Not sure why you removed it. Maybe to cut the length? The other cleanup was very good. I noticed you said "primary source" in the edit summary, but there's no prohibition on using a primary source in this way, and actually having the entire transcript might be good in this particular situation since news media mangled and summarized it many times. -- Avanu ( talk) 08:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC) reply

From my Talk page:

This is what occurred, and my latest edit:

You made major changes to a section, including removing a phone call transcript and revising text. The section had been the way it was with only minor changes for months. I reverted and said it should be discussed first on the talk page.

Another editor partially reverted my edit, leaving the text changes but restoring the call transcript. You had started the talk discussion, and you reverted that editor, saying it should be discussed first. Your original edit is what should have been discussed first, however. The other editor removed what might be questionable, the text (even though it's been there months), and Talk discussion showed that the transcript was acceptable and another source, Mother Jones, could be given. Since the transcript wasn't objectionable I reverted to the version of the other editor. The consensus on the page seemed to be that the transcript should stay. One editor mentioned that some text added to the transcript, such as noting when sounds of a car door opening are heard, could be removed, but that is the only mention of it. And those things could just be removed, if you object to them. Psalm84 ( talk) 02:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm going to post this also to your Talk page. Psalm84 ( talk) 02:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Psalm84 ( talk) 03:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I've addressed it on the talk page. You reverted the same info back in twice. The fact that there was an intervening edit does not matter. If 1RR is no longer the rule, so be it, but you made these reverts when other editors were right in the middle of discussing it, and you did not even bother commenting on the talk page. You should anticipate that such editing behavior is going to escalate the dispute. Take the time to actually consider my points about the transcript, rather than quickly reverting to your preferred version. Minor4th 03:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not revert the same info twice. I reverted to Avanu's version which is only the transcript and which left your edits. And all the other editors have been for keeping the transcript, saying it's helpful and it isn't OR but WP:TRANSCRIPTION. One said that some added text could come out, but that isn't the same as removing the whole transcript. Psalm84 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Psalm84 ( talk) 03:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

You have an interesting personal definition of what constitutes a revert and what doesn't. You reversed all or a part of the same edit 3 times now, and I note that you continue to edit war. Have at it, the article means a whole lot more to you than it does to me. I was trying to improve it, but the rules and guidelines are suspended on this article, and it's fallen to POV editors. Minor 4th 07:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Kewl Kitteh!

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet   Br'er Rabbit  06:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I made a comment regarding the Shooting at Trayvon Martin page that relates to the present issues regarding the article. Psalm84 ( talk) 02:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page of Shooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9. [1] Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein ( talk) 04:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sons of Perdition (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oprah Winfrey Network. 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) 10:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:RSN#Use of a lawyer blog in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. for a discussion in which you have been involved at Talk:Bowman v. Monsanto Co.. Thanks, GregJackP  Boomer! 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

M4th: would you do me the favor of reviewing the top article in my Sandbox for NPOV and other WP requisites, before I put it up. Our pal is bound to take exception (if not hysteria) to it as a matter of principle. I would like it to be as sound as possible beforehand. Feel free to tear it up (constructively). Thx. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 03:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Will do as time allows. Minor 4th 15:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker)See User:PraeceptorIP/JEM Case. I've worked on it some for him. GregJackP  Boomer! 15:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks Greg. Minor 4th 15:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Minor4th, I recently moved a comment Mattnad made, which he placed in the middle of one of my previous comments [2] because it removed my signature from the comment. I see you reverted. [3]. Was this a mistake? It's a relatively minor thing, but I think it's clearer if that comment that I made in one edit, remains in one piece (it was a two part edit, directed at two different editors, but breaking it up removes my signature from part of it). Do you mind if this is changed back?-- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 18:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

That was a total mistake. Had no idea I did that. Minor 4th 18:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, - Tryptofish ( talk) 15:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I understand what you're saying, and can even agree in a very small way - but since you mentioned it, I will say that Wehwalt is an excellent example of an admin who does great content work. — Ched :  ?  03:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Indeed, Wehwalt would be a glaring exception, if he's an admin. I don't know that I've ever seen him doing admin work. Minor 4th 03:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply

