ideation that homosexuality is akin to deviant status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:41:4080:5090:C085:E96D:B3B1:E6C8 ( talk) 15:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
The fact that you spell the word lead wrong ever single time you use it shows that I cannot, and will not, take your comment seriously, period. The reason I used another article as a template is because it shows that it is in a group of articles. I am speaking in lieu of the comment you left on another users talk page, and the comment you left on the talk page for the article in question. I also think it is a very good lead, definitely better than the original one. I think it is enough for the article itself. Lindjosh ( talk) 02:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
If you think "cloverleaves" is "apparently considered acceptable," you have no idea what you're talking about.
Go search on Google Books for the two spellings (use quotation marks to make sure it searches for the exact spellings). Notice how "cloverleafs" returns a vast number of documents written by American civil engineers specializing in highways (people who use the term "cloverleaf" every day), plus a handful of documents from people in other fields.
The vast majority of documents returned for "cloverleaves" are from all kinds of weird contexts where highways are not the central topic of the document -- a environmental impact statement for a regional transit system, a forestry manual, aeromedical research reports, an anti-tax manifesto, novels, and personal memoirs. The obvious inference is that the latter usage is an erroneous spelling by people who are not accustomed to using the term regularly. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 15:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Feel free to discuss this . -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 20:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I am considering warning Valamont(?) on the love jihad page of admin abuse, but wanted to know your thoughts on whether this is justified as yet. They have misattributed my stance, are inconsistent with their reasoning for enforcing deletions, and refuse to acknowledge that their understanding of the matter is incongruent with expert opinion. Liberalvedantin ( talk) 04:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
— Newslinger talk 14:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 13:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Hey there! Thanks for noticing my mistakes on Credit Score. For an editor of your caliber, I am admittedly perplexed why you don't have a userpage (I could help you create one if you want). I don't want to be pushy, just a thought. InvadingInvader ( talk) 03:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Just letting you know I accidentally overwrote the endorsement section you just added to the Billy Hewes page (was adding citation for the remainder of the text). Feel free to add it again! PoliticsIsExciting ( talk) 20:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Techron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevron. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amazon Web Services, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barron's.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The only reason Bliss Electrical School redirects to Montgomery College is because there is a somewhat tangential connection between the two, and there is no separate article on Bliss Electrical School. Inasmuch as you have determined that WP should have more comprehensive content on Bliss (going beyond the pre-existing brief description that Montgomery Junior College took over the building where Bliss Electrical School had been operating, absorbin its curriculum and presumably its student body), you should be creating this as a separate article and removing the existing redirect for Bliss Electrical School. Thank you. Fabrickator ( talk) 16:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antifa (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seth Jones.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@ GreenC: Can you point me at a policy page that prohibits the use of url-status=unfit (to indicate that the link only works ... displaying the intended content ... under certain circumstances) and {{ cbignore}} to keep archive bots from breaking the working links in a citation? Fabrickator ( talk) 21:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
cbignore}}
is at that page. The |unfit=
is for URLs that are "unfit" for display such as porn sites and hijacked domains. --
Green
C 21:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)|url-access=
with arguments such as limited
or subscription.
Hope it helps, --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 12:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Its not about being offended, it's about what our rules say.
The rules wp:talk and wp:not is clear. Article talk pages are not general forums to discuss the topic, they are there only and solely to discuss improvements to the article. You are correct, the place for that is your talk page (maybe, but do not abuse it). Slatersteven ( talk) 18:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Canterbury Tail talk 11:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:COPYLINK is quite clear, we may only use archives to link to archival copies of old webpages. Archives that are uploading books that are still in copyright, without explicit permission of the copyright owners, are forbidden under Wikipedia's copyright policies regardless of whether or not the source claims they are legitimate or not. Do not re-add links to Archive.org, or any other archive site, that contains copyrighted books. Canterbury Tail talk 11:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.So it is fine to link to a site which you do not suspect of copyright violations. And I can't find where in the linked COPYLINK section it says quite clearly we may only use archives to link to archival copies of old webpages. Perhaps you just expressed yourself imprecisely? Anyway - perhaps a less confrontative message (to Fabrickator) where you say "I suspect the link nnnn leads to a pirate site, so I removed it" instead of slapping them with boilerplate? Cheers CapnZapp ( talk) 08:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
A cutie for you
Bot2213 (
talk) 20:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Fab!