He usually acts if he's asked directly, I think. He was one of my inspirations, actually. ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 03:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Bravo for this. Of course, you do realise that speaking out in such a fashion will expel you from any future RfA you may wish to undertake. Good on you! Cassianto ^Talk 12:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks, and yeah, there will be no RfA's for me ;) Minor 4th 13:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Minor4th, I don't think we've ever "met" before, but I found your insights to the overall atmosphere of content editing to be insightful and thought-provoking. Thank you. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Montanabw. We haven't "met" but other editors have mentioned to me that you're one of the best content creators; so I've followed some of your content and discussions. I don't edit very much - mostly because the atmosphere can be so toxic when one is actually trying to accomplish something here. I get too frustrated and discouraged and find other things to do that don't leave me feeling slimy. :D Best -- Minor 4th 03:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The nomination has a snowball's chance of success, so maybe it's high time to stop badgering the opposes: ( [4]). This process has been stressful for all involved, and the continuing confrontations there are so unlikely to impact the outcome that they appear egregious at this point. RO ^(talk) 16:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Huh? Minor 4th 16:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

If the nom got no more opposes and seven supports per hour, it would still fail. So it seems really unnecessary to continue to badger opposes this late in the process, as the outcome will not change. But I'll leave it at that, since you either get my point now or won't get it no matter what I say. RO ^(talk) 16:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I made exactly one reply to exactly one oppose; it was substantive and civil. I have not "badgered" anyone. But if there's no reason to comment on the RfA, why do you continue to "badger" the candidate? It's a rhetorical question - no need to answer ;) Minor 4th 16:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I haven't commented there in three days. RO ^(talk) 16:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

liar. Cassianto ^Talk 17:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I wasn't counting copyedits to my oppose rationale as independent comments. BTW, you're really popular over at Wikipediocracy: ( [5]) RO ^(talk) 17:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I hate to break it to you, but I knew about it on the 17 September, so sorry to piss on your parade RO. IT's nice to know that while the trolling fuckwits are talking about me they're leaving someone else alone. Cassianto ^Talk 18:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

"the trolling fuckwits" Such language for an educated adult. I am deeply saddened that you've recently adopted this persona, because I remember seeing you around last fall, but I don't remember you acting so aggressively. Maybe you take this place a little too seriously, but I'm glad you realize that most of us are having a good laugh about it. RO ^(talk) 18:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't know why you think it's "recent". I don't forget RO; supporting someone who likened me to a person who mocks rape victims is about as low as you can go. It's behaviour like that which causes me to act "aggressively". Cassianto ^Talk 18:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

You totally misunderstood me then, and you're still carrying that misunderstanding with you today. I never said that, Cassianto, nor did I think it at the time or now. It's ridiculous. I never supported that accusation; I tried to help you two see that you were talking past each other and not seeing the other person's point, just like you're doing right now. RO ^(talk) 18:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't want to make anymore comments about this here, but if you want to discuss this please feel free to come to my talk page. If you bring some diffs, I'll be able to show you I did not take the position that you think I did. There's too much long-term grudge holding around here, and if you want to make an effort to end ours I'll be very happy to discuss it with you. RO ^(talk) 18:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

OK. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger, just to let you know, we're moving pages now. Tell the others, won't you?  ;) Cassianto ^Talk 19:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)) reply

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

Hi Minor4th, I hope all is well these days! I have nominated an article I wrote, Schmerber v. California, for FA status. I know that you are a subject matter expert and you are generally an awesome Wikipedian when it comes to legal articles (and all other articles), so I was hoping you would be willing to take a look at the nomination for Schmerber. Here is a link to the nomination. Thanks in advance for your help! Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 17:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks Notecardforfree - I will take a look and give input if I have some. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/United States v. Washington since you participated in the FAN discussion. Minor 4th 17:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks Minor4th! I just went to the TFA nomination page for U.S. v. Washington to express my support. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 17:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Tryptofish - FYI, I did not request that you be blocked. I don't know if you ever saw my comment responding to you, but I asked for a warning. I never thought that you meant anything malicious - my concern was that your comment would lead others to further outing and harassment. Minor 4th 21:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

You have asked me not to post on your talk page, so out of respect, I am leaving you a message here and you are welcome to respond if you care to.

Regarding this comment [6], I think Roger Davies was referring to the other editor you mentioned in the oversighted diff -- you had proposed a site ban for him, not me.

About the edit itself, I don't think anyone believes or has accused you of any kind of malicious outing (and that's why the block was very short); I would characterize your comment as more careless than malicious. I reported the diff because I wanted it oversighted to prevent any "opposition research" based on the real-life connections you were trying to make. I did not request a block or any other sanction other than a warning, but a short block was appropriate while Arb contacted you and sorted it out. As one who values privacy, you should understand that completely.

While your feelings were hurt by the block, I assure you it feels worse to have one's anonymity/privacy compromised. You are a long-term, experienced editor and you should have known better than to have made that post, as you have acknowledged. So, I am asking you please to give the Arbs a break and stop insisting that they apologize to you or admit to some kind of wrongdoing in the wake of all this because it gives the impression that you do not actually regret the post and that you do not think there was anything wrong with your behavior, and that is pretty hurtful to the targets of your post. Minor 4th 21:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I'll note also that Tryptofish is the one who added me as a party to the case even though I had never edited in the GMO topic area - he added me unilaterally without even stating why I should be included. He subsequently proposed that I be sanctioned with an interaction ban and proposed that the other editor he mentioned in the diff be indefinitely site banned. With that context in mind, Tryptofish's oversighted diff that led to his short block looks like an invitation to conduct opposition research as was alluded to by one of the Arbs.

I could have proposed a FoF and remedy regarding Tryptofish in the Arb case, based on his conduct on the Arb pages during the case. I believe that it would have been warranted; I was content to let it go and move on, but he has recently "re-started the discussion" and I find it very offensive that he is now portraying himself as the victim, wronged by ArbCom and by me implicitly. Minor 4th 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

You said better material was needed for the patent litigation of Monsanto. I notice the arfticle starts at a late date. If you want to go back to when M was selling herbicide but not seeds, you could summarize the CA3 case of Monsanto v. Rohm & Haas on propanil. Just excertpt what you consider worthwhile. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 00:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks I'll take a look. Please feel free to jump in yourself. Minor 4th 00:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your diligent contributions on all 3 pages of Arbcom re GMO. I very much appreciate your hard work ! Wuerzele ( talk) 17:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks Wuerzele! Minor 4th 18:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Seconded. And the wait drags on. Jus da fax 00:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Tick tock tick tock .... Minor 4th 00:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

• Big fan here, too. petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Awww. You guys are too much! Take a look at Guillerilo's talk page. He says it's still going to be a few days before the PD. Minor 4th 15:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Dear Editor, In compliance with Wikipedia regulations, we would like to inform you that we have filed a discussion in the NPOV board that mentions your name. Thanks much for your attention. 181.228.138.187 ( talk) 20:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council reply

Dear Editor Minor4th, Following your valuable suggestions on the NPOV board for improving the BLP for Ariel Fernandez, we have now included in the Talk page of the article a proposed revision of the Career section. We have quoted reputable secondary sources to back up the assertions. Hopefully the tone is now more neutral and balanced. We would much appreciate your help with this revision of the career section. 181.228.138.187 ( talk) 12:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council reply

Dear Minor4th, Thanks much in advance for your help improving the BLP for Ariel Fernandez regarding NPOV. We are ready to work with you at your convenience on the proposed edits to the career section. We placed the edited version in the Talk page quoting the appropriate primary and secondary sources. Thanks much for your help with this. 181.228.138.187 ( talk) 12:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council reply

Thanks. I have been busy but I will take a look when I have some time. Minor 4th 15:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you Minor4th. Your intervention in the BLP would be most valuable in order to achieve the required neutrality and balanced point of view. I concur with the proposed revision to the career section. 50.4.224.33 ( talk) 20:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez reply

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for your work to help Schmerber v. California achieve FA status. The article was promoted today, and I hope you will raise a glass with me in celebration! -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 21:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Congrats and cheers! Minor 4th 21:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Dear Minor4th: We feel that Dr. Ariel Fernandez has been unfairly treated by Wikipedia. As you and other editors have noted, his BLP article places undue weight on negative content, is not balanced and does not comply with the neutral tone requirement. The BLP focuses on three questioned papers, while the subject has published over 350 peer-reviewed papers, two books as sole author and holds two patents, all with several secondary sources, as indicated in the proposed edits (Talk page). We and others in academia would be very grateful to you if you could fix the article when you get a chance. 198.30.200.95 ( talk) 14:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)OSU reply