Just pointing out something you probably already know: you can make your currently redlinked user page "go blue" by making it redirect to your user talk page. :)
Just click your (red) user page link, add the following and save:
#REDIRECT [[User talk:Fabrickator]]
Best regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you are adding many Wikidata links to the body of articles. This is not allowed, as decided at an RfC in 2018: see Wikipedia:Wikidata#Appropriate usage in articles, last bullet point. Can you please remove your additions again? Fram ( talk) 07:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to request that you archive your user talk page. While it may not be bothersome to you, many editors have slow connections, and having a very large talk page can hamper communication. If you need help, just check out the guide over at Help:Archiving a talk page. Thanks! CapnZapp ( talk) 16:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
"Ranges" is great. Excessive detail ?. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Very good information on "Ranges". "Ranges" is a credit score data source in some finance data websites, and in at least a credit union site. "Ranges" data detail is not miserable. I appreciate your job. YMVD ( talk) 05:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You have undone my revision without reason. Yes, the live version redirects to another page. It redirects because it is from decades ago and is now dead. That is why I provided a link to the archived page on the Wayback Machine. If you wanted to see which pages are missing in the PDF, you could have opened the PDF yourself and compared it with the archived copy. - wneo ( talk) 09:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC) / PS: Page 3 of the PDF ends mid-sentence with "injured" and Page 4 of the PDF (Page 42 of the magazine) begins mid-sentence with "the sea". Now, are you going to verify this yourself by opening the PDF and comparing it to the archived page, or are you going to waste my time again? Sorry if I sound salty but I spent an enormous amount of time finding a valid link for that article. To be undone without a valid reason is extremely discouraging.
http://outsideonline.com/outside/features/1993/1993_into_the_wild_1.html0
instead of
http://outsideonline.com/outside/features/1993/1993_into_the_wild_1.html?page=10
The former simply returns the first page. Two, content is missing from some captures. For example,
this capture of Part 1 contains comments. Many others don't. Perhaps comments were turned off at some point.|url-status=dead
flag.Per
WP:BLPPROD: Unlike standard
proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a
reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article.
You did not add an RS before removing the template, so I have re-added it.
JoelleJay (
talk) 22:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Hello, I've noticed you are having the same issues with User:Kbrose as I am. Edit warring, article ownership, refusal to use talk page, etc. I have reported this user to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, if you would like to comment. 76.69.7.202 ( talk) 16:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Here are the pertinent edits regarding this content...
MacAddct1984 ( talk | contribs) 22:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I have posted a reply to your question on my Talk Page. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 02:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Please dont tell people to focus after they reverted your edit - where you did more than the edit summary stated. whoever reverted it was most likely under the impression that reverting my edit was the only thing you did, as it was all you stated. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 ( talk) 00:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
According to Help:Interlanguage links § Local links,
... the use of such "local links" for interlanguage linking has been deprecated, with interlanguage link data being centralized on Wikidata.
How am I not to infer from this that the use of the wd parameter is mandated in conjunction with {{
ill}}
?
Fabrickator (
talk) 15:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Love Jihad. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Doug Weller talk 07:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PowerPark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark Ride.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Re your query of the grammar in this article. The sentence states "high incidences of maternal deaths and perinatal mortality". In other words, it is talking about a high incidence of maternal deaths and a high incidence of perinatal mortality. As maternal deaths and perinatal mortality are not synonymous I would argue that the plural use of incidence is correct here. Roundtheworld ( talk) 11:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Ie "the proponents appear to be admitting that this is a disingenuous proposal". Doug Weller talk 12:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. —
Newslinger
talk 20:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I take the general point, but when it's in a quotation you should check the quotation, not make others do it. It just took a quick click and search to see it was the spelling used in the quote. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
{{not a typo}}
(the idea being to tag all correct uses of "incidences" and which would allow doing a search to find all instances of "incidences" that had not been so flagged ), but was met with great ridicule for using the term "homonym" to refer to a "homophone". At the rate I'm doing this, it would probably take me a few weeks, but I'm not sure my interests will hold up that long.
Fabrickator (
talk) 16:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this is covered by WP:VALIDALT, and I do not think it is a good idea to host discussions in userspace that would be explicitly prohibited in the talk namespace. If you're looking for generic discussion of the phenomenon, reddit is where you need to go. Regardless of that, though, you need to abide by the disclosure requirements at the very least: at the moment, you have not done so. Vanamonde ( Talk) 06:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:ANI#Is User talk:Love Jihad Echo Chamber an appropriate uses of an alt account and its user and talk pages?. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello Fabrickator. This message is to let you know that the following sanction now applies to you:
By community consensus, you are indefinitely topic banned from the subject areas of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.
This topic ban has been imposed as a result of the community discussion at Special:Permalink/1110835573#Proposal: topic ban Fabrickator, and it has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Please review the banning policy, especially the section on topic bans, to ensure that you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period.
You may appeal this topic ban to the administrators' noticeboard, per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Review and reversal of bans. Please let me know if any of the above is unclear. DanCherek ( talk) 21:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I had initially reverted your edits to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines per WP:NOTAFORUM but I see you were responding to someone else's comments, so I restored your comment, archived the thread, and warned the original poster. I try to prevent and dissuade folks, especially CoI editors, from randomly crying for attention on un-related talk pages. — Chris Troutman ( talk) 02:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laughing Matters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Erin Moriarty.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
at a new user talk page of the methods by which a person is welcomed:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Twinkle is one method... JarrahTree 08:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steve Martin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi there. It was in my watchlist, so I was wondering what this edit was all about? Editors aren't really meant to edit other user's userpages. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello there, I edited the article by adding two more references, however you reverted it by undoing it. Would you please explain why did you undo that edit I made? [1] /EnjoyBrowser557 ( userpage) ( talk) ( contributions) 21:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey, Fabrickator, I've never heard of this, what is a designated user assistant? Valereee ( talk) 10:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clarence Thomas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AP.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
See this. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Per the notice on this talk page and the restriction logged at the editing restrictions page you are currently topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. You should probably re-read the topic ban policy, because leaving people messages asking them to make edits in these topics on your behalf [2] [3] is a violation of the topic ban. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 00:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Bon courage ( talk) 05:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I noticed your edit here. Would you be interested in doing that at Steele dossier? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~~~ Polar Apposite ( talk) 20:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
While I don't think User:Polar Apposite was as clear as they should have been since they unfortunately phrased their requests as questions, nevertheless it's obvious to anyone with reasonable English comprehension that they want you to stop posting on their talk page. Per WP:USERTALKSTOP, you need to stop posting on their talk page right now as you should have when they first made a request as unclear as it was. The only possible exception would be to post required notices etc. If you do not stop, expect to be indefinitely blocked for harassment, consider this your only warning. Nil Einne ( talk) 22:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
In fact, Polar himself stated that he had not actually requested me to avoid his talk page: "... I don't think it was ever my intention to tell Fabrickator not to post on my talk page.". Fabrickator ( talk) 02:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, could you help me improve some sentences on the caciocavallo page? For example this one: "known locally as caciocavallo ragusano had to drop the denomination "caciocavallo" in order to get DOP status". Perhaps it would be better to use "give up" instead of "to drop". JacktheBrown ( talk) 08:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
On my talk page, you said : "Please explain the basis for reverting the interlanguage link that I added on Whole grain. Like all (well, almost all) interlanguage links on English wiki, the linked article will be on a non-English wiki. That's really the whole point, given that the article is not available on enwiki. If you don't have access to a browser that can translate or for some other reason don't want to see the article in a Arabic or French or Japanese, then don't click on those language links. (Oh, BTW, OF COURSE it's a red link ... if it were available in English, we wouldn't be providing an INTER-LANGUAGE LINK."
I recognized that, feeling it is a low-quality link (and somewhat obscure organization) not really needed to support the statement. Zefr ( talk) 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Zefr: The primary criteria for linking a term is that the article should actually be about the term (i.e. not merely happen to have the same name). Wikilinks are "informational", to the extent that a term is somewhat obscure argues for the link, if the term is very well-known (such as "United States"), then it's likely to be considered extraneous. I try not to judge the quality of the article, but almost anything is better than nothing. Fabrickator ( talk) 01:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
One other point if I may, much of the information onthe Wiki page regard this Company is outdated if you click through to some of the reference links you will see they are gone. Much of it from over 10 years ago that is no longer applicable.
I have read WP_DR as you suggested so we can better attempt to get resolve (apologies as I am a Wikipedia novice). If accuracy is not a critical to an encyclopedia please explain to me what we should be striving for with this site? I simply documented factual, verifiable information on the Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grocke2 ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Notably missing from the information on membership fees is the amount of the initial fee. This makes it unclear as to just how different this is from the previous membership pricing. Programs such as the "savings guarantee" are typically of very limited value due to the restriction that it applies only to an identical item. Also, the promised savings under this guarantee are evidently subject to change at the whim of DirectBuy (there's nothing that says it isn't, so I presume it is).
We actually can't even talk about a "neutral point of view" because the only sources are the company itself and a "puff piece" that's presented from the viewpoint of DirectBuy which, as such, cannot be considered a "verifiable source". And as for that newspaper article, given the nature of the article, I would consider that even linking to it from the article is objectionable, because it's tantamount to "extending" the Wikipedia article to include the newspaper article without that being subject to editing in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
The claims that DirectBuy no longer uses "high-pressure" sales practices (presumably they no longer threaten that you must sign up today or you won't be able to buy later), but that doesn't mean they don't use other high-pressure tactics.
Any source that puts DirectBuy in a positive light is going to need to incoprporate the same level of research and analysis, and address the same points as the Consumer Reports article did. This requirement cannot be overcome by having DirectBuy commission an article claiming that its current offering now really benefits its customers; any claims to that effect must be the subject of critical examination. Fabrickator ( talk) 05:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
In reviewing your edit revert of my addition to the aforementioned topic, I noticed you have quite an interest in age of consent vis-à-vis articles on WP. In any case, I wonder why you think that the addition of this particular passage was "extraneous [and/or] inaccurate":
In overturning sodomy laws, the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) [1] invalidated Michigan’s law which set a different age of consent for male/male and female/female acts.
I suppose your saying that my first paragraph is extraneous is acceptable reasoning, if somewhat pedantic. However, perhaps you could show me a link to something that contradicts what I wrote in the second? Or maybe you have personal knowledge of something I don't as a Michigan resident. I ask this because I researched this issue fairly thouroughly before adding that paragraph to the article, and what I understand to be true doesn't jibe with your revert. Barring that, I'd be obliged to re-add the blockquoted section, and assuming you remove it again we'd have a 3RR situation. — VoxLuna ☾ orbit land 04:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
References
The act of forgery is not recognized as a crime by the criminal law of Scotland. So no it is not a crime. Criminal liability only results in the uttering of such a forgery as genuine. In Scotland, I could forge your signature and your will and neither would be an illegal act until I tried to convince someone else (likely for a fraudulent purpose, of course) that they were authentic. The distinction is important as in some other jurisdictions the forging of another person's signature is in and of itself a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunlar ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ages_of_consent_in_North_America&oldid=674482839&diff=prev
The point the lawyer site is making is that it doesn't count as a sexual offense. Even though the reason why a "corruption of minors" charge could be brought has to do with intercourse with no other factors and no incidence of rape, it's not actually categorized as a sexual offense.
Considering Wikipedia's mission anyway is to describe what other people say in secondary sources, we should err on what secondary sources say. Avoiding original research is paramount. WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I found this:
Therefore unless another secondary source explicitly says the age of consent is 18 because of the corruption of minors law, Wikipedia should follow what the Inquirer does and say "the age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16" WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I have removed an erroneous statement made here (without attribution, although the statement was made by a known sockpuppet) regarding the age of consent in Texas. Fabrickator ( talk) 15:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have deleted this edit warring threat that was posted by a sock puppet. Fabrickator ( talk) 06:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
D
In the "Role in Society" section:
cite journal|author=Zeinelabdin, A. R. |year=1996|journal=Journal of Economic Cooperation Among Islamic Countries|volume= 17|issue =3–4|pages=1–40
title: Poverty in OIC Countries: Status, Determinants and Agenda for Action
See http://www.sesric.org/files/article/53.pdf
Fabrickator ( talk) 17:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the sea change to the page LGBT conservatism by user AHC300. There are many that seem to be knowledgeable about European matters, but the first things that this user did was change all occurrences of "conservative" with "right-wing", an action that equivocates the political leanings of at least half the people in the developed world with what I see as a pejorative term, and trying to move the page to "LGBT right", and add a section that links to fascism.
There are numerous edits by this user almost every day, and I fear that this page has been turned into something that demonizes LGBT people that aren't Progressive or at least liberal, and covering those edits with scores of minor succeeding edits, although some of his/her worst changes have been reverted or refused.
This user doesn't have a main page and his/her Contributions are limited to to this page (and details for Zoophilia maps, possibly on Legality of bestiality by country or territory), which tells me that this user is very possibly a sockpuppet. But it's not possible from what I find on Wikipedia to determine whether this person is a sincere editor with a forgivable political bias, or a vandal of the "LGBT conservatism" page. Note that an attempt to move "Zoophile rights by country or territory" to "Legality of bestiality by country or territory," similarly changing a more-or-less neutral term (Zoophile) to a more pejorative term (bestiality) was approved. And, further edits of the site by this user seem knowledgeable and responsible, if you ignore his/her preference for pejorative terms.
I have an entry on the Talk page that proposes to do a global change of "right-wing" to "conservative" that is a couple of weeks old now; there have been no responses. I don't have the time or inclination to get into an edit war. Nor am I knowledgeable about the LGBT community or politics of any demographic. What is the responsible way to go here, as per the Wikipedia culture? I'm considering just making the global change "right-wing" to "conservative" and then letting the process work from there. -motorfingers- 20:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Bradley Cooper. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 05:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Fabrickator. 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)
Hello, Fabrickator. 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)
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
How is it " obviously true" that Michael Moore has a podcast that started in 2019? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 21:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
michael-moore first-rumble-podcast
An update regarding a statement to the effect that my assertion that Jimbo stated some people should be kicked off the project is both a "bizarre implication" and "unsupported hearsay". Here is the primary source: post by Jimmy Wales. Fabrickator ( talk) 21:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hi Fabrickator! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
I said it bluntly in two letters. PR. It reads like advertising, especially with tone/primary sourcing. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
When I first read your edit summary about content being a hoax, I thought "Mars" the planet. Ha, silly me! Good catch! S0091 ( talk) 19:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Why not include USA state laws against bestiality in Sodomy section? It appears to support old false ideation that homosexuality is akin to deviant status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:41:4080:5090:C085:E96D:B3B1:E6C8 ( talk) 15:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
The fact that you spell the word lead wrong ever single time you use it shows that I cannot, and will not, take your comment seriously, period. The reason I used another article as a template is because it shows that it is in a group of articles. I am speaking in lieu of the comment you left on another users talk page, and the comment you left on the talk page for the article in question. I also think it is a very good lead, definitely better than the original one. I think it is enough for the article itself. Lindjosh ( talk) 02:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
If you think "cloverleaves" is "apparently considered acceptable," you have no idea what you're talking about.
Go search on Google Books for the two spellings (use quotation marks to make sure it searches for the exact spellings). Notice how "cloverleafs" returns a vast number of documents written by American civil engineers specializing in highways (people who use the term "cloverleaf" every day), plus a handful of documents from people in other fields.
The vast majority of documents returned for "cloverleaves" are from all kinds of weird contexts where highways are not the central topic of the document -- a environmental impact statement for a regional transit system, a forestry manual, aeromedical research reports, an anti-tax manifesto, novels, and personal memoirs. The obvious inference is that the latter usage is an erroneous spelling by people who are not accustomed to using the term regularly. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 15:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Feel free to discuss this . -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 20:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I am considering warning Valamont(?) on the love jihad page of admin abuse, but wanted to know your thoughts on whether this is justified as yet. They have misattributed my stance, are inconsistent with their reasoning for enforcing deletions, and refuse to acknowledge that their understanding of the matter is incongruent with expert opinion. Liberalvedantin ( talk) 04:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
— Newslinger talk 14:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller talk 13:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Hey there! Thanks for noticing my mistakes on Credit Score. For an editor of your caliber, I am admittedly perplexed why you don't have a userpage (I could help you create one if you want). I don't want to be pushy, just a thought. InvadingInvader ( talk) 03:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Just letting you know I accidentally overwrote the endorsement section you just added to the Billy Hewes page (was adding citation for the remainder of the text). Feel free to add it again! PoliticsIsExciting ( talk) 20:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Techron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevron. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amazon Web Services, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barron's.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The only reason Bliss Electrical School redirects to Montgomery College is because there is a somewhat tangential connection between the two, and there is no separate article on Bliss Electrical School. Inasmuch as you have determined that WP should have more comprehensive content on Bliss (going beyond the pre-existing brief description that Montgomery Junior College took over the building where Bliss Electrical School had been operating, absorbin its curriculum and presumably its student body), you should be creating this as a separate article and removing the existing redirect for Bliss Electrical School. Thank you. Fabrickator ( talk) 16:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antifa (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seth Jones.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@ GreenC: Can you point me at a policy page that prohibits the use of url-status=unfit (to indicate that the link only works ... displaying the intended content ... under certain circumstances) and {{ cbignore}} to keep archive bots from breaking the working links in a citation? Fabrickator ( talk) 21:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
cbignore}}
is at that page. The |unfit=
is for URLs that are "unfit" for display such as porn sites and hijacked domains. --
Green
C 21:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)|url-access=
with arguments such as limited
or subscription.
Hope it helps, --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 12:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Its not about being offended, it's about what our rules say.
The rules wp:talk and wp:not is clear. Article talk pages are not general forums to discuss the topic, they are there only and solely to discuss improvements to the article. You are correct, the place for that is your talk page (maybe, but do not abuse it). Slatersteven ( talk) 18:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Canterbury Tail talk 11:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:COPYLINK is quite clear, we may only use archives to link to archival copies of old webpages. Archives that are uploading books that are still in copyright, without explicit permission of the copyright owners, are forbidden under Wikipedia's copyright policies regardless of whether or not the source claims they are legitimate or not. Do not re-add links to Archive.org, or any other archive site, that contains copyrighted books. Canterbury Tail talk 11:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.So it is fine to link to a site which you do not suspect of copyright violations. And I can't find where in the linked COPYLINK section it says quite clearly we may only use archives to link to archival copies of old webpages. Perhaps you just expressed yourself imprecisely? Anyway - perhaps a less confrontative message (to Fabrickator) where you say "I suspect the link nnnn leads to a pirate site, so I removed it" instead of slapping them with boilerplate? Cheers CapnZapp ( talk) 08:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
A cutie for you
Bot2213 (
talk) 20:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Fab!
Just pointing out something you probably already know: you can make your currently redlinked user page "go blue" by making it redirect to your user talk page. :)
Just click your (red) user page link, add the following and save:
#REDIRECT [[User talk:Fabrickator]]
Best regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you are adding many Wikidata links to the body of articles. This is not allowed, as decided at an RfC in 2018: see Wikipedia:Wikidata#Appropriate usage in articles, last bullet point. Can you please remove your additions again? Fram ( talk) 07:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to request that you archive your user talk page. While it may not be bothersome to you, many editors have slow connections, and having a very large talk page can hamper communication. If you need help, just check out the guide over at Help:Archiving a talk page. Thanks! CapnZapp ( talk) 16:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
"Ranges" is great. Excessive detail ?. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Very good information on "Ranges". "Ranges" is a credit score data source in some finance data websites, and in at least a credit union site. "Ranges" data detail is not miserable. I appreciate your job. YMVD ( talk) 05:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You have undone my revision without reason. Yes, the live version redirects to another page. It redirects because it is from decades ago and is now dead. That is why I provided a link to the archived page on the Wayback Machine. If you wanted to see which pages are missing in the PDF, you could have opened the PDF yourself and compared it with the archived copy. - wneo ( talk) 09:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC) / PS: Page 3 of the PDF ends mid-sentence with "injured" and Page 4 of the PDF (Page 42 of the magazine) begins mid-sentence with "the sea". Now, are you going to verify this yourself by opening the PDF and comparing it to the archived page, or are you going to waste my time again? Sorry if I sound salty but I spent an enormous amount of time finding a valid link for that article. To be undone without a valid reason is extremely discouraging.
http://outsideonline.com/outside/features/1993/1993_into_the_wild_1.html0
instead of
http://outsideonline.com/outside/features/1993/1993_into_the_wild_1.html?page=10
The former simply returns the first page. Two, content is missing from some captures. For example,
this capture of Part 1 contains comments. Many others don't. Perhaps comments were turned off at some point.|url-status=dead
flag.Per
WP:BLPPROD: Unlike standard
proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a
reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article.
You did not add an RS before removing the template, so I have re-added it.
JoelleJay (
talk) 22:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Hello, I've noticed you are having the same issues with User:Kbrose as I am. Edit warring, article ownership, refusal to use talk page, etc. I have reported this user to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, if you would like to comment. 76.69.7.202 ( talk) 16:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Here are the pertinent edits regarding this content...
MacAddct1984 ( talk | contribs) 22:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I have posted a reply to your question on my Talk Page. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 02:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Please dont tell people to focus after they reverted your edit - where you did more than the edit summary stated. whoever reverted it was most likely under the impression that reverting my edit was the only thing you did, as it was all you stated. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 ( talk) 00:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
According to Help:Interlanguage links § Local links,
... the use of such "local links" for interlanguage linking has been deprecated, with interlanguage link data being centralized on Wikidata.
How am I not to infer from this that the use of the wd parameter is mandated in conjunction with {{
ill}}
?
Fabrickator (
talk) 15:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Fabrickator! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Love Jihad. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Doug Weller talk 07:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PowerPark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark Ride.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Re your query of the grammar in this article. The sentence states "high incidences of maternal deaths and perinatal mortality". In other words, it is talking about a high incidence of maternal deaths and a high incidence of perinatal mortality. As maternal deaths and perinatal mortality are not synonymous I would argue that the plural use of incidence is correct here. Roundtheworld ( talk) 11:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Ie "the proponents appear to be admitting that this is a disingenuous proposal". Doug Weller talk 12:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. —
Newslinger
talk 20:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I take the general point, but when it's in a quotation you should check the quotation, not make others do it. It just took a quick click and search to see it was the spelling used in the quote. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
{{not a typo}}
(the idea being to tag all correct uses of "incidences" and which would allow doing a search to find all instances of "incidences" that had not been so flagged ), but was met with great ridicule for using the term "homonym" to refer to a "homophone". At the rate I'm doing this, it would probably take me a few weeks, but I'm not sure my interests will hold up that long.
Fabrickator (
talk) 16:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this is covered by WP:VALIDALT, and I do not think it is a good idea to host discussions in userspace that would be explicitly prohibited in the talk namespace. If you're looking for generic discussion of the phenomenon, reddit is where you need to go. Regardless of that, though, you need to abide by the disclosure requirements at the very least: at the moment, you have not done so. Vanamonde ( Talk) 06:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:ANI#Is User talk:Love Jihad Echo Chamber an appropriate uses of an alt account and its user and talk pages?. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello Fabrickator. This message is to let you know that the following sanction now applies to you:
By community consensus, you are indefinitely topic banned from the subject areas of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.
This topic ban has been imposed as a result of the community discussion at Special:Permalink/1110835573#Proposal: topic ban Fabrickator, and it has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Please review the banning policy, especially the section on topic bans, to ensure that you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period.
You may appeal this topic ban to the administrators' noticeboard, per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Review and reversal of bans. Please let me know if any of the above is unclear. DanCherek ( talk) 21:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I had initially reverted your edits to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines per WP:NOTAFORUM but I see you were responding to someone else's comments, so I restored your comment, archived the thread, and warned the original poster. I try to prevent and dissuade folks, especially CoI editors, from randomly crying for attention on un-related talk pages. — Chris Troutman ( talk) 02:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laughing Matters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Erin Moriarty.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
at a new user talk page of the methods by which a person is welcomed:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Twinkle is one method... JarrahTree 08:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steve Martin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi there. It was in my watchlist, so I was wondering what this edit was all about? Editors aren't really meant to edit other user's userpages. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello there, I edited the article by adding two more references, however you reverted it by undoing it. Would you please explain why did you undo that edit I made? [1] /EnjoyBrowser557 ( userpage) ( talk) ( contributions) 21:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey, Fabrickator, I've never heard of this, what is a designated user assistant? Valereee ( talk) 10:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clarence Thomas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AP.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
See this. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Per the notice on this talk page and the restriction logged at the editing restrictions page you are currently topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. You should probably re-read the topic ban policy, because leaving people messages asking them to make edits in these topics on your behalf [2] [3] is a violation of the topic ban. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 00:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Bon courage ( talk) 05:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I noticed your edit here. Would you be interested in doing that at Steele dossier? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~~~ Polar Apposite ( talk) 20:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
While I don't think User:Polar Apposite was as clear as they should have been since they unfortunately phrased their requests as questions, nevertheless it's obvious to anyone with reasonable English comprehension that they want you to stop posting on their talk page. Per WP:USERTALKSTOP, you need to stop posting on their talk page right now as you should have when they first made a request as unclear as it was. The only possible exception would be to post required notices etc. If you do not stop, expect to be indefinitely blocked for harassment, consider this your only warning. Nil Einne ( talk) 22:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
In fact, Polar himself stated that he had not actually requested me to avoid his talk page: "... I don't think it was ever my intention to tell Fabrickator not to post on my talk page.". Fabrickator ( talk) 02:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, could you help me improve some sentences on the caciocavallo page? For example this one: "known locally as caciocavallo ragusano had to drop the denomination "caciocavallo" in order to get DOP status". Perhaps it would be better to use "give up" instead of "to drop". JacktheBrown ( talk) 08:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
On my talk page, you said : "Please explain the basis for reverting the interlanguage link that I added on Whole grain. Like all (well, almost all) interlanguage links on English wiki, the linked article will be on a non-English wiki. That's really the whole point, given that the article is not available on enwiki. If you don't have access to a browser that can translate or for some other reason don't want to see the article in a Arabic or French or Japanese, then don't click on those language links. (Oh, BTW, OF COURSE it's a red link ... if it were available in English, we wouldn't be providing an INTER-LANGUAGE LINK."
I recognized that, feeling it is a low-quality link (and somewhat obscure organization) not really needed to support the statement. Zefr ( talk) 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Zefr: The primary criteria for linking a term is that the article should actually be about the term (i.e. not merely happen to have the same name). Wikilinks are "informational", to the extent that a term is somewhat obscure argues for the link, if the term is very well-known (such as "United States"), then it's likely to be considered extraneous. I try not to judge the quality of the article, but almost anything is better than nothing. Fabrickator ( talk) 01:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)