I'm not interested in working on this right now because my time is very limited. Minor 4th 16:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Understood. 128.146.70.145 ( talk) 20:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)OSU reply

Hi Minor4th. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:05, 12 November 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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

Dates: 5 to 15 December 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here← -- Rosiestep ( talk) 05:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Minor4th. Thank you for making your recent edit over at the GMO ArbCom case. It certainly needs pointing out what Kingofaces43 is doing. However, I am a little concerned about your phrasing in the post. Kingofaces43 has accused me of edit warring, and you seem to have repeated this in your posting to ArbCom. I do not believe I am edit warring on the Glyphosate article. I made two reverts of material since December 4th, here [7] and here. [8] I have not made any reverts since. I started the Talk page thread here [9] at 19:43, 4 December 2015. This was between my first and my second revert. I really do not understand how this constitutes edit warring. It was one revert, open discussion, and a second to revert to the status quo. Am I missing something here?DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) On these high-conflict articles, a 1RR policy is best. 2RR can get people claiming there's an edit war... silly, but there you have it. Montanabw ^(talk) 09:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

the page is 1RR per an early arbcom decision.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 09:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I thought I saw 3 reverts by Chrissy and 3 or 4 by BogHog. But my comment wasn't about whether or not Chrissy was edit warring - it was to question why KOA jumped in the middle of an ongoing revert war with an additional revert and why he only named Dr Chrissy when there was another editor who was more egregious but just happened to agree with KOA's POV. Minor 4th 17:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker)thats exactly how I read your comment.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 09:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Dear Minor4th, I just read the proposed edits by Argentine Natl Research Council (CONICET) dated November 30th (end of Talk page). The proposers strive to get a neutral point of view in Career section. The subject has done much more than getting papers questioned by the NIH software contractor Joshua L Cherry (in Wiki Molevol1234, etc.). The proposed edits follow your suggestions and those of Gamaliel, quoting the required secondary sources. I am not related to the subject, although it seems everyone who tries to defend him is accused of that. I am hesitant to make those edits fearing the reversal by editor Nomoskedasticity, who has been reverting just about everybody who tried to fix the page. If you could take a look at the proposed edits that would help a lot. With your approval I can go ahead. Spinrade ( talk) 21:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I really trust Nomoskedasticity, especially on BLP issues. Try making the edits, and if they get reverted, start a discussion on the talk page to see if the issue can be resolved. Minor 4th 22:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

	Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, and it won't catch fire.
	Wishing you a joyous holiday season... ...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉
	-- Atsme 📞 📧 22:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply	Pure pun-ishment. [10]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 20:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 01:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Please keep in mind that you just edit warred content in that had been previously discussed on the article talk page and did not have consensus for inclusion. Such actions, especially when you had been alerted there was discussion and that consensus should be reached before re-adding it, are edit warring even if you have not violated 1RR. The arbs were clear that edit warring other than 1RR violations would likely result in sanctions at enforcement. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 01:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Kingofaces43, I suggest you stop templating everyone who posts something you disagree with. Your behavior is inappropiate. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Wow. I reverted one edit and that brings an edit warring template? Careful Kingofaces43, the article is under discretionary sanctions now and you're already starting the battleground behavior right off the bat. You are the one who undid another's work by removing content you don't like. I restored the properly sourced content with my one edit and I will be happy to discuss it on the talk page. Minor 4th 03:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm responding to your edit warring behavior, so please refrain from accusing me of "battleground behavior right off the bat." The short of it was that I removed an edit that had already been discussed awhile ago with no consensus and not added then while specifically citing WP:BRD to bring people to the talk page if they felt strongly. You instead hit the revert button ignoring all that in violation of WP:EW (even one revert can do that in contexts like this). If there wasn't all that context, I would have been more hesitant about a template, but your edit started some edit warring drama when it should have been perfectly clear that reverts at that point were inappropriate and people should have been leaving the article alone to focus on the talk page. The principles and sanctions from the case were specifically meant to prevent exactly what happened starting with your edit and instead get people on the talk page getting consensus for disputed edits instead. Please refrain from inappropriate behavior like this in the future that raises drama. What happened starting with your edit was a continuation of the edit warring environment before the ArbCom case started, and that really needs to stop unless someone actually wants to go to WP:AE. I for one would rather get the article working smoothly again. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Kingofaces43, once again you are casting aspersions and if it happens again I will see enforcement at AE. I have no problem at all with AE -- that's why we have DS. And, yes, templating someone for edit warring after one edit is indeed perpetuating a battleground and creating drama. Making the controversial revert the day your opponents are topic banned is what started the edit warring and drama. I am always just stupefied by how you seem to lack any scintilla of insight into your own behaviors. I have left a comment on the talk page for discussion - please actually discuss the content and the relevant sources. And stay off my talk page in the future. Minor 4th 05:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Séralini affair page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

As you know, a 1RR restriction applies to this article. Your latest revert breaches that. You are encouraged to self-revert to avoid a risk of arbitration enforcement. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

It does not breach 1RR. My last revert was more than 24 hours ago. Discuss on the talk page issues you have with my edit. Minor 4th 16:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Please see our WP:EW policy: "revert means undoing the actions of other editors". You have twice rapidly reverted to your own preferred version of the text (it does not require that the "undo" button was pressed). Alexbrn ( talk) 16:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I have not done that. Editing is not synonymous with "reverting." But I've noted your warning. Minor 4th 16:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Your two reverts are:

1. 1st revert 15:40, 21 December 2015‎
2. 2nd revert 16:14, 21 December 2015‎

The initial earlier edit where you removed the word "cancer" from the lede (i.e. your preferred POV) is [11].

Alexbrn ( talk) 16:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Very well, I shall file a report at WP:AE. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Please see here. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

~Wiki Tribble Award~ Go forth and multiply, we need more pedians like you!

Being a mindful, considerate collaborator working to improve controversial articles for the benefit of the project is not an easy task, especially considering some of the mine fields one has to navigate in the face of relentless edit disruptions. It's not a simple Tiny Tim Tiptoe Through the Tulips, for sure. Thank you for all you do and all you've done to make editing an enjoyable experience. You're a special Wikipedian in my book!! Atsme 📞 📧 04:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply Banners available at [12]

Yay, a tribble! Thanks Atsme :) Minor 4th 04:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

	Wishing you a Charlie Brown Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw (talk)

Happy Holidays to you and yours, Montanabw. Minor 4th 23:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi Minor4th. I'm an editor of the Italian Wikipedia. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks,-- Kenzia ( talk) 17:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello Minor4th, My name is Stephanie Barker and I am a student at the University of Colorado Boulder. I am currently enrolled in a Digital Anthropology class, which attempts to answer how the digital world affects culture and how culture affects the digital world. For my final project I am doing an ethnography on women Wikipedia users and as a member of the WikiProject Women page I was hoping I could ask you some questions about your experiences editing Wikipedia pages. 1. Have you ever been locked into an intense editing war? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 2. How did you become interested in editing Wikipedia pages and did you have any initial fears/hesitations when you started editing pages? 3. Have you ever been a victim of a mass deletion or other vandalism on Wikipedia? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 4. How would you describe your gender? 5. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experiences as a Wikipedia editor? Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I would like you to know that I am only sharing my research with my professor and the other students in my class. If you would like me to send you a copy of my final project, I would be more than happy to! Sincerely, Stelba90 ( talk) 00:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Minor4th. 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

If so, apologies, apparently me and the edit window are no longer friends. Arkon ( talk) 17:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston ( talk) 08:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Minor4th. 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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi Minor,

I do favor your version, and it takes care of a problem I saw coming: the fact that the coverage will still pallid. Do you or perhaps @ Atsme: know how I would amend the RfC to include this version officially? I suppose I would let the editors who've already participated know of the change. I would be happy to simply replace my version with yours. Any advice is welcome. petrarchan47 คุ ก 04:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the suggestion. Go here to cast your iVote. petrarchan47 คุ ก 06:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, Minor4th. 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

Hi Minor4th, I listed Terry stop under articles that need assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Assessment. If you have a moment, could you check it out? Thanks! Seahawk01 ( talk) 03:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) reply

Just saying! Sure has been a long vacay for you. Hope you're doing well. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks Atsme :) Minor 4th 17:23, 4 October 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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply